Encyc:Community portal

I think this project has the potential to become a helpful reference, but not if it's poorly executed. Many of the recent edits are nothing more than reverts, and I think we have enough users that it's now worthwhile to find some common ground.

We must not create a MMORPG-like set of amorphous policies like Wikipedia, but there are issues I would like to see addressed.

Issues for discussion

Feel free to add your own!

What is the purpose of MediaWiki Encyc?

I propose that this site is best situated to document the history of Wikipedia/Wikipedia Review, the relationships of users there, and also to give articles exiled from Wikipedia a new home. The site can be used for other things, of course, but I modestly suggest that WP topics will be our core competence. One 01:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. It is ultimately Emperor's decision, and if he wants it to become a kind of Wikiabuse II, then that is his business. The reason why I wrote things here that were not encyclopaedic was really quite simple: many of my posts on Wikipedia Review going back to the beginning had been wiped, or else edited, so that people looking back couldn't get a reliable history of what had happened. Indeed, the whole Kato/CBOrgatrope mess was so confusing that about the only people that really understood what was going on were Somey, Moulton, me and of course Kato himself. Somey and Kato of course had a vested interested in hiding it, and for whatever reason Moulton chose not to speak about it. Most people were just clinging to a misconception of what had happened, and were basing their beliefs on lies. So with Emperor's implied permission, I said what had happened. What I said were not opinions, they were facts of what had happened. Some people have since misrepresented them as opinions and in some cases even called them lies.

With that being said, once that is all tidied up properly, it would be good to have it free to describe anything, as Emperor originally wished. It's not like WP/WR issues make up the majority of articles. Oh wait, maybe they do make up slightly over 50% right now, but it doesn't need to stay that way. Blissyu2 13:48, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Definitely not WikiAbuse II. I have no desire to replay that one! Emperor 18:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

What are our rules for verifiability?

I've written two modest statements at Encyc:Verifiability and Encyc:Point of view. I propose that some sort of verifiability requirement should be mandatory in the case of controversial and reverted material. At last resort, I believe that users who will not verify article claims may have to be booted, but first verifiability must be established as a background principle. One 01:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I think that we should make sure not to say anything that is libellous. Even if someone's real name is not used (hence avoiding legal repercussions), we should be careful not to say anything that is blatantly false either. If something is false by accident, that is fine, as it can be sorted out. I don't think that we are aiming to have another Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Opinions are good, of course, but in most cases they aren't really appropriate at all. I suppose I have put a few opinions in here, but the majority of what I have said is fact. Some of it can't be verified with links because the links were deleted, but they can be verified by agreed history and logic. In my opinion, that is good enough. Blissyu2 13:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

How do we handle opinions in articles?

Most of the articles on the MediaWiki Encyc have been written by a single user and are deeply infused with that user's point of view.

First, I would like to say that Blissyu's efforts give this site a great running start of useful content. I really appreciate having him there. There are more stories in Category:Former Wikipedia Reviewers than I was aware of or even imagined. That said, most articles on this site do not distinguish between fact, conjecture, and opinion.

I believe that the opinions of Blissyu and others can often be enlightening and welcome in articles. However, opinions must be identified as such. I therefore think that most the articles here will need an overhaul. To this end, I've created the {{opinion}} tag for marking claims that are really just opinions. For example, a sentence that sounds like the author's opinion can be quickly tagged like {{opinion}}. Later, these sentences could be rewritten or evaluated by others later.

A related issue is when opinions are relevant to the subject. This is a more open question. For example, I think it's interesting that Blissyu (the former purported owner of WR) now thinks Guy and Poetlister could be socks. Should that go in the Poetlister article? I dunno, but it's not a black-and-white issue. It would be different if it were some random shmoe--like me. Blissy's opinion might matter, mine does not.

In any case, the first step is to mark these opinions as opinion. One 01:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

As stated above, in the majority I stated fact, not opinion. Where I did state opinions, I did so rather obviously. For example, on my article on Igor Alexander, it is my opinion that he couldn't possibly be Alex Linder. Who knows, maybe he is. On the other hand, it is a fact that I owned Wikipedia Review until February 16th, 2008, and was still the owner as at when I was banned from there. Some people, however, have stated that they don't accepted that to be fact. I have displayed evidence that proves that (not to mention that it was never disputed by anyone and was claimed thousands of times over), yet some people don't accept that evidence and instead decide to pretend that it is opinion. It is not opinion. It is fact. Blissyu2 13:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree that most of what you've written strives for accuracy. The mass of content you created is a good start, and it's the only reason I took notice of this site. But, for example, citing an edit history as "proof" that someone is Chip's sock cannot qualify as fact. It's the basis of an opinion. Most of the other opinions are of this type--not baseless, but not verified fact. //One 18:16, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

