A game created like me to promote counter-vandalism. It's like the Wikipedia RPG thing that was created a few years back, but different.
It's a lot more like an RPG than a leaderboard. I've already got a few people who've signed up, and have 23 chapters to the full thing so far. If anyone wants to check it out, it's here! Now, you guys might want to figure out, if these five points should become official targets for the Simple English pages, instead of just being for the challenged and those new to English.
Helia bravo hollis pdf writer
While I think this is perfectly doable and would ultimately also sharpen and "kind of legitimize" the Simple pages, if you don't agree, then an English Light version could be created. You could even automate the priorities by monitoring how people behave on long or hard to read pages. That should not be too hard, given how much code even Google's main search page contains.
See xkcd Thank you for the second most important web site, after Google!!!!!!! I was wondering whether wikipedia could have a more uniform approach for certain recurring sections when dealing with writers, as it happens with musicians and other artists?
When a page deals with a writer, I think it should have one fixed section dealing with that writer's bibliography. As it is now, one writer has a list of his books under the header "Bibliography", another under the header "List of works", yet another under the header "Writings", etc.
Having one section called "Bibliography" looks less messy and much more clear. When a page deals with musicians, this is much more uniform; virtually all of the pages I have seen have a section called "Discography".
Why can't this be uniform with writers? I hope I made my suggestion clear with this. If you have any questions, just let me know here. Over at WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles there have been extensive attempts to improve Wikipedia's coverage by comparing it to other encyclopedias, dictionaries, lists of authors, etc.
Have there been attempts to simply find articles that are already written on other language Wikipedias and to translate them to English? It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I can't find any "missing article" lists generated this way. For example, Helia Bravo Hollis , a botanist from Mexico, has articles in five languages including German and Spanish , but not English. Has someone already made lists of such missing articles? And otherwise, would there be interest if I attempted to create some such lists.
For example, a list of missing botanists, sorted by number of non-English Wikipedia articles over words? I imagine there would be interest across a broad range of topics for such lists.
I discovered the missing Helia Bravo Hollis entry while editing Wiktionary, when researching the etymology of " hollisae ", which is used as part of the scientific name of many plants. It seems odd that there aren't lists of similar missing-in-English topics.
Have a look! Magnus Manske : any way you can help out with the above request, either in the context of the not-in tool or otherwise? I've been thinking for a few days now about the need to combat bullying and related abusive kinds of behaviors in Wikipedia editing.
I've seen and been subjected to a lot of it myself. I discovered that there is an essay about bullying at WP:BULLY which is a great starting place, but seems like it could be more fleshed out. And then there is implementing actions to curb bullying. I've seen too much of it around here, and it often is in regard to content of articles.
There is a big difference between reasonable and civil dialogue when there is a difference of opinions. Everyone has a different point of view. We are here to reconcile various points of view, and to decide on content in service of the reader.
We want to get articles right and this comes out of such good dialogue. But far too often, dialogue devolves into name-calling, pushy ways of speaking, condescension, insults, Wikilawyering, taking advantage of the naivete of new editors, and all this sort of thing.
It tends to allow some people to swing false power around and to dominate articles, where there more subtle and nuanced voices who may be more polite and less aggressive then get drowned out by the dominators.
I know we have some mechanisms to work out issues about civility, and about people who are pushing content into articles against consensus or against good community judgment. Often what happens is a long-term pattern where one or more editors will harass or hound another editor or group of editors. Often it works out along some ideological lines, as many topics in Wikipedia have some controversy around them.
Some of the more experienced people know just how far they can push their behaviors without being too flagrantly in violation of a guideline and therefore able to be sanctioned.
Some know how to insinuate insults, how to ignore another editor's fair points without it being so noticeable, how to change topics constantly or to use strawman arguments to try to make the other person seem wrong and foolish, and many other sorts of things. Sometimes there is a long-term pattern of one editor giving another editor so-called "friendly warnings" like "when people act like you are, they are often banned They even lead to a gaslighting effect where the victim can think "i must be wrong here" and clams up and backs off, not continuing to argue a point even though they may be right.
All these sorts of things are forms of intimidation that add up to bullying. I've been seeing it around in my year or so of editing, and now that i have some more experience, i recognize it as a major problem in Wikipedia.
List of women botanists
I don't think the system as it is, is good at dealing with this dynamic. I think the system as it stands sometimes even has the opposite effect -- it shoots the messenger. If someone does have the guts to stand up to a bully and bring it to a noticeboard, sometimes people come and gang up on that person and try to make them think they're wrong, and the bullying continues even in the forum where it's supposed to be addressed.
