Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkside2000/What the Wikipedian saw




 * 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 discussion was  no consensus for deletion. --Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Darkside2000/What the Wikipedian saw

 * Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What the Wikipedian saw

WP:UP \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content relates to Wikipedia.  This so called game happens to be a critical reflective learning tool.  Exercises like this are important for exploring what we do, how we do it, and what the consequences are.  As such, they are important for the development of the community.  Deleting it would be a narrow minded, oppressive action against a valued contributor, and detrimental to the future of the project.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete What starts out as appearing to be a guide turns out to be utter nonsense.  Triplestop  x3  15:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike some of the other pages up for nomination recently, this one does relate to the encyclopedia and it is clearly marked as humorous. As it says in WP:NOT, "Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace". --RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it's about Wikipedia. Essays about wikipedia, free content, open source, free collaboration... that kind of stuff is OK in userspace, even if they do border on incoherent. Gigs (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this isn't about Wikipedia, it just happens to use some Wikipedia words. User has a total of 18 edits to mainspace, 5.88% of his contribs; delete per WP:UP. → ROUX   ₪  21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it does, and I think you !voting delete because you are in disagreement with a useressay. This is what we, as an inclusive community, shouldn't do.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm voting delete because it's a useless and inappropriate waste of userspace, by an editor who has contributed a total of 18 edits to the actual encyclopedia. Could you please show me in the text anything that is actually part of Wikipedia? Anything that doesn't contravene WP:UP? Could you also please show me how, exactly, this does anything to improve Wikipedia apart from providing a useful distraction from articles for people who can't string together a simple sentence in English? → ROUX   ₪  21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t improve Wikipedia itself, but provides for improvements to wikipedia by building awareness of others’ perspectives on joining wikipedia as newcomers. If the community were better aware of what it is like to be a newcomer, the community would be more welcoming.  See also Editors matter.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It does that how, exactly? It's a mishmash of completely incoherent stream-of-consciousness babbling. → ROUX   ₪  03:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a parody of a newcomer to Wikipedia presented in the style of the original Zork text based, command line adventure game. Did you every play such games?   You do something, most of the time what you did wasn’t expected, and nothing happens.  Sometimes the result is bewildering.  There’s a story behind your adventure, but the newcomer doesn’t know the story.  I think it’s clever, and the parallels with encountering Wikipedia are apt.  I’ve now read it four times over.  I’m surprised that you and others find it completely incoherent, it is not to me.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be one small part of the page. Have you looked at the rest? It's a mess, it's useless, it's a game, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia per se, it's done by someone with a total of 18 edits to the actual encyclopedia (none of which, as far as I can tell, are still extant in any articles), it doesn't belong here. I'm a child of the (very late) 70's with a parent in the software industry. I was playing text-based adventure games before I started teething. → ROUX   ₪  15:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole of the page has meaning to me. It's like we are looking at two different things.  The fact that different people see different things in someones expression is a good reason to allow generous leeway.  I don't think that it is worth me interpreting the whole thing for you, it is clearly not your cup of tea, but why can't you trust that others can see meaning in it?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A representative sample:
 * Well now here we are at Wiki HQ! On your left... Wait! It's Bertie, the drinks man. He has been with us for a few days now. Hey a newcomer! Welcome! No Bertie these are the people who want to find out more about whats going on here at Wiki HQ. Oh right! The tour people who your bumping off for the insurance money!
