The Devil's Wiktionary: A Wikipedia Glossary (merged)

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:47 pm

Put your entries for the WikiGlossary here - all those words and phrases that don't do what they say on the tin.

For starters:

Censorship: anything that is not presented in your face whether you want to read it or not.

Assume Good Faith: I object to you knowing that it is a lie.

Civility: Passive aggressiveness.

Reference: dead link to something that said something entirely different (see AGF).

I'm sure you can do better.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:59 pm

Censorship: Anyone telling me I can't have what I want in Wikipedia, for whatever reason I might want it.

Disruptive editor: I want you to block this editor. Now.

Banned editor: A subhuman who in former times managed to fool some people into thinking s/he was a member of the human race but was, fortunately, unmasked in Wikipedia. (A minor irritant is that they may still be considered human by some people outside Wikipedia. Fortunately, though, people outside Wikipedia don't really matter.)

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:33 pm

NPOV : An editorial prescription that encourages those who want to slant articles to their perspective to act to ensure that their opinion should be expounded upon in great detail.

Undue Weight : An editorial prescription that encourages those who want to slant articles to their perspective to act to ensure that other opinions should be excluded.

Expert : One who is not to be trusted; a loose cannon liable to ruin the fun for those engaged in article writing on Wikipedia.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:15 pm

Assume good faith: Behavioral standard that tells Wikipedians they should always pretend to think the best of other Wikipedians. (Note: Does not apply to newcomers and members of the public, about whom it is generally fine to assume the worst.)

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:32 pm

It works better in the "if you do it, if I do it" format, which I think someone had on their talk page once. As in

If you revert me then you're edit warring. If I revert you then that's "being bold".

If you inform others of a discussion/article/problem then that's canvassing. If I inform others of a discussion/article/problem then that's broadening the discussion.

If you question my motives then that's assuming bad faith. If I question your motives then I'm just pointing out that you're a disruptive user.

If you insert text which I don't like into an article then that's POV pushing. If I insert text into an article you don't like, then that's just ensuring NPOV via due weight.

If you call me names, then you are being uncivil and making personal attacks. If I call you names then that's just me telling it like it is per WP:SPADE

If you check up on my contributions then that's stalking. If I check your contributions then that's just keeping an eye on a potentially disruptive editor.

If you use a sketchy source then that violates WP:RS. If I use a sketchy source then WP:NOTCENSORED!

If your text doesn't correspond to the sources then that's OR. If my text doesn't correspond to the sources then that's just me paraphrasing to avoid COPYVIO

If you copy something verbatim from a source then you're committing COPYVIO. If I copy something verbatim from a source then I'm just following WP:NOR.

If you invoke any wikipedia policies in a disagreement that's WIKILAWYERING. If I invoke any wikipedia policies in a disagreement I'm just making my case based on policy.

If you invoke WP:GAME then it's because you're trying to game a policy yourself. If I invoke WP:GAME then it's because you're trying to game a policy.

And on and on...

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:17 pm

Consensus:
Me and my buddies already decided. Who the hell are you?

isaan · Unread post by **isaan** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:30 pm

Deletion: should be properly pronounced "elite-tion", as it makes material viewable only by an elite group.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:36 pm

At the very least, the glossary should define the word "vandal" as "potential recruit," and "vandalism" as "recruiting tool." I know I keep going on about that, but it's what I believe...

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:24 pm

Meatpuppet: A new account that disagrees with you in a deletion debate.

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:20 pm

HRIP7 wrote: Banned editor: A subhuman who in former times managed to fool some people into thinking he was a member of the human race but was, fortunately, unmasked in Wikipedia. (A minor irritant is that they may still be considered human by some people outside Wikipedia. Fortunately, though, people outside Wikipedia don't really matter.)

This is a nice one.

Below is something that was said by another person, not me,
Wikipedia: fictional pseudo-environment, in which people play out their aggressions as though they were knocking down "enemies" in a video game

Retrospect · Unread post by **Retrospect** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:23 am

Original research
Something I don't like.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:28 pm

IDONTLIKEIT
You like it. I don't.

Actually, reading the essay underlying that one-liner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... 7t_like_it seems to prove the thesis that these frequently-invoked principles are reasonably sensible, but never applied correctly. What IDONTLIKEIT says is that you should provide good reasons to support your argument, and "Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)". I've never seen it invoked like that, but always as a short one-liner, and a link to that page.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm

Seems to me that a big road sign reading "TROLLS AHEAD" would cover a lot of this......

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:46 pm

Citation Needed: "This fact does not correspond with my POV."

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:52 pm

The Joy wrote:Citation Needed: "This fact does not correspond with my POV."

XXXX is not a reliable source: "This fact does not correspond with my POV."

XXXX is a reliable source: "How can I defame this person if I am not allowed to use the National Enquirer?"

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:49 pm

Jimbo says... : "Jimbo and I share the same belief. We should do what he says! He's Jimbo!"

Jimbo says... : "Jimbo and I do not share the same belief. Who f-ing died and made him f-ing king!?! F- off, Jimbo!"

