User talk:Geogre/People People

Nicely said[edit]

This explains pretty well some thoughts I've had for a while but have been generally unable to explain clearly. The closest I'd come was the idea that "we should not have wiki-friends or wiki-enemies." When we judge each situation by its own merits, not by who is involved, it comes easier for us to keep the interests of the encyclopedia in its proper place as our top priority. Friday (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It quite nicely sums up my recent "inner Wikipedia monologue" as well. Lovely work, Geogre. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you, guys. I wrote it to try to explain to people why I have spent my time during ArbCom voting pretty much as before: editing articles and trying to figure things out, and not chasing down everyone who has ever said anything bad about me. Some folks have concluded that my lack of tit for tat response "means" something. It does, and this is what it means. :-) Geogre 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it as well. Though some people will misunderstand what you mean when you issue a call to arms and whoop your battle cry. They'll quote WP:NOT a battlefield at you, and fail to understand that what you are saying is supported by precisely that part of the policy: fight to improve and defend the content, don't fight the people. PS. I corrected a couple of typos - well, I hope they were typos... PPS. Pity you can't undo the edit summary you used. PPPS. Needs more wikilinking, to things like Friendster, MySpace, Wikipedia:IRC fairy essays, Reichstag essay, etc. Carcharoth 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, man. I suppose I need to tell people to read up on irony, too. It's not a "battle" cry. It's an unbattle cry. It's the cry of a person who is dragged into a battle by battlers. I agree about the links. Geogre 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this persuasive and intend to direct others to it at times. The only question is do you mind being called George more or less than being called a girl? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They both make me smile. :-) I have seen way, way, way too many people get upset that their screen name will be ruined by X or Y editor, and I wonder why on earth they're investing so much capital in a screen name. If it's something they use in some real work related forum or something, then they ought to change their editing identity. If they think they're going to parlay wiki-fame into capitalist advantage, I want to know their plan, as I have yet to see any employer impressed by it. If we focus on the articles, you know, and the way they load and display and act.... Oh, well, it's a basic bit of psychology at play here, I suppose. Geogre 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this sums up the attitude needed on Wikipedia? Esperanza would not approve!

"the will hardened in him, and he felt through all his limbs a thrill, as if he was turning into some creature of stone and steel that neither despair nor weariness nor endless barren miles could subdue"

Bonus points to whoever can identify the quote. Carcharoth 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings, Book VI, Chapter 3. —Cryptic 03:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to cheat and Google search. The funny thing is that I was thinking, "I've read that," and, indeed, I've read LotR. :-) Geogre 09:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if only more people felt the same way ...[edit]

One of the puzzling attributes of online interpersonal communication is the view (held by some) that human nature (or the nature of human interaction itself) is somehow transformed by (rather than merely reflected in) the various fora and sites and "virtual spaces" in which people participate.

Although I do not attribute this view to your essay, your essay does remind me of this puzzlement.

To suggest that people who participate in the "virtual space" of an encyclopedia should be more inclined to treasure "Truth" over "personality" (or, alternatively, "ego") is an agreeable suggestion, but one that does not seem to coincide with the "world run on prejudice and cruelty." (presuming that "online personhood" is a part of, and not a refuge from, that very same world).

The sentiments expressed in this essay are laudable. An open question is whether a reasonable person could ever expect statements to be judged solely on the independent merit of the statements alone. This really seems to be the crux of the matter. Some people may indeed strive to attain that ideal, but it seems clear that many never will. After all, one man's treasure is another man's ... "friendster" :). NoClutter 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your open question is simple. If we remain strangers, we have little choice but to judge the words as words. Obviously, there is an ego attached to any utterance, and obviously the very reading of them introduces personality, but I try to remain anonymous. There are other people who try to be known. The user:Essjay "crisis" was an example of what that can bring. I never believe anyone, here, because I understand that another facet of online interaction is that the greater the psychosocial wound, the greater the need for online compensation and the greater the desire to distort. Therefore, along with the usual social interaction there is the compensatory social action. I do interact socially online, but I save that for places devoted to social interaction.

Oh, and I thought of another warning sign that a person has joined Friendster: when your watchlist contains as many user talk pages as articles, you've gone to MyFacester. Geogre 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your essay, it made me laugh out loud. I saw myself in your descriptions, and I laugh, and hang my head in shame at the same time. I'm still learning... and getting better, I hope.... Oh, and I would much rather be a dog, as they are great people, much better than people people, from my POV anyway. Too bad dogs can't type as this would be a better place, IMO. ;) -- Jeeny

Well, we think dogs can't type, but, in the famous formulation "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog". For my part, I agree with you. Dogs are better people, and Alexander Pope said, "History is more full of examples of the fidelity of dogs than of friends." (Pope had a series of unfortunate dogs, all named "Bounce.") At least dogs don't hold grudges. They fight to win, not kill, and then they come back later with matters settled. Geogre 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. (innocent look) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

I was thinking about this essay, and I have a question: when a Wikipedian dies, do you get sad? A.Z. 20:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. 2sc945 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]