Is anyone with me on this? Do you see this going on? Do you have ideas for how to address it better?
Many times it's a pattern, and a lot of bullying is done with no bad words at all. I seems innocuous enough to the casual observer, because they may not know the deeper meaning, or the history involved between two editors. That's part of how manipulative people work, and how they abuse people without other people noticing.
I would like to quote some good words from user Dennis Brown who i hope will not mind being pinged who said here :. We would all love a more civil Wikipedia, but blocking people for using bad words will only mean that the more passive aggressive types who hide their bullying and insults in saccharine laced words will be running the place. Some of the nicest people cuss sometimes. Personally, if I'm going to be insulted, I prefer the honesty of someone who just says it bluntly, not someone who hides it in clever language designed to intimidate and diminish me.
This is the same thing i have found.
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 19
Repeated behaviors by a few people who have taken to hounding me and trying to grind down my self-esteem, using various turns of phrase and conceptual tricks to make it seem like i should just crawl under a rock and hide because obviously i'm too stupid to be editing at Wikipedia, and my point of view is just worthless, etc It's tricky, and that's why i think we could use a volunteer corps of people focused on this. I'd volunteer.
Another aspect is that the person who is being bullied may sometimes react due to counterwill -- not wanting to be controlled for very good reason, feeling the sliminess of the interaction, and they might cuss in anger, justifiably, but then the bully will use that response to try to further characterize the victim as being unfit for Wikipedia The above three statements are definitely good thoughts, in my opinion, but these are not reasons why it couldn't work.
Of course there is a relativity among people of different viewpoints. People with more similar viewpoints tend to have better edit histories and to forgive each other more often, and also don't butt heads as often. And of course, if someone is trying to push content into an article that is not supported by reliable sources, then they are probably at fault for contention. Bullying, when it happens, is in the behavior, not in the point of view of an editor.
For the content it comes back to sources and having good dialogue. Those who don't have good dialogue and continue to push either to block content they don't like or to push content that they want and in the process hurt other users and make the editing climate contentious, especially if they continue to target or to go after or harass a specific editor s who they tend to disagree with, then they could be given a kind of notice.
I'm also wary of formalizing this, but it could be an advocacy group of volunteer editors who know enough to advise someone who comes to them if they feel bullied. Then they could use their experience to help work it out, if possible, or advise where and how it could be brought to a noticeboard for the best and speediest resolution.
It could use the already existing noticeboards, and simply be a group of advocates sort of like public defenders in the court system who volunteer to help out because they've been there before and know what it's like.
I assure you that my intention in suggesting this is not to enable POV pushing of any kind. In fact, quite the opposite. I advocate for integrity to the sources and articles that reflect reality as best known according to reliable sources.
Here is an example of what happened when i asked what remedies are available for bullying behaviors, at the Administrators Noticeboard -- not good response -- continued bullying in fact. That to me is an argument in favor of needing people to advocate for those who are being attacked or ganged up on.
For the benefit of those editors at this idea lab who are not familiar with the background, the original poster, User:SageRad , has been editing in the area of genetically modified organisms, a contentious subject, and is, in my opinion, a combative editor who does not accept advice.
In June , multiple editors, myself included, advised SageRad to be less combative and more collaborative. The advice was discounted as "punches in the face", "threats", and "bullying". So SageRad has been seeing bullying for months.
A case is now pending at ArbCom concerning genetically modified organisms. SageRad is named as a party to the case.
Helia Bravo Biography
ArbCom would have been and is an appropriate venue to discuss bullying and similar conduct issues. SageRad did not present any evidence, which could have included evidence of bullying, and did not present a workshop proposal. Now, as ArbCom is about to finalize the case, SageRad is facing a topic-ban from genetically modified organisms.
Deaths in September 2001
SageRad again claims to have been a victim of bullying, but has not presented any diffs or other evidence to the community either. In any case, the original poster has not presented and has not made an effective effort to present a case either that they have been bullied, or that bullying is such a pervasive problem in Wikipedia that it needs new measures.
My own observations are that many claims of bullying are not justified, and are made by editors who persist in editing against consensus, and are sometimes associated with claims that articles are controlled by cabals.
Most of the cases that I have been where there really has been bullying have been cases of article ownership , where one or two editors enforce their article ownership by bullying. Bullies divide and polarize the community, because any bully always has a few followers as well as a few victims.
ArbCom and Arbitration Enforcement are the only forums that are able to deal with issues that divide or polarize the community.