The answer to bad speech is more speech, right? Besides, I doubt that things like the history of Wikipedia Review matter much in the great scheme of things. Let people have their opinions. Emperor 18:32, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Good point there. Janeyryan is not guaranteed to be Chip Berlet. They are, however, guaranteed to be an abusive user who, per Wikipedia's own rules should have been banned, and furthermore they are someone who acts with authority as if they were Chip Berlet. If they are not Chip Berlet then if anything that is worse than if they were, because then they would be taking advantage of his position on Wikipedia but not actually having that position. I thought that it was important to note this, although perhaps it could be written elsewhere. I don't know if Janeyryan is being discussed on Wikipedia Review, but really it is easier to discuss it in a more thorough manner using a wiki. There is nothing libellous or potentially libellous in that article, and it is obviously an opinion, so why is there an issue? Blissyu2 10:54, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it's not obviously an opinion. It's written as a flat fact, just like everything you write. //One 19:16, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree, and I've modified it to reflect that. Let me say that as the checkuser who ran the check on JaneyRyan, had it been Cberlet, I'd have announced it loud and clear. Trust me on that one, and I'm pretty sure Thatcher would have done the exact same - Alison ^❤ 21:48, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Is there some threshold of notability for articles?

For example, some edits suggest that there should only be articles for especially notable users on Wikipedia and WR. I tend to agree, but I propose that this threshold is fairly low. A few hundred WR posts, or opining on several WP controversies is enough that explaining the user's history would be helpful to readers and therefore worthy of an article here. One 01:10, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I used my own guidelines, which I didn't really tell anyone before, but this is what they were:

Either:

1. They have an existing article elsewhere that is popular and well known (e.g. on Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Dramatica).
2. They are/were a moderator/administrator/founding member of Wikipedia Review (there aren't that many of them).
3. They were in the anti-cabal group of Wikipedia Review (most who were ended up as an admin at some point), which has its own rules for who is worthy (trustworthy, 500+ posts, liked by all).
4. They had a notable argument with someone on Wikipedia Review (e.g. Malber, Amorrow, Grace Note).
5. They are a notable administrator of Wikipedia (especially if they have their own sub section on Wikipedia Review).
6. They are a Wikipedia user with more power than they should have (aka cabal member), e.g. Chip Berlet, Antaeus Feldspar, Lulu of the Lotus Eaters.
7. They are a sock puppet or suspected sock puppet of either a notable administrator or a user with more power than they should have (e.g. Janeyryan, Sweet Blue Water).
8. The article documented a well known controversy that might need to be explained.

I also left a clause in there that nobody's privacy would be invaded. If someone made a credible argument that it was invading their privacy to have an article here, then that article could be deleted or else edited to protect their privacy. Blissyu2 14:05, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

We're not paper. As long as our resources can keep up with it, I don't mind having an article about every single Wikipedian. What purpose does deleting such articles serve? Emperor 18:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Given that when you delete things they can be undeleted (and hence still take up the same space), I am not sure why there is a need to ever delete anything - EXCEPT for when it might be breaking a law. I for one agree with the oversight command, although sadly it has been used abusively more often than responsibly (or at least it was in the beginning). I did wipe one particular article here for privacy concerns, and I have had an agreement that there is no point in having an article on Giggy as it seems that his role in trying to hurt me was accidental, and really he has no other claims to fame. Blissyu2 10:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

BLP/name issues

I propose that this site never include real names or purported real names of individuals. We should be here to document the struggles on these sites for the curious, not to ruin reputations. One 01:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I will clarify that, in general:

People's real names will be given for one of the following reasons:

1. They are a well known public figure, who is sufficiently notable to have an article on Wikipedia that uses their real name, and the article is talking about issues relating to them that describe things that are publicly attributed to their real name (e.g. we can talk about George W Bush on here happily).
2. They use their real name on the internet and are a notable person per above and do not have a pseudonym that they can go by. In these cases, however, we need to be extra careful about what we say about them. This is why I prefer Snowspinner and Thekohser even though they do go by their real names.

