Wikipedia talk:Editors matter

message: Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia only. Not a phonebook. Not a directory. And not a social networking site. Anything that does not directly help improve or maintain the encyclopedia should be deleted. Editors who are unwilling to sacrifice their time with no recompensation, without enjoying editing, are insufficiently commited to the vision of Wales, and should be gotten rid of for the greater glory of the Project. -Amarkov moo! 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: with that comment, i understand the purpose for this essay.. 81.107.44.39 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the very real possibility, almost probability, that the expenses of maintaining wikipedia's space will go up dramatically. This essay as constructed could easily be interpreted to say that an editor who creates one encyclopedia page would be entitled to create and maintain a much larger number of userspace pages which will have to be maintained by the Wikimedia Corp. Also, I believe that the essay as presently constructed dramatically oversimplifies the situation. Certainly, it could be argued that, from this essay, a user would have the privelege of maybe creating 10 userspace pages before making any real edits to the encyclopedia. I think that the corporation is nowhere near wealthy enough to be able to enact this idea, particularly when myspace and other locations are already provided at no cost. Certainly, I can't see any objections to a user creating links in their userpages to Myspace, but that is nowhere near the same thing as letting them post what might be substantially identical content at the corporation's expense. John Carter 17:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, but the Foundation has given us no indication that they are worried about server capacity, nor have they told us to cut down on the number of superfluous pages. Indeed, as it stands, deleted content remains in the archives, so deletions don't actually free up server space. If the technical situation changes, I'm sure the Foundation will inform us, and we'll have to adapt our policies accordingly. WaltonOne 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but I had the impression that Amarkov's comment was meant as sarcastic. Maybe he should clarify what he meant by his statement. --Kyoko 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sarcastic comments and they make a good point. Perhaps the essay is somewhat on the other extreme, but I agree with it. Think outside the box 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heresy! 

message: Might the expense of maintaining userpages needed to improve editor morale and encourage community building be considered simply part of the cost of doing business, much as companies write off the cost of company picnics as an HR expense? One might say, But we are a nonprofit. Consider then that nonprofits almost always provide some sort of benefit for their volunteers. A political campaign, for instance, will commonly host an election day party for its volunteer staff. Userpages are a lot cheaper than catering! I think Wikipedia is getting a good deal. Don't penny-pinch on the userpages if that's all people are asking for. It's false economy. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost of doing business

message: I agree 100% with this essay. In discussions I've tried to say things along the lines of, "Let's try and be nice," and I'm basically told to shut up because the policy supports us being rotten. It's nice to have something, even an essay, that says "Policy is not a trump card." Let's hope people read this and take it to heart. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)16:06, September 10, 2007
:Yes, I hope so. I too have found it frustrating that, whenever I suggest at MfD that someone's userpage should be kept because it isn't doing any harm, someone simply labels this as WP:HARMLESS; likewise, people use WP:NOT to justify whatever argument they feel like presenting. As a community, we need to lose this unhealthy mindset in which citing a WP:ABC or WP:XYZ somehow means that an argument does not have to be rationally justified. WaltonOne 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yup

message: I'm a french user, and in my Wikipedia "child time", 3 years ago (in 2004, I was then 1.000 edits olod ^-^) I was close to be drive away when I faced a deletion request of one of my user page on the reason : "not encyclopedic".
But some users supported me, I came back, 8 months later I became administrator for my good work on French History's articles, and Chinese/Taiwanese's articles, and I now have near 18.000 edits (on wiki-fr + wiki-en + commons).
My personnal opinion about "delete usersubpages" is according to my experience :
After an user requested the deletion of my user subpage [without noticing me first !!], I spend the following 3 days in a edition/argumentation war, taking me about 15 totally unproductive hours, with some users supporting me, and some others requesting the deletion. Counting all the time lost, that's probably about 40 hours of editions lost to request this user subpage deletion.
So, Many thanks for your essaie ! Being only some thousands to truly contribute to Wikipedia, we have to be more friendly, to don't lost time.
MANY THANKS !! Yug 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks ! 

