FFFearlesss

Welcome

Hello FFFearlesss, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! BusterD 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Re: Repost: Article about Wikipedia Users

Hey FFFearless, don't worry, I didn't ignore your first post, I just wasn't sure if I wanted to participate or not. No offence to you of course, it sounds like it should certainly be interesting! -- Natalya 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

1. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop vandalizing people's userpages. Thank you! Bearly541 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is a legitamite article, please ask JimboWales for permission first. Otherwise, please read this: Wikipedia:Etiquette Bearly541 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in the ettiquette pages or the press pages that indicates I have to get PERMISSION from the owner of the company to do an article. That's not really how journalism works. If you don't want to participate, just ignore the message. I'm not repeatedly bugging the same people. I leave a message and move on. If they aren't interested, they ignore the message. If they ARE interested, they do and have responded. FFFearlesss 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Your change was determined to be unhelpful because it inserted spam material material for a website, so it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Please stop spamming users on their talk pages. Kukini 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Got attention

Obviously you now realised, that spamming tlk-pages is not the way to go. You already have a few contacts and I am sure from there you will referals as long as you don't alienate the community with your actions. Why not get some first hand experience in wiki-work, that will make it a lot easier to ask the right questions. Agathoclea 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the point of the article. If every reporter had to learn every single thing about every single thing they were writing about, nothing would ever get written. The whole point is that I'm trying to talk to the actual USERS who have been at it for awhile to give me THEIR POV on the whole thing. I'm not trying to make this a first person narrative. FFFearlesss 22:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If we wanted to participate, we would have saw your "notice" on other people's userpages and would have responded accordingly. It's not necessary in getting the owner's permission to write an article; however, the permission may deem beneficial, since you could be sued for libel without it. Bearly541 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying very hard to be professional and civil here. But do you even know what you're talking about. LIBEL? Unless I'm saying slanderous things against the organization I hardly think that's a concern. And as I said, that's not how things work. This isn't an article about Jimbo Wales. It's an article about the PUBLIC DOMAIN website, Wikipedia and the individuals who make it up. And as individuals, they can either participate or not. I really don't understand where this crusade you're on is coming from. FFFearlesss 22:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help, but really, I'm not a good person/baboon/crow/walrus/igloo/extra-terrestrial/other for it. So, thanks for the offer. Contact me here if you want something else. Randfan 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I have no problem with what you are doing, however I highly suggest removing your email address from your postings. Spammers look at this site for stuff like that and if they see that you may get in some trouble. If you really want us to talk to you, please email us. We can then find out your email address by ourselves. Thank you and have a nice day.--Chili 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. I regret that I am unable to participate in your survey.

This is a GREAT idea. Email all those you wish to contact in lieu of posting your request on their usertalk pages. Best, Kukini 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Email link

On every userpage and usertalk page, there is a link on the right side that says E-mail this user. If you can't find that, just type in [[Special:Emailuser/USERNAME]], replacing USERNAME with the name of the user you wish to email. Thank you and have a nice day.--Chili 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What Chili said. Good luck with your article. Please let me know when it is out! Kukini 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're trying to learn something about WP, I would say you're off to a brisk start!

