|This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. |
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The writings below are fragments of an ongoing effort to collate portions of the earlier history and philosophy of Wikipedia, which have become part of the social mythology that, according to current scholars,[according to whom?] is one of the more important philosophies of the third millennium.
There are a number of distinct traditions on how the mythic "Wikipedia" and certain aspects of it are represented, but in the analysis below three major strands have been considered. Of these, the Strand A&B tradition may be the one Western scholars and most modern "Wikipedians" would be familiar with. However, there also exists a third tradition ("Strand C") which draws on possibly older Eastern origins.
Prior to "Wikipedia", there were earlier writings, both on the concept of a universal knowledge and on the responsibilities of those that would seek and share it. Most modern scholars[according to whom?] now consider the concepts espoused by Timothy of Gevena upon which Cunningham expanded in the New World to have been the starting points for what became "Wikipedia". However, it should be noted that, on the philosophical side, the teachings of Saint IGNUcius have also been a major influence.[according to whom?]
The "Strand A&B" and "Strand C" traditions differ in some concepts. For example, the Strand A&B tradition elevates "the Founder" to a semi-deified status in certain places, compared to "Strand C", where "the Founder" is described as being "the wisest of many Masters", making the Founder altogether more human and less mythical. Strand A&B also makes an early reference to "the Other", whose name is unknown to history; Strand C makes little mention of this figure directly, or considers them as a dissenting opinion amongst the many teachers that have shaped Wikipedia. In Strand C, there is at times a greater influence on an individual Wikipedian(s) understanding their own view of Wikipedia with a view to enlightenment, as compared to Strand A&B's suggestion that the Wikipedian has a more formal relationship with Wikipedia, it being a creation of "the Founder", something not present in the "Strand C" tradition.
"Strand A and B" Tradition
The passages here represent an ongoing attempt to translate certain portions of the recently uncovered read-see scrollbacks to modern English, which were discovered during the transfer of materials between data centers. The portions reproduced below represent only a small portion of what was clearly before portions were lost a considerably larger body of early millennial writings as to the history and philosophy of the Wikipedia and later Wikimedia peoples, such as the later "Edit Histories" mentioned in the 8th fragment. The causes for the loss of some of the portions are currently understood to have occurred during the various migrations of the "Wikipedia" (later "Wikimedia") seat of power.
Certain commentary has been inserted by the use of footnotes, and the contribution of others with experience in early millennial works, or the Wikimedia group of peoples, is appreciated.
Fragment 1: Creation
In the beginning there was the Internet. The Founder perceived it without wisdom open, and void and said, "Let there be Wikipedia," and it was so. [The Founder saw that] it was good.
On the second day, the Founder saw that the "Wikipedia" needed many to shape it and said, "Let any of these many who wants to edit Wikipedia be able to do so," and it was so. And the Founder saw that the "Wikipedia" needed parts. And the Founder moved across the face of "Wikipedia" and divided it into name-spaces. The Founder called one part Main and the other Talk, and the Main was for the wisdom, and the Talk was for discussion.
On the third day, the Founder saw that in the "Wikipedia" was that which would undermine the creation, and said, "Let there be those that shall protect the creation," and it was so, as the admins were created. And the Founder said, "Let all vandals be blocked, and let those protecting the creation, block the vandals," and the admins came into their role, and it was so.
On the fourth day, the admins were voted down at RfA but Jimbo let them go rogue.
On the fifth day, the Founder saw that the many and the admins were burdened with repetitive tasks, which curtailed their ability to add wisdom to the creation; and the Founder said, "Let there be those in form who shall free the users (and admins). May these forms be called Bots, and may they serve the editors," and made it so.
On the sixth day, he said, "Let Wikipedia be able to delete articles, if the community finds them not worthy of inclusion," and made it so.
And on the seventh day, Jimbo edited...
Fragment 2: The Fall of the Other
... And amongst the wise counsel was the Other who stood against the views of the Founder and voiced that those who were expert should have status over others. Yet the counsel of the Founder, whilst respecting the Other's views, held great concern, for to hold experts dominion would be to corrupt the free creation that the Founder had established; and the Other voiced again their concern, for many was the Other's perceived wisdom of experts. And yet did the counsel of the Founder not move upon the view of the Other. In frustration did the Other cast themselves out from the counsel of the Founder, and fell outside it. And though the Other had done much to further the Founder's creation, their view for the dominion of experts had cast them from the Founder's counsel.