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:25 pm

Neutral Point of View: Mine.
Non-Neutral Point of View: Yours or anybody else's that doesn't agee with mine.

Fuzzgun '91 · Unread post by **Fuzzgun '91** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:21 am

Non-notable or "fails WP:GNG": I haven't found anything about this after a couple of cursory Google searches, and neither has the guy who commented before me.

WikiProject: This other guy and I occasionally talk to each other to "coordinate," and then we claim to speak on behalf of a bunch of people who signed their usernames on a list in 2006.*

Revert, Block, Ignore (RBI): I don't care if your edits are improving that article or even removing inaccuracies from it; someone once decided that you were banned, so your edits must be undone and your new account must be blocked!

*Most WikiProjects are like this, but there are notable exceptions.

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:44 am

This was said by Lore Sjöberg
consensus: A mythical state of utopian human evolution. Many scholars of Wikipedian theology theorize that if consensus is ever reached, Wikipedia will spontaneously disappear.

Wikipediots, please, please reach consensus.

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:16 pm

Admins willing to make difficult blocks; admins who are willing to block Malleus Fatuorum (T-C-L)

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:14 pm

Being banned from Wikipedia: being set free from inmates' run asylum.

Rational Observer · Unread post by **Rational Observer** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:01 pm

Not sure if this is the correct board, but I wanted to open a thread about how there's a Wikipedia dialect flush with catch phrases and Borg-like, generic assimilation. Some key words and phrases that immediately come to mind include, "best" (e.g., "best to not assign motivation", or "best to keep these images in the article body"). Another is variations of, "Perhaps EditorX can be of some assistance in this matter", or "this person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia; they seem to have an axe to grind".

There are lots of others, and I'm sure I'm excluding the best ones. Seems like after enough time every Wikipedian starts talking like some futuristic robot-lawyer. It's kinda creepy and Borg-like, but it's also alienating to those of us who want to retain their unique personality. That's the problem. Wikipedia demands assimilation and conformity, and those who resist are relegated to the periphery or banned and ignored for insubordination. In this way, Wikipedia drives away original thinkers, and subjugates the rest into a culture-bleaching melting pot that churns out copycat drones.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:18 pm

There should be a google translate function from wikipedanese to English
I'll start

"There's an encyclopedia to write" means "Shut the fuck up! I don't want you talking about that!"

LynnWysong · Unread post by **LynnWysong** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:52 pm

"That's not the way we do things on Wikipedia" means "I own this article and you will do as I tell you!"

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:09 pm

This topic is problematic.

Rational Observer · Unread post by **Rational Observer** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:45 pm

Earthy Astringent wrote:This topic is problematic.

Oh, that's a real good one! How about, "this editor is exhibiting problematic behavioral patterns"? Is it me, or is most of this average people trying to sound uber-intelligent? If so, it's not working!

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:52 pm

Suboptimal.

Loving and Thoughtful.

Long-held community consensus.

Assume good/bad faith.

NOTCENSORED!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:53 pm

"The WMF engineers are working really hard." means "Stop telling us how we fucked up again."

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:10 pm

Many words have special meanings to Wikipedians. Classic examples are "civility" and "consensus". Then there's that splendid word "!vote".

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:44 pm

This topic seems closely related to that of this old thread. Perhaps they could be merged.

Rational Observer · Unread post by **Rational Observer** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:09 pm

"Blocks aren't punitive; they're preventative."

Rational Observer · Unread post by **Rational Observer** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:11 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:...

In my post I was talking more about odd language than double-speak tactics, but this one hits the nail on the head!

I'd add:

If I accuse you of socking everywhere you go I'm protecting the project from disruption, but if you reply to any of these accusations in public areas you're wikistalking me.

LynnWysong · Unread post by **LynnWysong** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:15 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:It works better in the "if you do it, if I do it" format, which I think someone had on their talk page once. As in

If you revert me then you're edit warring. If I revert you then that's "being bold".

If you inform others of a discussion/article/problem then that's canvassing. If I inform others of a discussion/article/problem then that's broadening the discussion.

If you question my motives then that's assuming bad faith. If I question your motives then I'm just pointing out that you're a disruptive user.

If you insert text which I don't like into an article then that's POV pushing. If I insert text into an article you don't like, then that's just ensuring NPOV via due weight.

If you call me names, then you are being uncivil and making personal attacks. If I call you names then that's just me telling it like it is per WP:SPADE

If you check up on my contributions then that's stalking. If I check your contributions then that's just keeping an eye on a potentially disruptive editor.

If you use a sketchy source then that violates WP:RS. If I use a sketchy source then WP:NOTCENSORED!

If your text doesn't correspond to the sources then that's OR. If my text doesn't correspond to the sources then that's just me paraphrasing to avoid COPYVIO

If you copy something verbatim from a source then you're committing COPYVIO. If I copy something verbatim from a source then I'm just following WP:NOR.

If you invoke any wikipedia policies in a disagreement that's WIKILAWYERING. If I invoke any wikipedia policies in a disagreement I'm just making my case based on policy.

