Do we need a Mod for the encyclopedia ??

[Sputnik]

To my surprise, a revert war has erupted on the Sciforums Encyclopedia !!!

On the real Wiki there are actually mods , and sometimes a thread is closed for a period, while the contributing hotheads cool down !!

I don´t mind, that the members contribute to the personal information on other members profiles , but how about a few guidelines :

Only max 3-4 contributions from other members - with quotes from former threads on Scifo ........ kept in a humourous way , but without malign insults !!

An appointed mod ( allmighty overseer ) with the power to lock the threads/profiles for a while , while the vandalizing members cool down .........
Eventually with the power of giving warnings/infractions/temporary bans to the most hotheaded .........

Just an idea ..... what are your thoughts on this subject ??

 

[Nickelodeon]

An appointed mod ( allmighty overseer ) with the power to lock the threads/profiles for a while , while the vandalizing members cool down .........
Eventually with the power of giving warnings/infractions/temporary bans to the most hotheaded .........

Like wikiadmin?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I would say that it would be not allowed for members to delete anything on the page about them.

 

[(Q)]

There should be NO pages about members.

 

[Nickelodeon]

That would suck.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

(Q) is a real character. He thinks you cannot make pages on members because that could lead to hurt feelings. He doesn't mind insulting moderators though if he does it himself.

 

[(Q)]

(Q) is a real character. He thinks you cannot make pages on members because that could lead to hurt feelings. He doesn't mind insulting moderators though if he does it himself.

Spurious feels the wiki is a place to insult people behind their backs since he doesn't have the guts to do so in front of them.

And since he cannot be trusted to use wiki as it was intended, then clearly the adults must take away his toys.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Nice that you can read my mind. Shame I didn't need to read yours to know you think I am a stupid asshole.

 

[(Q)]

Nice that you can read my mind. Shame I didn't need to read yours to know you think I am a stupid asshole.

I never once thought that.

But, I would be interested to know from you, or anyone else, what you think the purpose would be to post pages of members on wiki? And, what is the purpose of not allowing those members to delete their own pages if they wished to do so?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Read the threads on the topic.

 

[(Q)]

I did, and still found no reason to have them other than for puerile activities. Is that why you want them?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Your problem is probably that you are you. Hence you cannot see anything passed your gigantic blinds. You are such a sour grape they can't even make vinegar out of you.

 

[(Q)]

That would suck.

Why?

 

[przyk]

I would say that it would be not allowed for members to delete anything on the page about them.

Well, members should have at least some say about what goes on their pages. I say feel free to put anything on a page about the member as a poster on SciForums, with the idea that the page should accurately represents how that member is seen by the SF community in general, but give them the final say about anything related to their personal life or life outside the forum.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Why?

Because the encyclopedia reflects sciforums culture, and the members are part of that culture.

If you want a good old boring wiki you might as well just have a link to the real wikipedia.

 

[(Q)]

Your problem is probably that you are you. Hence you cannot see anything passed your gigantic blinds. You are such a sour grape they can't even make vinegar out of you.

So, essentially you have no argument in favor of having pages on members here other than to carry out childish activities. That's what I thought.

And you have clearly missed the point entirely of having a sciwiki, if you actually believe I'm just being a sour grape.

BTW, congratulations on insulting me to my virtual face, so to speak.

Now, can we move past your penchant for adolescent behavior and get to what sciwiki was intended?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

So, essentially you have no argument in favor of having pages on members here other than to carry out childish activities. That's what I thought.

And you have clearly missed the point entirely of having a sciwiki, if you actually believe I'm just being a sour grape.

BTW, congratulations on insulting me to my virtual face, so to speak.

Now, can we move past your penchant for adolescent behavior and get to what sciwiki was intended?

fuck off troll.

Read the thread in the moderator forum.

What do you mean? there are plenty of serious articles.

I think the biggest problem is that some members see the encyclopedia as their Myspace. It isn't.

GW Bush is not allowed to dictate what is on the GW Bush page on wikipedia. Neither should any member be able to dictate what is on the page about them.

There is a user page that can act as a 'myspace' page.

There are some extreme statements but they will be ironed out over time. However, letting users dictate what they want on their own page is just plain ridiculous.

The other problem here is that certain users like lixluke have had a shitty posting history on sciforums. It is extremely easy to find ridiculous statements with proper references because that is their modus operandi. By dictating the corresponding page on the encyclopedia they are in fact denying responsibility for their contributions to sciforums: a revisionist history.

And they are allowed to do that on their User page. Of course the current cool skill page is a bit extreme, but it is a reflection of his contributions. Nobody that knows him will be surprised by it.

I just think that we are setting the wrong precedent if we let users dictate the content of one specific page. In fact I consider it to be unethical to delete contributions to the spuriousmonkey page for myself. Someone else will come along and do it for me if the edit is unwarranted.

The encyclopedia has only been up a few days. You can't expect the content to be fully matured in that timeframe. It needs lots of editors and edits before that is possible.

Recent research has shown that the quality of a wikipedia page goes up when there are many editors and edits. Pages under control of a single editor can't reach that quality.

Giving members the sole access to a specific page effectively eliminates the possibility for quality.

This problem needs to be projected on a long term time scale.

[ENC]Revert wars[/ENC] on the encyclopedia are a negative form of a [ENC]flamewar[/ENC]. Positive flamewars are good for our encyclopedia. They construct rather than constrict. The essence of sciforums.

See for instance this:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Flamewar_Guidelines

 

[(Q)]

Because the encyclopedia reflects sciforums culture, and the members are part of that culture.

Then, clearly you have no idea as to an encyclopedia's purpose.

If you want a good old boring wiki you might as well just have a link to the real wikipedia.

And if I wanted to see children at play, I'd go the playground.

There is nothing wrong with putting together interesting articles based on what has been written in these forums, but that's not what's happening, is it? What IS happening is that members here are taking advantage of the wiki and using it for their own personal and juvenile behavior.

So, if you kiddies can't learn how to use grown-up tools, then they must be taken away.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

No it is not. That is what the userpage is for.

It is unethical for the subject to delete the work of others on the proper page dealing with the subject.

If there is a case of injustice it will be dealt with by other users eventually.

...

 

[Nickelodeon]

There is nothing wrong with putting together interesting articles based on what has been written in these forums, but that's not what's happening, is it?

You clearly havent read the wiki.