 * Back when I did drugs, that might have made sense. Now? Not. Are you actually trying to argue with a straight face that this benefits Wikipedia somehow? → ROUX   ₪  23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It has benefit exceeding its cost.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And that benefit is what, exactly? Again: it's a jumbled stream-of-consciousness nonsense that has only the barest tangential relation to Wikipedia (if any relation at all). → ROUX   ₪  18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) The benefit is as a reminder to us old wikipedians (been at it for years, we must be "expert"s, probably nothing more to learn) that the experience of a newcomer in encountering wikipedia may be far from what we think it would be. The confused stream of consciousness you see in the writing tells us that the newcomer experiences a stream of inputs from wikipedia, technically and from its community, while any one thing is isolation is perfectly logical, is collectively confusing.  In detail, the writing gives information on how and why the inputs are confusing.  Sure, it is not conclusive, ready to apply thesis, but it is information that some of us like to consider.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, if this is deleted, I will be asking for it to be userfied into my userspace for my own reflection and development, for, if nothing else, to help me one day understand what is going on here in this debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have got to be joking. The writing is incoherent because the writer(s) cannot write coherent sentences. It's not some sort of postmodern commentary. And asking for it to be userfied... if the page is deleted as an inappropriate use of userspace, why on earth would moving it to your userspace suddenly make it acceptable? → ROUX   ₪  22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, seriously, I am not taking the piss, although I’ve now analysed the text beyond its worth. (ie. What it says is: “Wikipedia can be confusing when you first jump in”).  I like and respect you, you do good stuff, although you can be a bit grumpy, and given that you clearly disagree with me, I would like to work out why, for my own benefit.  I honestly don’t understand why you and others think this is inappropriate.  I think I’d like to come back and look again next probably next year.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete that's the thing about jokes; they kind of have to be funny. As it stands, this is totally incoherent trash. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep For one, wikipedia is not paper. If you think its a waste of time, don't read it. Two, it's not incoherent. It actually relates the experience of a newcomer to wikipedia rather well. In fact, I think I'll go add some stuff myself... - Drew Smith What I've done 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roux.  iMatthew  talk  at 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roux and WP:UP ArcAngel (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Darkside has been a moderately active editor, and can be allowed some leeway. Additionally, this is not actually all that absurd a project  compared to many of the other games.    DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I reject the notion that somehow longer-term users get a free pass. → ROUX   ₪  18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per UP, there is little reason to use this over Sandbox.--Otterathome (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:UP states: "Games, [etc.] ... if they involve people who are not active participants in the project." I must point out that at least a few of the people who have contributed to this are in fact active. Additionally, while the other sections may be mostly useless, the Maze section is at the very least, both grammatically correct, and a decent metaphor for parts the Wikipedia experience.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:UP says "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project." The word "particularly" was removed by SmokeyJoe shortly after posting his first comment above. I can find no evidence of consensus for this change, and no evidence that SmokeyJoe made any attempt to discuss the change before making it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to add that Darkside2000 (the user whose page is in question) has gone back and removed the parts which I described as "useless". The page is left with only acceptable grammar now.
 * Also, (this is transposed from my comment in reply to JamesBWatson, below) when I said "a decent metaphor" it really wasn't the best way to describe it; what I was trying to get at was that the story introduces various concepts, in what I'd call a more engaging format, thus making new Wikipedians (and those who spend their time mainly on pages like this) more likely to read policy pages then if they'd been shown those pages directly.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Remember that I haven't had time to do other things since I have a job and that there are loads of different pages like this on the Department of Fun. If mine is deleted just because I am trying to entertain users and show them that wikipedia isn't boring, then the DOF shouldn't exist at all. Therefore a fun part of wikipedia with loads of contributors is gone forever thanks to people without a sense of humor. It's ironic that would delete pages that have atracted so many to this glouious website therefore driving them away again. You better think this through. If all pages like mine are considered a waste of space then you have a lot of work on your hands. Good luck on destroying the DOF, a reason people edit here.p.s I have never checked for spelling mistakes on my page as the page is built up from many other edits from different users. Pp.s I passed my english so I know how to spell correctly thank you.Typing fast does leave quite a few spelling mistakes as you should so happen to notice.Darkside2000 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Thanks to people without a sense of humor..." Or perhaps people with a sense of humour that happens to be different from yours. Or perhaps people with a sense of humour that does agree with yours, and even find this page amusing (as I do) but think (as I do) it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are more reasons for wanting to delete than because one does not find it funny; if you read the various comments in this discussion and think about what they say you will find some of the other reasons. Whether you agree with them or not, it is not helpful to dismiss them all as "people without a sense of humor".
 * "I am trying to entertain users and show them that wikipedia isn't boring." I don't find editing an encyclopedia boring. As for people who do find editing an encyclopedia boring, and will only come here if they think Wikipedia is all about playing games, that is exactly the sort of people we should be discouraging from coming here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notes: WP:DOF includes only things that are specifically related to Wikipedia; previous (1, 2) stories like this have been deleted; this page was originally created in projectspace and then userfied--the DOF doesn't appear to have any interest in it. → ROUX   ₪  15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you understand any of this. All or nearly all of these pages have been put in by users themselves. I just didn't know how to do that back then so they did it for me. They, however didn't know that users don't vote for pages to be put in here. All users put their pages in themselves. You are not an experienced user of the DOF so I can understand why you think this. There are still pages like mine here and some have been here way longer than mine. Also the DOF have an intrest in it, otherwise no-one would have contributed to it. Forgot to mention that it is about Wikiepdia just with silly things added(by other users who I say thanks to) Darkside2000 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, in fact, mistaken. It doesn't matter whether I am an 'experienced' user of DOF or not; I can read and absorb new data. "They however don't know..." so what you're saying is that the experienced users of DOF know less than you do about how it works? Fascinating. → ROUX   ₪  16:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep It has a link to Wikipedia, as it could be a very humorous introduction for newbies - but it is in need of tidying up. I would have put this as a firm keep, if the user was more active on articles - I would then feel that this is a minor distraction that keeps them interested in editing, and allows them to have some time out from mainstream editing. I like the concept, I'm just not overly keen on the implementation as it currently stands, but that is sort-out-able. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Having had a chance to think about this some more during the last couple of days, and re-reading Roux's comments above, and JamesBWatson's comments below, I am changing my !vote. If the user was a lot more active on articles he could be given this chance to "vent off steam" by doing something not completely connected with articles - but this kind of things appears to be more important to Darkside2000 than actually working on the encyclopedia. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to raise a point. You said that you'd be more in favor if Darkside2000 was more active, and merely using this page to "vent off steam". However, since this is a collaborative story, other, more active editors can use it for that exact purpose. (I do.)   Sophus Bie  (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The page has been changed and everything except the introduction and maze have been removed as they were pure nonsense.Darkside2000 (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Smokey Joe.-- Coldplay   Expert  20:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Some of those arguing for keeping are reasonably serious Wikipedians, but we also have the usual collection of people who regularly turn out en masse to defend the use of Wikipedia as a playground or social networking site. However, if you look at their arguments they don't hold up. I will answer sample of them.