Fragment 3: The Five Pillars
The Founder created Five Pillars on Wikipedia to make sure his creation was stable. "Wikipedia must be set from these statements: that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, that Wikipedia is free content that anyone may use, that contributors must treat each other with respect and civility, and that Wikipedia has no firm rules," the Founder proclaimed. The Wikipedians followed these pillars, and built Wikipedia upon them.
Fragment 4: The Manual of Style
But Jimbo was not content. So he decided to create a manual of style, which governed the article-writing of Wikipedia. The manual of style was applauded by many editors, although opposed by some. "All articles will now be written according to the Manual of Style!" proclaimed Jimbo. The Wikipedians faithfully followed these orders, which are to be followed as long as the "Wikipedia" exists.
Fragment 5: (Unnamed: Concerning purging)
And it came to pass that in the time of [indistinct], there was a user on the "Wikipedia", who, thinking himself thusly filled with the spirit of the Founder, began his righteous action to rid the Wikipedia's creation of a scourge which was in those days present within the "Wikipedia". The user saw this scourge as the non-compliance with "policy" of certain works "from that beyond" Wikipedia. But yet this user did not stop to consider the pains that his false spirit was to inflict. And much was purged... Eventually was a tribunal called, and many were the called, to present grievance as to the user's false spirit... The user argued, but it was not to reason, for the tribunal cast out the user from the "Wikipedia", advising that this user's example should serve as a warning to those that should take false spirit in protecting the Founder's creation thereafter. Now the tribunal was ended by an entity, that which operates through agreement. But this agreement was rife with attacks.
Fragment 6: The Rise of the WMF
And in the time of Two-Thousand and Three, Jimbo proclaimed, "There shall be a body overseeing Wikipedia, and I shall name it the WMF." Jimbo and his advisers became the heads of the WMF, and Jimbo said, "Let this be known as the WMF Board of Trustees." And the WMF created "Wikibooks", "Wikivoyage", and many more Wikis to advance the betterment of mankind.
Fragment 7: The 'Crats
... And thus Jimbo said, "And these shall be 'crats, those who judge the agreement." Thus, the 'crats were created. These 'crats also were also granted the ability to dismantle those bots that were broken, and assent to the approval of those that are new and without fault... Therefore, they were none who should be given the great powers without debate under the approval of eighty-five users from one hundred.
Fragment 8: On Arbs (and their Mandate)
... And as the Wikipedians prospered, many disputes arose. And such was that these disputes brought shame upon not just the Wikipedians. And great was the torment in these times that even the admins, with the Founder, wailed into the Talk for relief. And yet the Founder was seen as weak ...
... An Arb must be respected... ... An Arb must have the integrity of their peers... ... An Arb must be of learning sufficient of the creation of the Founder... ... An Arb shall be 'elected' by learned Wikipedians, but shall hold office only by the grace of the Founder, and his counsel...
Fragment 9: The Great War
...And so was the unfolding of the Founder's creation recorded in the "Edit Histories"...
And so Wikipedia found itself in the midst of a great war on Vandals. The noble fighters of this terrible war dealt with the most hideous of creatures, some who split into "sockpuppets", some who are "promoting", and some who are "Page Blanking", and these admins and rollbackers keep guard at the gates of Wikipedia, constantly repelling the horde of vandals. And some fighters created tools to more effectively fight off these vandals, such as the sword of the Twinkle, the spear of the Huggle, and the famed vandal tracker, the IRC. And they created templates to deal with these vandals, and perhaps persuade these monsters from their evil course, and take them to the side of the light. And the great generals of the Vandals, the "long-term abusers", are the greatest threat to the Wikipedia, and as such admins take special precautions to deal with these powerful beings. The war is endless, with chaos and carnage abundant, and as both sides constantly fight, barriers were raised, such as the barrier of the "autoconfirmed", created by the admins, and the "30/500" protection, created by the Arbs.
Fragment 10: The Redemption of a Vandal/Sockmaster
Translation from User:Sn1per:
An editor was there; he was a chief sockmaster and was rich in socks. He wanted to see who the new sysop was, so he vandalized many important articles, because the sysop was going to pass that way. When the sysop came to the articles, the sysop said to the sockmaster, "Hurry and come down, for I must work on a GAN with you."