People should not fear having their real names attributed to various things. It is one thing to have people do a web search for "Blissyu2" get various nasty rumours and lies; quite another if that is your real name. Blissyu2 14:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I think these are good rules. //One 18:18, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Are we planning to be full of "various nasty rumours and lies"? Emperor 18:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't think that this would be a plan, no. For one thing, that's what Encyclopaedia Dramatica is for, so why repeat it? But sometimes, with all good intentions, you end up saying something which someone doesn't like. That's the issue. My point is that if we take the Snowspinner vs (his real name) example, Snowspinner the username has done a variety of despicable things, and of course he was the central figure in his own scandal. It is quite reasonable to attribute those things to him the Wikipedia user. On the other hand, I don't think that that should cost him a job or a relationship - unless of course he chooses to use his Wikipedia identity. People from time to time look up on Google people's real names of people they know, even people they just met, to find out about them. If they do that and suddenly find something like that, even though it might be true, well, it doesn't seem to me to be very fair. Snowspinner isn't a public figure, he isn't George Bush, and so I don't think that he should be faced with the same things. Blissyu2 10:59, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

What do we do about edit wars?

I'm not sure what to say here. We've already had edit wars, and Emperor apparently hopes to take a hands-off approach toward blocks. Any ideas? One 01:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

We haven't really had edit wars. At worst, we have reverted once per day. That's not really an edit war. Ultimately some kind of an agreement has been reached. Blocking should be reserved for people who are trying to destroy the site, not for people who want to have their opinions heard. Every place I have managed I have said that I will only ban people who are trying to ruin the site. You DO need to ban them. You should NEVER ban people who are trying to make the place better, no matter how misguided they might be. Unless of course you are trying to make it an exclusive club. Sadly, Jimbo Wales didn't set sensible rules when he started and hence Wikipedia was ruined when they ended up overdoing it. There's nothing wrong with banning vandals, or people who are trying to ruin the place. There is something wrong with banning people who are trying to help to make the site better. Sadly, Wikipedia Review in many ways has gone down the same path. There was nothing wrong with banning Malber and Grace Note. It probably would have been reasonable to have banned David Gerard and Snowspinner, although we didn't. We had to ban Amorrow for legal reasons. But a number of the bans we made we really shouldn't have made. Loyal trusted and well loved users were banned, which really wrecked the place. Of course, it still has a reason for being, but it is being run very very badly. Somey said that he would fix all of those problems but ultimately he made it worse. I hope that Emperor doesn't go down the same path. Other than Grawp's silly renaming (I note that you can no longer move articles) there has been no reason to ban anyone here really. Blissyu2 14:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually Grawp's not even blocked anymore. No one is. I guess if things get really out of hand I can start swinging the banhammer, but even then I think the years-long indef. bans of Wikipedia are too draconian. Besides, tracking down sockpuppets and block evaders seems like a big headache. Emperor 18:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

What I think that Wikipedia should have done is to ban people outright. No "banned for 1 day" nonsense - just ban them or don't ban them. If you ban them for a while, then think that they deserve another chance, or they write to apologise, then unban them. Bans should only ever be for when they are trying to wreck the project. If someone who was trying to wreck the project and was banned for it comes on under a new username and isn't trying to wreck the project, it is utterly stupid to ban them. The whole concept of sock puppetry is stupid. It is one thing to punish people for using 2 accounts at once to rig votes and win edit wars - I agree with that. But banning people for being suspected of being someone else who was banned, when the new person isn't doing anything wrong is utterly, utterly stupid. They are almost always guesses anyway, and they get it wrong more often than they get it right. What is the point? It just creates a nasty air about it. I am sure that that was not Jimbo's aim when he started it. Blissyu2 11:03, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Is a rule-based system the best way to run the Encyc MediaWiki?

This is quite a Moulton-like question. As Emperor, agreeing that rules will take priority over my whims is quite an idea! In some ways, this could make things harder, in that evil genius game-players would have an advantage over well-meaning mavericks. Emperor 18:28, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I have been to many internet projects over the years, from blog sites to muds to talkers to web forums to MMORPGs, to turn based online strategy games to real time strategy games. In the end, the majority of them put up 1 single page worth of rules. These rules will be decided on by the owner, although other people can advise them. Even Blizzard only has guidelines, and at a whim any of their administrators can ban anyone at all for any reason at all, which basically is because they don't like them. I have found so far 3 places that had what they pretended to be "laws", that went for more than 1 page. They were: Live Journal, a talker called Crystal Palace and Wikipedia. In these cases, if someone was banned, their name was smeared forever, they would destroy their lives and so forth. Of course, Live Journal at least kept their ban logs private, but LJ Drama would happily bash whoever got banned and make up stories about them, so it was just as bad. The worst of the lot was Wikipedia. The main reason why the smears are as bad as they are is because they pretend that they have real laws. How many people who were banned from Wikipedia actually broke any of their rules? How many people, who broke rules, are still there? Janeyryan in almost every edit has broken a Wikipedia rule, yet is allowed to remain happily, while someone who didn't do a single thing against a single one of their rules got an indef ban after 8 productive months just because someone thought that they were me.

