Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is like the Stanford Prison Experiment, except that only lasted six days




 * 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  delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is like the Stanford Prison Experiment, except that only lasted six days
Is this WP-space worthy? I think not. Author is a SPA. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete useless! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely pointless and irrelevant. Name of page is also a potential attack against administrators (who would be in the role of "guards"). - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a pointless 'article' - not even enough content to pretend to be an essay. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Violates no WP policies or guidelines other than being short. Deo volente, WP can use short articles and essays. And Jimbo Wales says WP is an experiment.  So absent a reason to delete, default to Keep.  Collect (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is this isn't even an essay. There isn't enough content for it to be called an essay. This page shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with an essay. In fact, given the name of the essay, now that I've read up a bit more on the Stanford Prison Experiment, it's bordering on accusing administrators of being willfully cruel. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it conveys anything understandable, it is an essay  and it is up to us to decide when criticism (I assume this essay is, in fact, critical of WP) ;;goes beyong reasonable bounds.;;   It is not up to us to eliminate criticism.  Is the wording objectionable per se? Or is the objection to the fact that a user makes a strong point without using strong language?   Which pale does this essay pass beyond? Collect (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The title itself is the issue. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, "guards" and "prisoners" were placed in a faux prison for a psychology study. The two-week experiment had to be curtailed to 6 days because the "guards" were deliberately psychologically torturing the "prisoners". Admins (due to their additional buttons) would doubtless be the "guards" in this equation; that's what I'm trying to get at. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 21:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually read up on this before commenting. If the issue is the title, then ask to "rename" or the like.  I did not, however, come to the same interpretation as you did. My interpretation is that anyone, admin or not, could be in either position -- the issue is whether a person who has been permitted by any authority figure to bully others will become more of a bully, and a person who has been "bitten" (WP:BITE) will retreat - and eventually leave Wikipedia. See how different interpretations are possible? Collect (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just say, Collect, that the previous comment is more of an essay than the one being proposed for deletion. You have explained how WP could be compared to the Stanford Experiment. If the creator had written that much, then I would be suggesting userfying rather than deleting. An analogy: if this AfD had a title and the nomination, it would be similar to the nominated article - it would have a title that explains what it is about, and a short statement (although I would argue that the nomination in an AfD is generally a more thoughtful contribution than the single sentence in this article) - but no one would say "Oh, that's all we need - let's delete the article". A title and one sentence does not an AfD make, and likewise, a title and one sentence does not (IMO) an essay make. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Disputed single author essays should be userfied.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it as originating from a limited POV. I actually think that wikipedia is most unlike the experiment, but that a new contributor, or a contributor who has trouble getting the rules, may feel as per the essay.  That fact that I think it is wrong in the bigger picture does not mean that it should be deleted (aka censored).  Project criticism should be given special protection.  We do not want to be appearing to cover up criticism.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'd never come across that article before.  I think we need a project space version for criticism of the editorial community, and the opinion in this essay can be merged into it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "This essay can be merged into it"? The page title basically says all there is to say in this 'essay'. If the author had actually bothered to explain in which way WP is like the Stanford experiment (even if it had been a couple of sentences), I would have suggested userfying it - but their entire 'essay' is basically the premise in the title and how long Wikipedia has been 'running'. Other than the title, there is no significant content. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. It is a statement, not an essay.  Without expansion, it probably belongs on User:Das Experimentieren's main userpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userify Rude, incivil essay provides no value to the project. One could argue it's providing anti-value. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The opposite essay has been on WP for a long time. Collect (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if the creator of this page had actually worked on this 'essay' during the last month, and actually put some content on it, I would have suggested userfying it. The opposite essay actually has some content beyond one sentence. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasoning listed above. The "essay" is too short and it was created by an SPA.  Deserted Cities (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How does one characterize a new account as an SPA? It appears to have made an edit outside this essay, but a lot of folks do not post dozens of edits off the bat. If you feel that it is something other than a new user, post on the appropriate board, but I do not recall MfD being the correct venue. Collect (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the duck test this is not a new user, and that adds a clue as to the motivation for writing this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That adds weight to the opinion being a valid editor's opinion. As such, and unintegrated with related opinions, it belongs in userspace.  It's a pity that the user doesn't feel confident to put his main account name behind the opinion.  Deletion here doesn't encourage growth of such confidence.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy This one seems to be too short to be considered a true essay. That said, this should at the very least be userfied, as WP:PG states that "essays...that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." I think it'd be hard to argue that the viewpoint expressed here is a viewpoint held by a significant minority rather than a fringe viewpoint. The lack of content and the creator's dormancy suggest that deletion may be preferable to userfication, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As noted several times above, the page in question is far too short to be considered an essay. Additionally, indirectly comparing the Admins to the Guards in said experiment is seriously incivil. The addendum "except that only lasted six days" in the title reinforces the impression that the author does not like Wikipedia, or at least its Admins, and adds to the incivility. Thinly veiled insults are still insults and not an essay or article. Charon X /talk 10:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reasoned or constructive criticism of Wikipedia's processes or operation is a valuable commodity, but this page is just a slightly more sophisticated version of a "Wikipedia sucks"-type comment. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:59, 22 November 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.