So the sockmaster hurried down and was happy to welcome him. The sockmaster said to the sysop, "Here and now I give up all of my socks, and if I have vandalized any article, I will rebuild it four times as much." The sysop said, "Today salvation has come to this sockmaster, because this man, too, is an editor."
Commentary: On the loss of portions of the Histories
It should be noted that in places the Edit Histories are incomplete. Sometimes this is due to a technical loss, but in other cases the loss of the history is down to a deliberate suppression.[clarification needed] In some instances this has occurred sometime after the nominal history concerned.
Early on, there was no suppression of history, but at a later date, the admins and Arbs sought to suppress portions of the history, for varied reasons. In some serious cases where the Arbs had deemed that Vandals had "subvertyed ye true accounte, wyth such Malyce that no policy-fearyng contribtor, should truste it for their soul," the history was removed utterly from public gaze, with only a few specially appointed clerks being granted viewing access.
Fragment 11: The Story of Commons
And so was Commons created, and it was good. Now came a faithful admin, who did uncover a horrible image. The admin called out to the great gathering at WP:AN, and informed all about the image. The admins were sorely confused, and asked, "What be this?". And in their shame the users did not know. One wise admin, with great cunning, deleted the image. And all was good, until another image was created. And lo, did the admins create the template nopenis. "There shall be no immodesty without context, we declare," spake the mighty crat, leader of the admins and judge of agreement. And so, the users had learned a lesson, and the wisdom of the great Wikipedia prevailed even unto the last day.
Fragment 11 : Source B
"And lo did the Wikipedians come forth in the inquity, and post that which should not. And were the admins confused, and asked "What be this?". And in their shame did the users not know that their immodesty was of concern. And a user was concerned, and raised cry with the admins. And the admins did come forth in wrath. "Why is it that you are angry?" wailed the users. "You have shown that which is not to be shared without context!" came the reply. And the users looked upon themselves and their uploads, and saw that context there was none. "We are ashamed!" said the users. "You are ashamed," said the Admins, "but that from henceforth you shall know the Founder's will of context." And henceforth it was decreed that from that day on that there should be no immodesty without context, and was proclaimed and decreed as such."
And did the new admin find that the unrighteous set upon him. And nor did he flinch but bore each blow. Yet still the admin sought the guidance of the other elders, and was told: "Test not the resolve of the admin, for in jest shall the vandal make thy fool; but in shame shall the fool see the repentance and misery upon him, and if the fool shall not see his foolishness, then the admin shall rebuke him, and deny him that which the admin holds by gift of the elders with the Founder...And to be denied the Founder's truth is shame upon shame, misery upon misery...For he that shall noteth see that the fool may be seen in earnest foolish."
"It is not that preponderance of works that shall endear the candidate but the character and context of such works... All can perform works. But is it the work down for unselfish end that should be recognised? Ask we that of ourselves? Are all works performed unselfish? Do we truly commit works for the Founder's end? Or for our own? And when we commit our trust should we not ask more of such works we recognise? Recognise, must we, the unselfish, in true intent of the Founder..."
"He that impersonateth an admin, shall encounter, shame on shame, misery on misery... And so shall ALL that doth counterfeit those from whose hand there is hand back to the Founder, shall be cast aside, as corruption. For to subvert the Founder's hand, is corruption..." And if cast to corruption, shame is upon shame and misery is upon misery!" And the admin shall rebuke, and the corruption shall be pyute out. And the vessell of the corruption shall be cleansed! And the cleansed vessel shall be brought into the tough love of the Founder!"
This fragment appears to be a commentary on how contributors should challenge content that was not thought to be 'helpful'. The reference to works, may indicate some connection with the various process by which a contributor may challenge file uploads which do not have a use or obvious purpose...)
"For as we build upon the Founder's vision, so such works may each contribute to help expand the Founder's vision and in whose creation we share...And thus to us, the expanders of the Founder's creation, doth it fall to challenge that which strengtheneth not the creation, and which may dilute it, and so he that challenges the dilution is righteous for his defence of the Founder's creation. But with righteousness should come caution... for who shall be infallible? When seeking to challenge that considered dilute, shall we not ask, and be sure that what is charged shall be as such? May not the challenger be justly righteous also? And check harder the cause of his claim of dilution? Lest they themselves be the challenged? Challenge dilution justly, and you shall be valued amongst the expanders of the Founder's creation, even if there shall be those of doubt...but challenge in false value, and poor shall be the words of the challenge..."