I have also seen places that have no rules at all. In my opinion these places tend to be not quite as bad as the ones with huge rules, but are nonetheless worse than the ones with general guidelines. Usually 1 A4 page worth, with 10 1-line rules is a good way to go.

My rules for my MUD, as a guideline for you, are:

1. Have fun.
2. Do not ruin the fun of anyone else.
3. Do not do anything that breaks any laws. If in doubt, don't.
4. Do not multiplay (if an imm, can have your imm and main character only).
5. Do not cheat. If in doubt, don't, per rule 3.
6. Generally agree with the theme of the place and the idea of it.
7. Do not give spoilers to people who don't want to know them (per rule 2).

Actually we only have 7 rules. I have never banned anyone, and have so far penalised 3 people - all for bug abuses. In each case, I gave a warning and removed the advantages that they gained from the bug abuse.

Something like that, or along those lines, is all that is required. These are, of course, guidelines. In the end, if someone went on there and started screaming out abuse to me and how much I suck, I would most likely ban them. You don't need a rule to say that, you just do it. Blissyu2 11:15, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

How can we best complement Wikipedia?

Although it claims to be the sum of knowledge, Wikipedia has effectively ceded whole areas of knowledge because of notability standards, deletionism, etc. There's an opportunity here to fill in the gaps.

In addition, Wikipedia is becoming clogged with media. We can avoid slow-loading pages and system demands by remaining text-only, while at the same time keeping operating expenses dirt cheap. Emperor 18:28, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Right. I think that Wikipedia has 2 main weaknesses:

1. With regards to controversial and topical issues, they cannot hope to agree with NPOV and hence either adopt 1 POV or else they have a mixture of different ones, which makes it impossible to read and because of all of the focus on bias they often forget the factual accuracy of it.
2. There are a number of controlled articles that are perverted towards a false perspective. Whilst the idea of a controlled article is fine in theory, what it needs to balance it is a controlled article that represents another perspective.

If we could have articles that dealt with these issues, then we would be set.

In other words, if we had articles on controversial and topical issues, that focussed on facts and didn't worry about whether it was biased or not, then we would be having more useful articles than the ones on Wikipedia are. If an article was controlled towards a false perspective and we were able to show a more accurate perspective, then that would be useful too.

I don't know if that is what you are aiming for. There are many weaknesses with Wikipedia, obviously. But striving for such things as trying to do it better than Wikipedia does would be a good thing. Blissyu2 11:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Who is our audience?

I'd like to write at a reading level below that of Wikipedia. Not quite like Simple English, but I think that the academic-speak at Wikipedia has gone way overboard and made it much less useful as a general purpose encyclopedia than it used to be. I've been thinking that it might be nice to aim towards the level of a bright high school student. In this way even articles about mundane things like paper could end up being more useful here. Emperor 18:28, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Simple English Wikipedia, in actual fact, writes in a far too complicated way. Just the same, if it was written to a level that the average person who would read it could understand it then that would be good. Most of the time, Wikipedia is fine. Sometimes, though, it forces you to click on something else in order to understand it. This should be avoided. Each article should stand alone. Blissyu2 11:21, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

As far as not being able to understand what something is without clicking on the link, I think this is a major problem with Wikipedia. I'd go so far as to say that we should try to make every article on Encyc a free-standing work that would make sense even if printed on paper and read by someone with no familiarity with the subject. Emperor 22:47, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

What's our slogan?

There's space on the browser title bar for more than just "Encyc". For example, Wikipedia puts "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Any ideas? The winner gets a free extra value meal from me at the first Encycmania event. Emperor 22:50, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe have a new page for the slogan contest and advertise it on every page, to start you off. That's what we did at Wikipedia Review, at least until Somey took it all over and pretended that all of the slogans were his idea. Still, it worked out well. Blissyu2 06:11, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

"The drama encyclopedia"? User 16:11, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

"Blissypedia - the encyclopedia that Blissy thinks he owns" - Alison ^❤ 17:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

