Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Title change

I congratulate MONGO on a good choice of changed title, and support the new name for the project. Moreover, his revision of the project purpose statement that incorporates the Miller reference also clarifies a worthwhile purpose of advancing encyclopedic quality.

I haven't liked some of his past unilateralism and hostility, but I think this edit is good, and hope we can work together on creating a worthwhile WikiProject. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)


 * Hear hear, this is a good and non-controversial title. Is the Vfd really closed? Is the war over? Woo hoo! I would just like to take the opportunity to heartily thank all the users who engaged in the Vfd and other debates in a mature manner. Thank you. Banes 08:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is done, but bear in mind that this thing is refocusing. It needs to discuss more than just imagery and how it is or isn't affected by Florida law...in fact, that should be about 10% of the focus. P.S. the vote was "no concensus to delete" but that hardly is any approval to continue along the path it was heading hence the name and focus adjustment. Any suggestions?--MONGO 08:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Kinda like Creationism ... er I mean Creation Science ... er I mean Intelligent Design.


 * A turd by any other name still smells like shit. -NickGorton 08:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What? This project will end up having little to do with the original focus. It isn't a censorship targeting project. It is merely a place to discuss what will make Wikpedia mainstream and make suggestions as to how to make it more respectable as a citable reference point...a lofty gaol since no colleges or schools currently say, gee, check with Wikipedia and use them in your next term paper. What is wrong with that?--MONGO 08:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you realize precisely how well you just proved my comparison to Intelligent Design née Creationism? Is this an early Christmas present for me? Mongo, you shouldn't have! That was so thoughtful!


 * How about this: to illustrate, we'll play a game from Sesame Street. You remember that one... "one of these things is not like the other, two of these things are kinda the same...."
 * We don't want to censor based on decency, we just want to remove things that do not merit being in a respectable encyclopedia!
 * We don't believe in biblical creationism as described in Genesis. We just think an intelligent entity designed all this.
 * I like biscuits.


 * So you tell me why this turd still doesn't smell like shit just because you painted it pink and sprayed some Chanel #5 on it?-NickGorton 18:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you believe that it should remain a blog rather than an encyclopedia...what a pity.--MONGO 20:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice logical fallacy bot you have there, Mongo. (That would be a fallacy of distraction... slippery slope if I do not miss my guess.) Does it do all of the logical fallacies? If so, how do you manage ad baculum? Have a reeeeely scary looking server threaten to fall on them?-23:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Logical fallacy? Why do you feel so threatened? I don't get it.--MONGO 02:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Here you go since you don't seem familiar with the term: Logical fallacy. And threatened is not the right word. I do think it is always wise to watch the knuckle dragging Neanderthals quite closely though. Sort of, first they came for the autofellatiaters and I did not object because I couldn't suck my own dick. Then they came for the... you get the idea. Besides, the more that the majority hassle you here, the less time you have to play busybody morality encyclopedic merit police. -NickGorton 07:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see not one edit of mine in which what you claim to be true, is so. Let's agree to disagree.--MONGO 08:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your assertion is incorrect. Schools do use Wikipedia on a larger scale. I should point out that the current title is so politically correct as to be misleading - certainly no editor here is opposed to "encyclopedic merit". Reminds me of an old wikiproject called "Facts" which wasn't in fact about facts, but about inserting a certain religious POV into articles. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right, Radiant. I object to the castration of this project which had good intentions. Erwin Walsh


 * Here we go again.....groan...This title is politically correct because in the Vfd it was attacked for it's original title, among other things. What do you guys (Erwin Walsh and Rama) who object think this project should be called then? Banes 10:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This project is entirely about decency, or at least that's what it says on the project page. Decency is a loaded word, and many people are going to object to what this project is going to do. But that's not going to change by hiding behind a PC name. While I'm sure it was well-intentioned, it appears that this has turned into WikiProject:people who don't know much about law trying to figure out whether Wikipedia is illegal and WikiProject:people who wish to vote 'delete' on images containing nudity. That is unfortunate. My advice would be to move this talk page into an archive to clear the junk and spurious accusations of trolling, then wait a week or two, then start fresh. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you haven't even given myself and a few others an opportunity to complete the alterations. I am not that much in favor of discussions about images aside from how that interlinks with Florida Law. I was in agreement with Jimbo Wales that there needed to a title change. You are mistaken about what MY efforts would be to deal with "obscenity"...my efforts would be solely to have it known, here in this more public of a forum, that I think we need to evaluate what gives Wikipedia the most credability. Furthermore, not one university professor that I know of would say, yes, Wikipedia is fine as a footnote for your research...not in a million years if we don't start thinking about ways to make this enterprise more of an encyclopedia and less of a blog.--MONGO 11:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was in no way talking about you specifically. Note that in my comment above I didn't tell you or anyone to stop - I merely suggested that you wait for a week or two to let the criticism and wild accusations die down. Regarding acceptability of Wikipedia in research - please take a look at Citing Wikipedia. I've queried at the Reference Desk if there are any concrete examples. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Here you go. I count over 30 published books that cite Wikipedia as a source. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good start and shows that Wikipedia is gaining respectability as a reliable source of information...I have never doubted that the vast majority of articles do have excellent referencing and are valuable for citation. I have also spoken to numerous professors such as the one that allowed me to use his images here:Caribou-Targhee National Forest and elsewhere, that :a)Wikipedia is fine for sceintific, geographical and neutral non political works, and, b:)Wikipedia is too POV for political figures, historical events, and suffers from a systemic white male, ethnocentric and "middle class" perspective to be considered a citable reference base.--MONGO 20:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)