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.
This is a fragment which deals with the gift that is granted to users when they first become part of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia movement.
".. But how many of the "autoconfirmed" understand the commitment it offers? That they are offered freely the gift of being part of the Founder's creation... A gift that is given in trust... A trust and good faith not just of the Founder, but each and all that have been an active part of building the expansion of the Founder's vision?"
"And there came a reader of many articles, and he chanced upon a link, and was distressed, for the link led him nowhere. And he took up his keyboard, and removed from the link a single character, and behold! The link led all readers to a useful site. The Founder smiled, seeing Wikipedia was better for losing that character. And the reader went forth an editor from that day."
"And lo, it came to pass that a contributor on the English Wikipedia was distressed, and weary from his task of expanding the Founder's creation...
And the contributor called out to the admins, "Why cannot I break?"
And the admins said, "You may break, but you shall mark it so that others shall observe your absence, so that you may not be brought upon their presence or ours unnecessarily." And the contributor asked, "How should I mark this place?"
And the admins conferred and gave the contributor a sign with which to mark his place. "This mark," they said, "shall be the mark of "Wikibreak", and you shall use it to mark wisely when you shall be absent."
And it came to pass, that a contributor was much tired of another that did mock their efforts and did harass them painfully. The contributor being sound did ask the admins for solace, and came in faith to WP:ANI. But solace sought did the harasser continue, and did begin to canvass amongst the admin for their lies. And an admin of solace, saw the drama and sought the authority of an arb for guidance. ...
Translation portion from User:Sn1per:
And so did the arbs call upon WP:ANI: "Where are the editors which edited last night? Bring them out to us, so that we may know their edits!"
And the editor went out to them and said, "I beg you, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two articles which have not known reverts; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please."
An arb, being merciful to them, brought the editor out of the drama; he said, "Flee for your life; do not look back, or else you will be banned."
Then the arbcom rained upon the harassers blocks and bans; but the editor's friend looked back at an article in its final moments, and they became a pillar of blocks.
And in the Great War did the vandals seek tactics new, and so did the admins, ken in time, once vanquished, came again did they as hydras, born anew.
And did a person kenning in the ways of the sockmaster advise them fair, and form place, where fount of such deceits could be trapped, and their avatars found yet swiftly more.
"Fear foul, the untamed sock-master," said he of the kenning, "for director of lies deceit is he, and many the pains of his puppets sent be. He is the evil one, the darkness and corruption for ken not the light of the true editor does he. He is deceiver, and shall not ken the Founder's creation in light, until bound much is he!"
"But how will ken true we, a deceiver when ken we come across the same?" they sought.
"The sock shall be kenning by his manner, for one sock shall match his pair, as a Duck shall match her kin, and not one, but twice or thrice, may a sock deceitful, match other. Compare then the manner of the socks with familiar of their being, and cast them unto WP:SPI!
For in WP:SPI, one kenning greatly, deceits and ways of the sockmaster shall compare also and out-cast them vigorously proven!"
And so did the war continue, as WP:SPI sought ever to trap pair unto twice, or thrice, the socks and their masters-in-corruption!
The confirmed users, knowing that some may be seeking genuine intervention, proclaimed that if any of the admins they needed, then to summon the admins, a special invocation may be spoken in any place of discord, if the person speaking shall have genuine need of the admins. Upon speaking the word, the power of the admins would thus be invoked ... And lo, did the foolish noob speak the words of summoning without cause; and came forth the admins; seeking whom should causeth of their summoning, and in vain found thus such summoning, did rebuke the noob most strongly. And the noob was struck with remorse for their actions...
The Strand C Tradition
The following fragments appear to be from a completely different origin than those of the A and B series, suggesting that at some point the Wikipedians were in contact with external groups, or that another culture was tolerated or even assimilated.
Commentary: Differences with the Strand A&B Tradition
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.