If that were true, people like you wouldn't be allowed to put in defamatory nonsense about me. Quite dramatising it up and stick to facts, thanks. Blissyu2 02:11, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Are you the only one allowed put defamatory comments up here? I am sorry - did I step on your toes? BTW - reverting your nonsense when needs must is "contributing positive things" - just you don't think so. Stick to the facts, Blissy! - Alison ^❤ 03:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Everything you say or do is negative. Nothing I have said here is defamatory. If I ever got anything wrong by accident, I changed it later. You on the other hand, have inserted and reinserted deliberately false and defamatory content, which has been proven false in a court of law, and are issues of great personal distress for me. Really, you are the worst kind of person. Blissyu2 03:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

You, sir, are deluded. No, really! Take a serious look at what you're saying here and remember - you brought me in here - Alison ^❤ 11:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Nothing I have said here is defamatory. If I ever got anything wrong by accident. So it's OK to defame people, as long as it's an accident? I wonder if that defence would work in a civil trial? Lolmann 12:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Moron. I put in facts here. If I accidentally put in something incorrect, it was corrected. I *DID NOT* bring Alison here. She came here herself, and I asked her what she was doing, which she NEVER responded to. That is one of her MANY *HUGE* lies that she has told here. There are some horrendous lies being told about ME, which *WOULD NOT* stand up in a trial of any kind. I have been to court about libel and slander, and won. I have had people threaten me with law suits about libel and slander, but none of them had enough merits to go to court. Why? Because, quite frankly, I have never in my entire life libelled anyone. If you say something that you believe is true, are found not to be true, and retract it, it is NOT libel! I am 100% certain that if it exists as an old diff in a wiki that was reverted by someone else, then it DOES NOT count as libel or slander. If, however, on the same wiki, a bunch of morons such as Alison and all who are following her, are DELIBERATELY and CONSTANTLY adding and re-adding stuff which is blatantly false and slanderous, then that most definitely IS slanderous! Do you guys ever even think to look at a legal textbook or anything? Some of this rubbish is quite simply that, rubbish! Now, why don't you guys stop this nonsense about TEARING THINGS DOWN and instead work on something POSITIVE! My contributions here are positive, all of yours are destructive! Blissyu2 17:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Keep your hair on, Mr MEREDITH. JumboWells 17:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

ME, ME .. it's ALL ABOUT MEEEE. LOOK AT MEEE!!! - Alison ^❤ 18:15, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Alison created her account on the 14th of July, 2008, then went asleep. On 5th of August, 2008, Blissy created a stub article in her name and filled it with lies; "She was recently involved in pretending to do a check user", etc, etc. You get the idea. She only began editing after that incident, in which Blissyu2 continued to spread moar lies about her. Now he wishes she'd leave and really soon, he'll start to beg. Look what you started, Blissy. This one's about YOU again :) - Alison ^❤ 18:15, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

You see Blissy (can I call you Blissy?) All you've done for this website is turn it into a grade-z attack site, none of your "facts" can be proven in the real world, you provide no links to your "evidence" - Yet when other criticise you and provide links to what you've said and done, you cry OMG YOU LIE. Also, the non attack pages you've written are crap. JumboWells 18:30, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

As I seem to be the only person actually contributing positive things, as opposed to tearing down other people's work, I will suggest a slogan here:

"Encyc: the mini Encyclopaedia"

Encyc to me sounds like it is miniature. But I don't know. There doesn't seem to be an exact aim here, so hey. Blissyu2 02:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

No images

Maybe I didn't make this clear. No images, especially the kind that look like nonsense. Too much trouble. Emperor 20:15, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I was very impressed with Jonas's contributions, I should add. I am disappointed that he stopped. Nathan and I have made up now, so I am happy with him too. Of course, obviously, I am happy for anyone to edit here. It just seems that a number of people here of late have no aim other than to destroy me. I was happy with User:One as well, and wish that he would come back, as he was quite positive (sadly misinformed on some issues, but generally good). I am not sure why Alison isn't banned, as she is the main crux behind all of the recent attacks (indeed, I am quite convinced that all of the others are either her or else meat puppets of hers). Blissyu2 10:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Emperor can checkuser me all he likes. None of the other accounts were me, in fact, I've only one account on here; this one. Isn't it fun that when you've walked the long road and have been repeatedly refuted, that you have to lie and speculate wildly in order to "get your way". Just remember - I'm here to make this site better and my improvements that I make do that in every way. When Root had Wikiabuse running, I was a daily contributor over there - and a constructive one at that. Go ask him. You, on the other hand, are like a petulant little boy; once you don't get your way, off you go to your blog to post the stuff you can't post here with impunity. Just as well nobody reads it :-D - Alison ^❤ 10:58, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

See also

• Encyc:Verifiability
• Encyc:Point of view