The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, clear consensus per WP:SNOW Rodhull andemu 16:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion

Uncomfortably social-networky. Can't we work on writing an encyclopedia and leave the ha-ha-ing off wiki? ScienceApologist ( talk) 09:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep - Page isn't being used for abuse; just one or two good faith users that edit the encyclopedia everyday to have a bit of time out and fun on this page. No harm caused. D.M.N. ( talk) 09:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • • WP:NOHARM anyone? ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: In a print encyclopedia, the authors/editors would occasionally take time-out and chat - have a larf - and this is just our version of that. It makes us more like a 'real' encyclopedia. Dendodge Talk ^Contribs 09:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • • Um, not on company time, they wouldn't. I speak from experience. Do you? ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep:Delete: as it reminds people why we shouldn't be treated as a serious encyclopedia GTD 10:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • • Excuse me? We aren't a serious encyclopedia? In what sense? ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
      • A lot of editors hide behind a cloak of anonymity, many are minors, there is no expert verification, we have articles such as Donkey punch, Defecation posture, etc. I would obviously oppose, but the MySpacers and game-players have taken over, so there is no chance of this page being deleted. GTD 10:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Wow, well, that's very realpolitik of you. I think it may be a bit gamy for my tastes. While I share your opinion that these issues are serious, is it really a good idea to take the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" attitude you're throwing around here? I mean, why are you sticking around the encyclopedia at all if this is your cynical conclusion? ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
          • In the vague hope that one day the system may be tightened-up to ban anonymous editing and, for example, minors touching BLPs. Yes, I edit anonymously right now, but I've seen what can happen when those using a real name are attacked by someone behind a faceless nom de plume. I will, however, change my !vote to support. I'd also love to see about 99 per cent of userboxes removed, but that's not for here! GTD 10:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep or ideally merge with WP:RFA. I've waded through several screens of this, it's all very good humoured and civil with adequate safeguards against both involvement by those who don't get the humour, and against excessive social networking. It's clearly in User space so has no more impact on the overall seriousness of the project than a bit of lunchtime goofing around - and remember we are all volunteers on our time not the company's. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • • And as volunteers on our time we certainly can create space outside of Wikipedia to goof off so that "adequate safeguards" becomes a moot point. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep A way for editors who contribute to the encyclopedia to have fun. Sam ^Blab 12:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • • Surely they can do it outside of Wikipedia if it's really that necessary. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

      • Not every wikipedian has access to e-mail, IRC or forums. Sam ^Blab 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

        • Um, every wikipedian, by definition, has access to the internet, mediawiki software, and free webhosting where they can do the same thing outside of the encyclopedia where it's not so disruptive to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Hell, I'll even set it up for them, if they want. I'm just tired of people using Wikipedia as MySpace. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
          • How is it disruptive? I think this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sam ^Blab 13:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep As per earlier comments. Ecoleetage ( talk) 13:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong, Speedy Keep - this page does not prevent any editor from editing the encyclopedia, and it allows (mostly requires, actually) the ha-ha-ing to be concise and contained. It also doesn't seem to violate any policies, and as for the myspace thing, there are plenty of user pages that are far more social than this. Sorry if that last bit seems WP:OSE; I'm just saying there's room for interpretation. The fact is that those pages, while not very encyclopedic either, don't stop this from being a serious encyclopedia, and neither does this page.  Frank  |   talk  13:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  Follow-up - I knew we'd had this discussion before! I found it and have re-arranged this discussion to properly keep the first one available. In addition to all the reasons shown on this page, please see the previous MFA.  Frank  |   talk  13:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Wikikpedia is created by the community. No community = no Wikipedia. The community likes to take time out on occasion for a laugh - good - it strengthens the community and therefore strengthens Wikipedia. Not only that, but the frequent participants here are generally long standing editors and admins with many tens of thousands of combined edits. Maybe that shouldn't count for much but generally laxity has been extended to alow good standing editors to do this type of thing given there otherwise exceptionally productive work. Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep - Firstly, Wikipedia is more than anything a voluntary pastime. Comments such as "goofing off on company time" do not apply, because we supply our labour free of charge, choose our own working hours and (within reason) where and how we work on the project. Therefore, although the nominator may desire that participating editors spend their time elsewhere on the project, he's not really in a position to enforce this. Secondly, the process is inherently designed to be non-disruptive. Participation is optional and nominations can be declined if desired. The process or outcome has no impact on any other aspect of the project. Thirdly, the page is in userspace and clearly tagged as humour. Fourthly, the nomination has a definate feel of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While we don't have an essay regarding WP:SENSEOFHUMOURFALIURE, I think that this also could apply. And finally, something to consider - if we can't laugh at ourselves, our bureacracy and our developed processes, how can we cope when those outside point and laugh at us? Humour is a widely used critical tool as well - just ask Al Franken. Many thanks, Gazi moff 13:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Ignore and let it be: not a neg-negative for the project. I would not be adverse to an uninvolved administrator speedily closing this discussion presently. AGK 13:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Hello Mr Businessman, we are building a free encyclopedia. Sure, it may not be the most accurate in the world and is full of anonymous kids who are not legally accountable, but who else would work for free? Can we have some money for such a project? Some say yes. However, if they were told "oh, and some of the cash will be used so we can joke around as there are clearly no other places on or off the web to do so," I would hope they would think differently. Everyone being able to edit an encyclopedia may be a good way to start an encyclopedia, but perhaps we have reached the stage where we need legally accountable experts to actually improve the amateur foundations GTD 13:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  Please don't generalize all Wikipedia editors as "anonymous kids". And what you fail to realize is-this "joking around" is done by editors who edit the mainspace, volunteer editors. The money the WMF raises? None of it goes to us. The money is not being watsed. Sam ^Blab 13:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  No generalisation at all. Wikipedia "is full of anonymous kids" - perhaps more than half of contributors. Of course nobody is paid, but there are server cost implications, etc. Wikipedia has a real world reputation of being "that site that anyone can add bull to as a joke". Surely combating that would be more sensible? GTD 14:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  Firstly, this is an MfD, not a soapbox about your many and varied concerns about the project. If you have concerns over the founding principles of the project, there are other fora that are more appropriate, or alternative projects that may be more suitable to your tastes. Secondly, do you have a source for your statement that "perhaps more than half of contributors [are kids]"? I understand that the recent survey may provide further information, but I am not aware of any studies thus far that will confirm your postulation. Some people taking part in this MfD are old enough to have children of their own. Many thanks, Gazi moff 14:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep allows valuable editors to blow off steam, build morale and rapport. If this weren't populated by admins and QU contributors, I might be a little more concerned. the skomorokh 15:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong speedy keep - per above. Not hurting anyone, and we're allowed to have fun. The stuffy people can go stuff it. Chill and have some fun. Just because we're a serious encyclopedia (!) doesn't mean we can't have some fun. Until we start getting a paycheck, the money wasted argument is void. You can't dictate your non-paid workers be all work and no play. Someone speedy close this already. It's wasting valuable time that our donators have paid for. <_< لenna vecia 16:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: I've notified GlassCobra, who has not otherwise been notified that his page is up for deletion. لenna vecia 16:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Completely harmless fun. If Wikipedia's editors weren't allowed to have a bit of a laugh every now and then, I expect the number of active editors would swiftly drop. – How do you turn this on ( talk) 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Productive editors are allowed to behave in a ridiculous way from time to time. Unclear how this page might possibly be causing harm. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.