Wikipedia talk:Dump copies
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Bare-text copies)
Stupid
[edit]The derogatory tone and juvenile level of this essay due to facetious use of “stupid” in the title and a total of twenty times on the page is not ok. The essay should be entirely rewritten. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon and SmokeyJoe: I made a superficial change to this essay to address the concern. Do you agree with it? —Alalch E. 18:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Alalch E., User:SmokeyJoe - I was not intending the characterization of the copies as stupid to be facetious. That is a seriously thought out opinion, with which reasonable people can disagree, but it was not facetious. Making bare-text copies, either of existing pages or of web sites, especially as an editor's entire contribution to Wikipedia, is stupid. I will look at the rewrite, but I will also ask User:SmokeyJoe how he would characterize the copies. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I know it was not facetious. My interpretation of the essay may not be quite the same as SmokeJoe's. I really see "stupid" as "purposeless" and "hard to rationally explain". The essay tries to deal with a relatively common phenomenon that is hard to rationally explain. It grasps the ungraspable. It is not negative and not intended to offend. it's actually optimistic, and says that some things don't need explaining and that we need not worry about it, as regardless of the explanation, it's a problem and a problem that we know how to deal with, so instead of tiring ourselves with too much grasping, we might as well say "this is stupid" and deal with it. I really think I get it. But the repetition of "stupid" sounds like an intentional effort to ridicule etc. It's really just about tone. I think this is something we should think about a little more. —Alalch E. 21:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Alalch E. - Yes. I agree with your characterization that we are trying to grasp the ungraspable, and that we should simply conclude that we can't grasp it, but we know what to do with it, which is to delete it. Your point may be that I repeated the characterization that the copies are stupid too many times. I will think more about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I know it was not facetious. My interpretation of the essay may not be quite the same as SmokeJoe's. I really see "stupid" as "purposeless" and "hard to rationally explain". The essay tries to deal with a relatively common phenomenon that is hard to rationally explain. It grasps the ungraspable. It is not negative and not intended to offend. it's actually optimistic, and says that some things don't need explaining and that we need not worry about it, as regardless of the explanation, it's a problem and a problem that we know how to deal with, so instead of tiring ourselves with too much grasping, we might as well say "this is stupid" and deal with it. I really think I get it. But the repetition of "stupid" sounds like an intentional effort to ridicule etc. It's really just about tone. I think this is something we should think about a little more. —Alalch E. 21:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Alalch E., User:SmokeyJoe - I was not intending the characterization of the copies as stupid to be facetious. That is a seriously thought out opinion, with which reasonable people can disagree, but it was not facetious. Making bare-text copies, either of existing pages or of web sites, especially as an editor's entire contribution to Wikipedia, is stupid. I will look at the rewrite, but I will also ask User:SmokeyJoe how he would characterize the copies. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)