NEED MORE AWARDS

[Banderas22]

New in the Dreamatorium:

Wikipedia Hall of Fame? What are your thoughts? Is it going to work? User:Wolverine XI
(T-C-L)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ll_of_Fame?

[rnu]

And of course there are already people who want to make sure that behavior isn't taken into account.

I'll bite. What do I get? Like, a room with a comfy chair? The one caution I would have about this is that there are some editors whose positive contributions to the encyclopedia would unquestionably earn them a spot, but who are presently indef-banned for other reasons. BD2412 T 17:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"The one caution I would have about this is that there are some editors whose positive contributions to the encyclopedia would unquestionably earn them a spot, but who are presently indef-banned for other reasons." That's a good point. Though, IMO, I don't think HOF should be behavior-exclusionary and should be open to anyone who has made an enduring impact on WP, regardless of how they made the impact. For instance, I say induct Jordan French (maybe not in the inaugural cohort, but eventually). Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"They were so bad for Wikipedia we had to indef-ban them. Still they deserve a place in our Hall of Fame!"
I'm getting serious "that Hitler guy had his flaws, but he built the Autobahns!" vibes.

[Banderas22]

I mean Larry Sanger probably deserves a place in a Hall of Fame. I don't know how much he ever actually contributed to Wikipedia in the grand scheme of things but if nothing else his constant bitching about Wikipedia has helped keep it front and center.

At that point, why not give Lourdes a spot?

[Elinruby]

I mean Larry Sanger probably deserves a place in a Hall of Fame. I don't know how much he ever actually contributed to Wikipedia in the grand scheme of things but if nothing else his constant bitching about Wikipedia has helped keep it front and center.

At that point, why not give Lourdes a spot?

My favorite admin!

[rnu]

[...]

At that point, why not give Lourdes a spot?

Definitely. I mean lying, gaslighting, sockpuppeteering, basically being a constant BLP violation, endangering people, abusing admin position, getting admin (at least) twice and getting banned (at least) twice. Wifione/Lourdes is basically the embodiment of Wikipedia.

[tarantino]

[...]

At that point, why not give Lourdes a spot?

Definitely. I mean lying, gaslighting, sockpuppeteering, basically being a constant BLP violation, endangering people, abusing admin position, getting admin (at least) twice and getting banned (at least) twice. Wifione/Lourdes is basically the embodiment of Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure Wifione/Lourdes was also Nichalp (T-C-L)/Nicholas Alphonso who was an administrator, bureaucrat and oversighter until he got caught using a sock for paid editing.

The wiki powerusers talking respectfully to him on his talk page (which still hasn't been archived after 15 years) is pretty funny.

[Elinruby]

I mean Larry Sanger probably deserves a place in a Hall of Fame. I don't know how much he ever actually contributed to Wikipedia in the grand scheme of things but if nothing else his constant bitching about Wikipedia has helped keep it front and center.

At that point, why not give Lourdes a spot?

guin
check out the SlowKing4 RFC at Meta. They are basically saying they don't care how many hundreds of socks he had at en-wikipedia, he is really good at training people :facepalm

PS: Two of the people arguing most vehemently against a block. btw, are Pppery (T-C-L) and PeteForsyth (T-C-L), who one would think would not not support LTA, but here we are

[Kraken]

It's not as mad an idea as you might think.

A Hall Of Fame is the logical choice for an activity which already has numerous other lesser awards and recognitions that allow the comparison of individuals with respect to their peers. But none that truly define greatness in the field.

There is one of course. But I dare say most people disagree with the idea that Steven Pruitt (T-H-L) is the Tom Brady of Wikipedia.

Aaron Rodgers only won a single Super Bowl, a meagre reward for his individual contributions. The Hall of Fame is the means by which he can be recognized alongside his peers. A combination of all his lesser baubles, plus the intangibles. He's a superstar of the sport. Triple AAA list.

He's a peer of Tom, even though arguably by the only metric that matters in that particular team sport, he's one seventh of the player of Tom. Just like on that one metric in Wikipedia, everyone else is a fraction of Steven. Doesn't make sense. Hence why you create anther metric that matters just as much.

First ballot hall of famer is a term that every football fan understands, and a goodly proportion of ordinary Americans who have no interest in hand-egg too, I would imagine. It would serve the same purpose for Wikipedia, I am sure.

I don't even know what to call NewYorkBrad (T-C-L) to denote his greatness, but I guarantee it won't mean much to outsiders. The Princetonian who was "never the popular kid" in my view merits something a little more than Arbitrator Emeritus or other terms you occasionally see when watching the baseball.

Brad deserves to be able to enter a room, and be announced as.....

First Ballott Wikipedia Hall Of Famer Ira Brad Matetsky.

Assuming there indeed are any rooms Brad wishes to enter and be known for his Wikipedia efforts. A WikiConference, perhaps. FBHOF is keynote speaker level recognition

He's arguably going to be the first name on the inaugural class of any notional Wikipedia Hall of Fame. And thus the man who becomes its lifetime Chair of the Selection Committee for the classes to come.

So, President Brad aside, who are the Hall of Famers of Wikipedia? It's an interesting question.

Not least because of how wise it might be to do as the NFL does, and not even make such a consideration until the nominee has been retired for at least five years.



Wikipedia isn't in the real world. It doesn't need the trappings of the real world. Attempts to do so only make it all the more obvious it doesn't exist in the real world.

Stick to what works for that world. User rights and peer review denote a certain something that mere metrics do not. Arguably a competence in the field of Wikipedia, in the eyes of your peers. But even that may be a stretch, given what we know of such things, and indeed of Wikipedia in general.

[Ron Lybonly]

Concur re: NewYorkBrad (T-C-L)