 * "I think it’s clever" Lots of things are clever: that is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * "That kind of stuff is OK in userspace, even if they do border on incoherent." We generally allow more leeway in userspace, allowing things to slip a little over the borderlines, but user pages are actually subject to the same rules as pages elsewhere, and this one does not even begin to be on the borderlines of being related to the job of building an encyclopedia.
 * "Additionally, while the other sections may be mostly useless, the Maze section is at the very least, both grammatically correct, and a decent metaphor for parts the Wikipedia experience" Surely this must be a joke? Firstly in an argument in favour of "keep" we are told that most of it is useless. Secondly we are expected to keep it on the grounds that it is grammatically correct; I could easily write an endless string of rubbish that was grammatically correct, but totally unsuitable for inclusion. Thirdly we should keep it because it is a decent metaphor; so are lots of things.
 * This is not actually all that absurd a project compared to many of the other games. So we keep it because some other games are even worse????
 * "The content relates to Wikipedia" Yes, but lots of things relating to Wikipedia are not suitable for inclusion. I could spend a few hours looking at random Wikipedia articles, and then write a list of what articles I had seen; that would relate to Wikipedia, but would not be worth including.
 * "The benefit is as a reminder to us old wikipedians ... that the experience of a newcomer in encountering wikipedia may be far from what we think it would be." No it doesn't. It just shows us that some people come here to play. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Darkside has been a moderately active editor, and can be allowed some leeway." Apart from differences of opinion as to how much (if any) extra leeway should be extended to more active editors, Darkside's edits are almost all on user pages, user talk pages, pages related to using Wikipedia for playing (e.g. Department of Fun), and deletion discussions such as this one, where he regularly defends the rights of users to use Wikipedia for play. A very few of his edits are to articles about games, but every one of those article edits I have looked at has been extremely brief. In short, he is one of a growing number of people whose main purpose for using Wikipedia is game playing and/or social networking. He is not a significant contributor to the job of building an encyclopedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "It could be a very humorous introduction for newbies." I think the humour is more comprehensible to someone who has been around on Wikipedia for long enough to understand the references; a newbie would not get the point. The truth of the matter is that this is intended purely for fun, and people who probably know that full well will come up with attempts to claim it has a more serious purpose to justify keeping it. Other variations of the same argument can be found above, that it is a useful learning exercise etc etc. No it isn't, or if it is it is only marginally and incidentally so: principally it is using Wikipedia for playing. Furthermore one of the things it really does teach a newcomer is that it is alright to use Wikipedia for games, and this is in fact my main argument for deletion. The line often used to defend such pages that "this is just a minor diversion for people who are serious contributors to Wikipedia" does not wash, because there has recently been a growing community of people whose principal or in many cases only activity is playing games and/or social networking. We need to convey to these people the clear message that this is not what Wikipedia is for. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to reply to your 3rd point. After I described the ungrammatical parts as "mostly useless", I then went over to talk to Darkside2000, and advised him to get rid of the chuff. He recently did so, and what's left is what I was arguing to Keep: the Maze section.
 * Also, when I said "a decent metaphor" it really wasn't the best way to describe it; what I was trying to get at was that the story introduces various concepts, in what I'd call a more engaging format, thus making new Wikipedians (and that "usual collection of people" which you described earlier) more likely to read policy pages then if they'd been shown those pages directly.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is mostly Wikipedia-related parody, and the editor has made legitimate edits to the mainspace. I would give the editor the benefit of the doubt as to allowing this userpage to remain, as it is harmless. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.