message: I agree with this essay, and name such deleters as Self Appointed Vigilantes wielding WP:Policy statements like clubs.  There is so much content in need of improvements that it takes a special kind of jerk to go around looking for stuff to delete. When the process of deletion causes more strife, heartache, server space, and admin time, that simply leaving the page alone and ignoring it.  It would be nice if users can just hit Dead to me, (next to Watch) then they can pretend that page is gone and never have to worry about it again. --Tbmorgan74 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Appointed Vigilantes

message: I share the opinion that editors matter, but I don't think we should go out of our way to bribe editors to stay with fancy userpage competitions, best edits or what have you. We should be providing a simple, frill free, fair, stable, friendly, helpful editing environment. Nick 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory that's fine, but in practice it doesn't work. In my experience it's hardly uncommon for a user's userpage or subpages, for instance, to be deleted because they violate the letter of WP:USER, and for that user to get upset and leave, meaning that Wikipedia loses their contributions. Such deletions can harm Wikipedia in a very real sense, and I don't see that they do any good (as per :m:Wiki is not paper, we're not supposed to worry about webspace). Basically, if a good (or potentially good) user is going to leave because their userpage is threatened with deletion, we shouldn't delete it just for the sake of applying the guidelines to the letter. WaltonOne 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go along with that, provided we don't provide any number of reasons for editors to create a large and detailed number of userpages (other than for the purpose of detailing a little about the user). Users who spend a great deal of time and effort editing their userpages do so for a bad reason, whether it be social networking, for a best userpage competition or what have you. If we start being a little (and I do mean just a little) more rigid with new users, stopping them from wasting significant amounts of time on pages that are liable to be deleted, then we're not going to upset contributors, just point them more in the correct direction. A gentle nudge of an admin or experienced editor suggesting they not waste time on a page, rather than MfD's and speedy deletions which are much more likely to cause upset. Nick 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random musings 

message: Finally something to sum it properly for a keep !vote at MfD. GDonato (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I created it mainly, in fact, because I found I was repeating the same basic reasoning on numerous MfDs, and I wanted to summarise my views in more detail without having to explain them separately every time. It'll never be a formal guideline (and isn't intended to be) but I hope many editors will take it into account. WaltonOne 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, great work. GDonato (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good essay 

message: Editors are not robots.  They are human beings with human feelings.  It's incredibly dispiriting to see the number of longtime editors and admins who don't get this.
I don't think the userspace issue is at the crux of the problem.  It's a manifestation of it, but the crux is this: editors should be treated with respect, especially by admins, and especially where the admin has a choice about being nice or being harsh.  The number of longtime editors and admins who have lined up above to critique an essay that simply urges kindness and civility is shameful.
It's impossible to be here very long without running into an admin who not only corrects you, but corrects you as if you're a child and he's in charge of maintaining good order and discipline on HIS playground.
No, WK is not a social networking site, but it surely works better if the denizens here behave in at least as polite a manner as they would IRL.  I've had run-ins with two admins who just don't get it that I'm as important as they are, if WK is to prosper and grow, in perpetuity.  
One has stopped editing here entirely, but I've made a couple of peace offerings to him off WK and I think we may be coming to respect one another.  For all his crankiness near the end of his time here, he's an incredibly funny fellow, and I respect humor a lot.   
The other will absolutely astonish me if he doesn't repond to this entry with his patented brand of condecension, high-handedness, mean-spirited commentary and bullying.
My contributions to WK are little more than a drop in the bucket.  I've provoked a couple of victories for balance and NPOV on a couple of pages about sexual abuse in the Jewish community.  On one I pissed off enablers and on the other I pissed off the vigiliantes who oppose them, so I've struck my own kind of balance.
I've enriched, in small ways, entries about my home-town and about a historical figure associated with my adopted home-town.
I've taken up, with others, the chore of speedily deleting vandals who hit the pages about Bruce Springsteen and about The Junkies. 
I've ensured that one entertainment celebrity's page includes one notable blemish in his history (manslaughter) at least as prominently as the roles he's played in movies and on TV.
I've helped draw a connection between magical thinking and Arthur Clarke's famous observation about the relationship between magic and technology.
And I've corrected some grammar, usage and spelling in a bunch of random places. 
Like I said, a drop in the bucket.
But for Wikipedia to succeed, ultimately, it needs the goodwill of gazillions of people making gazillion-squared such drops in the bucket.
Joke about imaginary cabals all you like.  Goodwill is a precious, and easily squandered, commodity.  Patience, tolerance and civility are vastly underrated virtues.
Admins, please think hard on this.  The goodwill is yours to nurture or squander.
Set before you are a blessing and a curse.  Choose the blessing. David in DC 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shameful