Fragment 1: (Unnamed, possibly relating to Adopt-A-User)
"... And once the wise master found his pupil at the terminal in a concerned mood. "What is wrong?" asked the Master. "Someone is wrong!" said the pupil. "Wrong, you know he is?" asked the Master. "They are wrong!" said the pupil. Again the Master asked the question. "Wrong, know you he is?" Puzzled, the Student said "I know he is wrong!". The master asked a third time: "Wrong, KNOW you he is?". "Yes!" said the pupil, "I know he's wrong, because he's wrong". The Master smiled: "And how do they know someone is wrong? Do they falsity push? Do iniquity whine they?", "No?" said the pupil quizzically. "They are just wrong!" "Could, wrong it not be, you are? So, why wrong assume?" said the Master. "Could wrong be someone not, and wrong you be?"
The pupil smiled, for the Master had shown him a glimpse of enlightenment. ..."
Fragment 2: The RfA
And there was a dispute at the RfA. The wise bureaucrats had to decide if this editor's noble quest to become an admin would succeed. There was a great dispute, with some wise and noble editors supporting, and some opposing. And as the convention of 'crats met, they looked at the pupil's virtues, and decided him worthy of enlightenment, and he became a Master, nobly performing admin duties at various discussions.
Fragment 3: The Dispute Resolution
And many new editors had opposing ideas on the subject, so they agreed to a dispute resolution, moderated by a famous teacher, known far and wide for his wisdom and knowledge. The parties presented their cases. "Why do you disagree?" asked the teacher. The editors said, "We think differently about the subject." "Then why does that keep you from meeting NPOV, and agreeing to a solution?" asked the teacher.
Fragment 4: The Meditation of Jimbo Wales
Jimbo was faced with a problem: the Masters were questioning him. So, the Founder had to meditate for many days to find a consensus answer to give to the lesser Masters that had petitioned him. He sat under the great Wikipedia Monument for 40 days and 40 nights, and the answer came to him. He shared this discovery with the Masters, and all thought that he was very wise, and that he was a True Master of the encyclopedia.
A master was asked by a student, "What worth is my effort if it is constantly edited?" The master gave him a stern look and explained, "Change is inevitable." But the student said, "How do I further enlightenment if what I contribute is modified?" The master again explained: "Change is essential: it is only through change that eventually is the rightful balance of a true enlightenment seen." The student smiled, for he understood.
The master continued: "But a true seeker of enlightenment will gauge the balance, and when they see it truly, they will, in their own enlightenment, help others break from the cycle of change." The student paused, but again smiled and meditated upon what the master had shown.
[This strand, whilst not lost, cannot be published for policy reasons.]
An ancient inscription "!spoehtekovni tonod" was recently uncovered: modern scholars are still deciphering its meaning, but it is thought it was a power phrase, used as a warning to evil-doers or disturbers of the peace on Wikipedia.
"Tremble evildoer, for what evil lurks in thy hurt, the ops know!" "And tremble vandal also, for as ops know so does the admin know thy offense" .. " Cursed, is the evil doer, cursed is the Vandal... So shall they invoke powerful forces..." "Do not evil harbour, for thine know not the coming of the retribution... Do not mock , for they shall came as thunder...." "... Come as thunder, unspected in the retribution for evil harboured...." " .. And the evil doer shall feel the retribution... which shall come swift,"
.... and shall come sharp... and the unrighteous shall be cast out!.... and the forum of the Founder cleansed'
"... And the evil-doer shall know thine evil in their heart, and the retribution shall came as thunder, unexpected... and t(r)emble them to despair...."
... "Any evil-doer who survived the judgement of the ops, shall tremble before the mighty fezzes", "for what the fezzes shall separate the wheat from the chaff".
- ^ That said, alternate translations appear to use an alternate phrasing as "the wisest of all the mentors."
- ^ Translations vary; some explicitly name the Founder as an entity called Jimbo, but others argue that it should be 'Founders' in plural, with 'Jimbo' being either one name or a name in commonality for a group. Some denominations consider Jimbo to be the son of Al Gore, the creator of the Internet.
- ^ There are dissenting opinions on the translation of this, with some stating that it refers instead to "enlightened" as opposed to "wisdom", implying that it was an elevated form of wisdom which was to be perceived.
- ^ The version in the scrollbacks does not further elucidate on how these 'many' came into existence. A later passage does, however, refer to a group called 'the admins', who may have been chosen from these 'many'. There are dissenting opinions, and some argue that initially 'the many' and the earliest 'admins' were distinct, the 'admins' being with the Founder.
- ^ This appears to be alluding to the "partings" seen in the Hebrew creation cycle.
