Wikipedia talk:Who, Why?

Untitled

"Big fish in a small bond". Is that a Freudian slip, or a camisole? Koyaanis Qatsi

I was going to go ahead and correct that, that's when I got distracted by that annoying space after the colon in the title. Yeah, I think the author just might be... quite unlike me, of course. -- John Owens 01:29 29 May 2003 (UTC)

You can quit at any time, of course.  ;-) Actually, sadly (or maybe not) I'm finding I have to look for things to write about, instead of being assaulted by them. Koyaanis Qatsi

I'm somewhat missing the point... and I wonder if this isn't something for meta. Is this just a restating of Why Wikipedia is so great and Why Wikipedia is not so great? Martin 11:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I did a very quick perusal of the meta site. It seemed very dispersed. I was hoping for this article to be very purposeful and specific. I think there's a danger of it drifting into the territory of the great/not so great articles in the prospective sections headed "good dynamics" and "bad dynamics", but I think it will be it's own thing if it's just kept focused. It's not what do people do that makes Wikipedia good or bad, it's why do they do the things they do. Granted, if I really knew comprehensively what this article would say, I'd have written more than the meager stub I wrote. 168... 15:54 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of this. But while you're at it, you don't mention any of the reasons I would identify with. -- Tarquin 16:43 29 May 2003 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia:" domain generally contains policy documents (IE, what do we do with offensive usernames), help files (guidance for newcomers), and editorial tools (ie, pages needing attention, votes for deletion). This kind of discussion is really a couple of levels removed from actually making an encyclopedia, and we tend to keep such stuff on meta.

But I'm not going to fuss about it (given what happened last time I made a fuss ;-)). Martin 23:49 29 May 2003 (UTC)

This is an interesting page. It does really belong on meta:, however. -- Toby Bartels 00:48 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm not very up on Wiki policy, so I don't mind defering to others who know, but given that the main site yellow pages are home to Why Wikipedia is so great and Why Wikipedia is not so great, it would seem strange to me if they weren't right for this kind of article.168... 01:02 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Those should probably go to meta too. The Wikipedia namespace still has a lot of stuff on it that never got moved over there. I don't mean to criticise the existence of this page, however! -- Toby Bartels 21:47 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Toby, this page should be moved to meta. It is more a personal essay from 168 than an article which can obtain broad consensus from the community. I also agree with Tarquin: when I saw the title I thought this might be an interesting discussion of Wikipedia culture, but there's nothing here I can relate to. Just a whole heap of generalised, wishy-washy statements which could almost apply to any community, written with overwhelming cynicism. I have half a mind to rewrite it from scratch with a more balanced, less offensive view of the personalities present here. -- Tim Starling 04:59 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry that more "negative" motives came to mind than "positive" ones, and I even specifically said as much in the subject line of one of my posts. It's not as if I wouldn't be very happy to see the arrival of more pleasing ones. Also I agree with you that these motives apply to all kinds of social situations, and that many apply all at once to the same person and the same act, which leads to a wishywashiness of sorts. But so? It's not obvious to me that these facts mean an article like this is predestined to be uninteresting and unenlightening. Perhaps such an article inherently "unconstructive": Do we really want to know our more primal or emotional motives for participating in this, in some sense, objectively admirable enterprise, and is the world or Wikipedia made any better by exposing and examining them? I dunno. But to the extent the article is accurate, I think it has some merit. Perhaps it's not going to have enough merit, if indeed it strikes lots of people as offensive, but it's going to have some, to the extent it's accurate. I'd welcome any rewriting whatsoever if it's for the sake of accuracy or impartiality, and _I'm_ offended that you'd be so quick to insinuate otherwise. Rewrite away! But if you're hesitating because you think an entirely rosey, snow globe-like portrait of Wikipedia would run counter to the initial concept of the article, well then perhaps you're right to hesitate. 168... 05:31 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Just to be more explicit: I am not trying to set a tone that fixes this article anywhere on the idealist-cynic axis (that is, unless psychologizing is inherently cynical). What I've been trying to do is just to demonstrate the category of information I'd be interested to read about--namely, the nitty gritty psychology of people (albeit, not all the way back to toilet training). Aren't we all psychologizing each other anyway when we read and chose how to respond to posts on the talk pages? 168... 05:42 30 May 2003 (UTC)

er........ I'm not psychologizing anybody :-) -- Tarquin 07:54 30 May 2003 (UTC)

And for that matter, I wouldn't mind reading non-psychological answers too to the questions "Who? Why?". As in "Night-shift nuclear power plant operators, because they need to fill the idle hours." So add a section if that's what interests you. 168... 07:13 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin, the reason I made my contribution to this page was simple: I have a number of theories that float around in my head -- not only about Wikipedia, the Internet, but any number of topics -- & sometimes it's useful for me to dump some of these unattached theories, opinions, lines of thought in a spot where they might prove useful. Or at least get written down somewhere so I can focus on a being relevant to the topic at hand. As it stands, I've written my bit here, & if it gets moved to meta: or deleted in 3 - 6 months, it's no longer of concern to me. -- llywrch 05:05 30 May 2003 (UTC)

You're still focussing on reasons that make us look like a bunch of nuts. Some of us might enjoy copyediting work. Some get a buzz from seeing great new articles. Some of us might enjoy learning about new things as we scour Recent Changes for vandalism. Some might have time to waste and want to idle away hours on something that may be worthwhile rather than yet another game of Freecell. Some might feel working here hones their writing skills. -- Tarquin 08:19 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Caesar was modest Latin - Veni Vidi Vici English - When I wikied Whee I see? I found you via Google and added the site to my ever-filled Favorites Just call me "eta" as in http://pub112.ezboard.com/bletterstotheeditor

• This sure looks like a pretty biased article. Let's add a:

Elfguy 8 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Elfguy 8 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)Elfguy 8 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Elfguy 8 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

I think {{historical}} would be better than {{disputed}} since it's not an article. It might have been true once, but the page has hardly changed in two years. People are doing actual research on this now which will hopefully mean a more up to date and more acurate page might be created. Angela. 00:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)