3 ms·

Have you seen what the typical Wikipedia userpage looks like? E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:

Have you seen what the typical Wikipedia userpage looks like? E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao. People pretty much DO use them as personal websites -- the differential enforcement seems to come mainly from how established a user is.

sushid 10y ago
That's just a bio (albeit slightly strange) of the guy. I feel like that's within reason as it's a user page (i.e. who the author is). On the other hand, here, let me list a bunch of my recipes for safekeeping is NOT a description of the user in any way or shape.
- andrewjho 10y ago
  Sure. Arguing over what the True and Canonical Purpose of Wikipedia is will go nowhere. The only relevant fact is that it was consequentially better for the administrator to behave otherwise. Even if we assume that the user was 100% in error and that the pages should be removed, the administrator's actions still served to objectively harm Wikipedia (in net).
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    How would it be better, in the long run? Almost no people will use their bio page for storage of recipes or any kind of blog. There are explicit roles against doing so, and Wikipedia is constantly inundated with spam. Off the small fraction of people who do try to do this, most will probably think, "I guess I was out of line, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not my personal storage space." Anyone left over who is going to ragequit over someone not being nice enough when they enforce the rules, frankly, probably doesn't have the type of personality that can handle a lot of the often heated discussions that go on on Wikipedia. Honestly, I imagine the extreme edge cases represented by the productive editors likely to be seriously dissuaded by this are not a real contributing factor in any perceived death or decline of Wikipedia (one of the most successful and widely used products on the internet).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
jdietrich 10y ago
Wikipedia's guidelines explicitly permit both "limited autobiographical content" and a "small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" on user pages. The linked page clearly falls within those rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_...
- marssaxman 10y ago
  Thanks! Having no idea that any of this existed, the article author's recipe list seemed like blatant abuse, but those rules are so long and so complicated that it's now easier to see how people could reasonably conclude that such a project might be acceptable.

sushid 10y ago

That's just a bio (albeit slightly strange) of the guy. I feel like that's within reason as it's a user page (i.e. who the author is). On the other hand, here, let me list a bunch of my recipes for safekeeping is NOT a description of the user in any way or shape.

andrewjho 10y ago
Sure. Arguing over what the True and Canonical Purpose of Wikipedia is will go nowhere. The only relevant fact is that it was consequentially better for the administrator to behave otherwise. Even if we assume that the user was 100% in error and that the pages should be removed, the administrator's actions still served to objectively harm Wikipedia (in net).
- x1798DE 10y ago
  How would it be better, in the long run? Almost no people will use their bio page for storage of recipes or any kind of blog. There are explicit roles against doing so, and Wikipedia is constantly inundated with spam. Off the small fraction of people who do try to do this, most will probably think, "I guess I was out of line, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not my personal storage space." Anyone left over who is going to ragequit over someone not being nice enough when they enforce the rules, frankly, probably doesn't have the type of personality that can handle a lot of the often heated discussions that go on on Wikipedia. Honestly, I imagine the extreme edge cases represented by the productive editors likely to be seriously dissuaded by this are not a real contributing factor in any perceived death or decline of Wikipedia (one of the most successful and widely used products on the internet).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

jdietrich 10y ago

Wikipedia's guidelines explicitly permit both "limited autobiographical content" and a "small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" on user pages. The linked page clearly falls within those rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_...

marssaxman 10y ago
Thanks! Having no idea that any of this existed, the article author's recipe list seemed like blatant abuse, but those rules are so long and so complicated that it's now easier to see how people could reasonably conclude that such a project might be acceptable.