message: In general I think this essay makes sense.  I note this sentence though: "For instance, a user who is attempting to use their userspace for obvious advertising purposes (for an individual, business, charity or other organisation), and has already been warned that this is inappropriate, may justifiably have their pages deleted through the miscellany for deletion process."  Unless I'm misinterpreting what is meant, "obvious advertising" is WP:CSD#G12WP:CSD#G11.  No? Chick Bowen 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, when it's outside userspace. I realise that, officially, the "general" CSD criteria apply everywhere including userspace, but as a rule I think that speedy-deleting a main userpage as "advertising", without asking for a second opinion, is likely to do more harm than good. While advertising in the mainspace is quite easy to identify, with a userpage the difference between personal information and self-advertising may not always be clear. So while userspace pages that are copyvios etc. should obviously be speedied, if I felt that a userpage contained inappropriate advertising I would generally put it up for MfD to get broader community input. WaltonOne 13:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh--I see your point, but it would surely depend on the page in question.  Also, I had the wrong number above, but just as a technical matter: the CSD in question applies to all spaces, always has.  You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think it's worth pointing out where it differs, even if subtly, from existing policy. Chick Bowen 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on a possible trivial matter 

message: I just want to point out the existence of this other proposal for community-building. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to signify interest in this project, please put your name at m:Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikicommunity. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[m:Wikicommunity]]

message: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_5#Temporary_resignation_due_to_conflict_with_other_editors Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Classic village pump conversation on this topic

message: I propose moving this page to meta, since the concept of editors mattering should be embraced on all projects, not just Wikipedia. It can gain more exposure there; and we can redirect this article there. This is similar to what was done with WP:DICK, which originally started out on Wikipedia and was moved to meta. Mr. Ambassador (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed transwiki 

message: Or would it be better to make this a behavioral guideline? Mr. Ambassador (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Tragedy of the commons. Essentially, its thesis is that some form of homestead principle should be in place allowing users to keep their userspace content, and prohibiting deletion by gangs of wiki-bullies who don't know how to mind their own business. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragedy of the commons 

message: I did a diff, showing me that after User:Walton One's last edit, except for the addition of a couple of sentences on google indexing, all later edits were essentially cosmetic, and didn't alter his or her original content.
That new passage says:
:"Remember, however, that user namespace is indexed in Google and other search engines. Consider whether outside users stumbling upon the material would harm the encyclopedia or not."
Up until 2010 I didn't know I could put a __NOINDEX__ directive on subpages in userspace I created.  Search engines will skip pages with this directive on them.
Up until 2010 or so, I hadn't realized this would be a good idea.  The directive wasn't really well documented, and there wasn't really any advice that people using subpages in userspace should make use of it.
People making use of subpages in userspace should consider using the directive, or alternately they should consider adding a template like  or , that includes the directive.  
However, a few years ago, someone authorized a robot to duplicate the entire English language wikipedia -- adapting it for mobile devices like smart phones.  The pages optimized for mobile devices don't, or at least didn't, include the __NOINDEX__ directive, or, if they did, it had been mangled, so search engine robots didn't recognize it.  And userspace pages, optimized for mobile devices did show up in google searches, even if they were protected by __NOINDEX__.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google indexing 

message: What will be the impact of using these themes ? Wamorse (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: I'd like to usurp the WP:EM shortcut for use at WP:WPEM. The editor whose username is Z0 10:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like there are no objections, so I'll go ahead.  The editor whose username is Z0 15:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usurp 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Editors matter →  – Would this seem better? Kinda like a counter essay to Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 December 2023