If you invoke WP:GAME then it's because you're trying to game a policy yourself. If I invoke WP:GAME then it's because you're trying to game a policy.

And on and on...

I think I need to put these on my user page. Especially the bolded one.

Rational Observer · Unread post by **Rational Observer** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:21 pm

Agree, but I'd add:

If your material follows a source too closely you're committing COPYVIO. If I copy something verbatim from a source it's because sometimes there are only so many ways to say something.

LynnWysong · Unread post by **LynnWysong** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:47 pm

Discuss: Pretending that you are entertaining allowing change in an article you own, while in reality you're just taking the other editor on a merry-go-round.

trout · Unread post by **trout** » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:54 pm

If you revert changes, you're trying to WP:OWN the article. If I revert changes, I'm just protecting it from random edits.

LynnWysong · Unread post by **LynnWysong** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:53 am

trout wrote:If you revert changes, you're trying to WP:OWN the article. If I revert changes, I'm just protecting it from random edits.

I'd modify that to: If you revert good faith edits, you're edit warring. If I revert good-faith edits, I'm implementing BRD.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:46 am

I kind of feel like this thread should be retitled The Devil's Wiktionary.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:47 am

"I'm sorry but you seem..."

"...a history of sockpuppetry and harassment..."

"...remove trolling..."

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:49 am

I assume most people know about this, but for those that don't: there already exists a (pretty good) page called WP:WikiSpeak (T-H-L).

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:23 pm

Kingsindian wrote:I assume most people know about this, but for those that don't: there already exists a (pretty good) page called WP:WikiSpeak (T-H-L).

No surprise that one image of a woman in bondage was not quite enough for that page, so they put in two.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:26 pm

thekohser wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:I assume most people know about this, but for those that don't: there already exists a (pretty good) page called WP:WikiSpeak (T-H-L).
No surprise that one image of a woman in bondage was not quite enough for that page, so they put in two.

I count three: two are BDSM photos and one has a sarcastic caption: "Part of Commons' ceaseless mission to educate the masses and document important world events through informative illustrations".

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:04 pm

thekohser wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:I assume most people know about this, but for those that don't: there already exists a (pretty good) page called WP:WikiSpeak (T-H-L).
No surprise that one image of a woman in bondage was not quite enough for that page, so they put in two.

To be completely fair, some of the best images of men in bondage have mysteriously disappeared from Commons...

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:44 pm

Damn, son.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:35 pm

So, out of curiosity as to the pervy identities... Jim.henderson added the bondage pic to civility in 2015, while good ol Iridescent planted the other one back in 2008

Surprising absolutely no one, Malleus was the article creator.

Rational Observer · Unread post by **Rational Observer** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:00 pm

Is it just me, or is this thread veering off topic with these posts about pictures of women in bondage? It certainly speaks to the hostile and sexualized editing environment, but it has nothing to do with Wikispeak. Does it? I ask because I've noticed that some of us get called out for going off topic, while others do not.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:23 pm

Rational Observer wrote:Is it just me, or is this thread veering off topic with these posts about pictures of women in bondage? It certainly speaks to the hostile and sexualized editing environment, but it has nothing to do with Wikispeak. Does it? I ask because I've noticed that some of us get called out for going off topic, while others do not.

IMO they are related. The Wikispeak is really just a holier-than-thou lexicon so that they may identify one another and act accordingly; if you don't talk the talk, you become fair game laying the groundwork for a block or a topic ban. Then we advance to this, where it is deemed acceptable to illustrate your workplace guidelines with sexualized imagery; if you disagree, you're labeled a prude, a conservative, and then pointed to the hallowed WP:NOTCENSORED

Jim.Henderson didn't care about bondage. Iridescent didn't care about bondage. They did it because they could
.

Rational Observer · Unread post by **Rational Observer** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:51 pm

Tarc wrote:
Rational Observer wrote:Is it just me, or is this thread veering off topic with these posts about pictures of women in bondage? It certainly speaks to the hostile and sexualized editing environment, but it has nothing to do with Wikispeak. Does it? I ask because I've noticed that some of us get called out for going off topic, while others do not.
IMO they are related. The Wikispeak is really just a holier-than-thou lexicon so that they may identify one another and act accordingly; if you don't talk the talk, you become fair game laying the groundwork for a block or a topic ban. Then we advance to this, where it is deemed acceptable to illustrate your workplace guidelines with sexualized imagery; if you disagree, you're labeled a prude, a conservative, and then pointed to the hallowed WP:NOTCENSORED

Jim.Henderson didn't care about bondage. Iridescent didn't care about bondage. They did it because they could
.

Ahh, good point. I stand corrected. Thanks!

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:10 pm

If you love an article, it's a WP:COI. If you hate an article, it's a WP:COI. If you are dispassionate, neutral, and lukewarm towards an article, it isn't WP:COI.
But why would you edit it if you had no strong feelings one way or another? That means every major Wikipedian is violating WP:COI. Yet, the accusation continues unabated.

Rational Observer · Unread post by **Rational Observer** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:23 pm

If you disagree with me, you're POV-pushing. If I disagree with you, you have issues with neutrality.