- ^ See earlier comment
- ^ This is a translator addition, given the logic earlier in the passage.
- ^ Some scholars claim that the Other's name was "Larry", but we can never be sure because his name has been completely removed from history. Some also say that the Other used to be a Founder.
- ^ Here Jimbo is named directly, suggesting that this fragment comes from a different source.
- ^ The fact that "manual of style" is capitalized here implies that the manual of style is an entity or place, while the lack of capitalization of it earlier implies that the "manual of style" was once fragmented to unofficial in status.
- ^ Dissenting opinions translate this as "ritual", "law", or "tradition".
- ^ Dissenting opinions translate this as "outside" pr "external to".
- ^ The events in this fragment clearly refer to some kind of dispute, the basis of which was in a user's overly aggressive enforcement of some aspect of Wikipedia policy as it was in "the time of", the name sadly being indistinct. The tribunal mentioned is either a group of admins, or an ad-hoc formation of other users. A less commonly held view says that the tribunal was in fact much more senior, being a group of Arbiters, who in Wikipedia tradition hold their positions directly on remit of the Founder. If so, then this user's activities were considered even more heinous than the passage would otherwise suggest.
- ^ No one is quite sure about the full name of this group, as it is only referred to as "the WMF" in the text. Some scholars claim that it is called the "Wikimedia Foundation", but this has not been proven.
- ^ The translation of this last phrase is disputed; some say that it should be "to add to the information of mankind", as "information" and "betterment" are generally synonymous.
- ^ Some scholars propose that "'crat" is a shortening of "bureaucrat", although there is no concrete evidence for this.
- ^ "Agreement" is also translated as "consensus".
- ^ The Founder is mentioned in this fragment, suggesting it comes from the "B" strand of fragments, compared with the use of "Jimbo" in the "A" strand.
- ^ In some readings this is rendered as "his", but modern scholars discount this as hero-patriarchal bias of some earlier scholars.
- ^ "Elected" is the consensus reading.
- ^ Such as an entity in later periods known as the Good-win, which became corrupted to Goody-Wynne, and better known for Goody-Wynne postulate which is frequently attributed to them.
- ^ This is a consensus translation: scholars' opinions are varied on the origin of the 'vandals'. Most scholars agree that Vandals represent an aspect of evil. Some argue that Vandals have always existed, and that it is through their "own blindness to the creation of the Founder(s), that they vandalise, not knowing why or where their fault."
- ^ Modern translation; earlier scholars have used "Hydra", "false-face", and "headed-leviathan", amongst numerous terms for these.
- ^ Some scholars of the A&B tradition hold that a few "long-term abusers" are actually former Wikipedians whose relationship with the Founder's creation has been so corrupted that actions they take are a subversion of it.
- ^ The protections are arguably the greatest defense against the Vandal Horde, as they prevent Vandals from breaking into vital areas of the Wikipedia.
- ^ Assuming good faith presumably...
- ^ Some historians are convinced that this is because of a secret cabal on Wikipedia, which suppresses secret information, but this is speculation and unproven.
- ^ Nobody knoweth wherefore the vandal put the horrible image up in the first place, the user seemingly lacking the sense of modesty common in this time.
- ^ Alternate translation: Founder's moral
- ^ "Autoconfirmed" is a status granted to Wikipedians after they have completed certain commitments having been granted an account. Most scholars now accept that the mere creation of an account was not seen as being sufficient commitment to grant certain privileges to very new Wikipedians.
- ^ On Wikipedia, WP:ANI is considered a necessary suffering, as without it, admins (and arbs) would not know what troubles the Wikipedians.
- ^ Additional commentary: WP:ANI is but one suffering of the admin, but it is one that must be met, for without how is the admin to know the evils that afflict the Founder's creation?
- ^ Other translations have a different wording: "...and their articles became as salt."
- ^ See Fragment 8
- ^ This is a later translation, but even older Wikilogians consider that admins could as equally summoned by a message in relayed communicaton to them.
- ^ There is an alternate translation, which instead of "Master", calls the user a "Mentor".
- ^ An RfA (request for adminship) was a notoriously difficult trial to pass. Many editors would vote to oppose for no reason at all: if an editor had no opposes, some people would vote to oppose just because they wanted to be the first one. Scholars are not sure why Wikipedians were so irrational.