Take these responses with proper salt. You threw the net open to what, about 20 users? One sent you a welcome message with many useful links, just as if you were actually joining the community, not just dropping in from the blue. Another strongly believes what you were doing is vandalism, and has stated so publicly. I see no vendetta, I merely see varied response to unsolicited communication. I myself had initial misgivings, and am still ambivalent, but do wish to point out the wealth of experience you've obtained in your first few hours with us. If you are who you claim to be then you've got a good first day's work done and you should write something meaningful about it. Further, I echo the comments of some previous users on this page and encourage you to work on a few stubs yourself, and watch what others around you are doing. I will monitor your progress, and if you need specific help I'll try to make myself available. Once you've demonstrated trust on namespace (article) pages, users will be more willing to accept the sort of unsolicited contact you made today. I should point out that you have tarnished your reputation here on this page a bit by not assuming good faith; if User:Bearly541 has made any error, it is in the arena of not biting newbies. But all this is water under the bridge, and not so unusual when a very new user takes action traditionally judged in some pejorative manner by the community. BusterD 05:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You call this rough treatment? Have you never posted in a chatboard before? Let's say you've walked into a public club, say for the sake of analogy, a golf country club. Instead of asking permission of the club manager or board, you don't just plop down a table in the lobby and ask for member information, but you instead approach a bunch of members directly, at their homes, and ask for info about the club. A lot of folks join the club because they are looking for a place to play WITHOUT unsolicited harassment. Plus, you state openly you're unwilling to learn anything about the game yourself, but want some kind of "low down" about the club. Then you wonder aloud in public why anyone but the disgruntled might be reticent to talk to such an interloper. You've presented no credential, you've asked no permission, you just started contacting users out of the blue, and a few folks have told you they don't like it and suspect the behavior possibly shady. I would argue that you have by your actions painted yourself with a dark brush, and then instead of figuring out how to solve that, you write some whining rant about how nice users won't talk to you. And we're supposed to trust you because...  ? I mean, there's assuming good faith, and then there's hoping a freelancer won't try to smear the whole freakin' house to make a buck. Notta tough call. Grow a thicker skin, and keep trying to make nice. BusterD 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The post wasn't whining, just merely presenting the facts of the matter. And once again, the thrust of the article isn't about my personal experience using the site. It's about experienced users experience. A reporter reporting on Capitol Hill doesn't join Congress just to have a better understanding of what they're reporting on. I'm doing my research by examining what experienced users are doing and have done on the site and by getting their stories and their impressions having been immersed in the culture for several months or years. FFFearlesss 15:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And on the other hand, journals don't typically sent cub reporters out to cover Congress who openly refuse to pass high school civics. If you fail to understand what editors are doing, then any attempt to explain such actions is rendered virtually meaningless. I'm telling you you've entered a community of trust, and you have to demonstrate trust in order to receive any in return. Your argumentative and defensive comments have made you less attractive to folks inclined to participate. Less lecturing on journalistic practice, and more exercise of same. BusterD 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(((And on the other hand, journals don't typically sent cub reporters out to cover Congress who openly refuse to pass high school civics))) No they send them out to write articles about Wikipedia. I kid, I kid.

I'll admit, Perhaps I didn't respond most professionally to everythign that has gone on here. To be perfectly frank, I was incredibly taken aback by the immediate response I got. And not just on the talk pages. I've done articles like this in the past about certain "subcultures" of people that the general public doesn't know exists (for example, people who spend their time Live Action Role Playing, people who practice Attachment Parenting, people who eat their placenta following the birth of their children). My goals in each of these pieces was to simply introduce the idea to the general public and give the "subculture" a voice to talk about what they do, and the reasons behind their decisions. In all cases, the intent of the article was to be fair and balanced, but more to give the people involved the bigger voice to talk about what they do. And in all cases, the people I've talked to have either been very eager to talk, or they politely declined more for reasons of privacy than anything else.

But only when researching this Wikipedia article have I been met with so much... paranoia is the only word I can describe it. And again, not just on the talk pages, but from emails I've gotten from people. People instantly assuming I'm writing a some kind of slam piece about wikipedia. People who assume I'm going to make fun of them. I am honestly just trying to wrap my head around where all the insecurity is coming from.

So if any of my posting here come of as crass or uninformed, I do apologize. As with any research, I'm learning as I go, and every page I read, every user I talk to adds to the overall knowledge. When it comes right down to it I really REALLY want to write a positive article because I think the whole idea behind Wikipedia is fascinating. But the more and more negative feedback and emails I get, the more I wonder just what is really going on behind the scenes and the more I just want to hear from average users who just do what they do, believe in what they do, and want others to know about it. One way or another this article will get written and it will reflect the information that has been presented me. FFFearlesss 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why most people who like the Wiki aren't talking

The description of what you are writing about basically sounds like "I'm looking for controversy to rake Wikipedia over the coals." I'll pass. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A direct quote from my user page: "This article is intended to be a light informational piece, nothing too heavy or controversial, just merely introducing readers to a subculture that they likely had no idea existed. So please don’t email me with your conspiracy theories, or your grudge against the Wikipedia hierarchy…"

THAT sounds like I'm trying to rake WP over the coals? O-kay... FFFearlesss 14:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm skeptical for two reasons: One, negativity sells. Two, I used to be a member of an online forum that had a reporter, who, like you, wanted to do a story about the forum's members and claimed to be all nice and friendly. The story turned out to be a sneer instead of a smile. It basically made the folks who'd agreed to be interviewed look exactly like the stereotypes they were trying to dispel. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. RedRollerskate 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" is supposed to apply to a single person. Just because one reporter was an ass doesn't mean that this one is. Give him a chance. ~ Flameviper 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to believe the guy's legit. However, I don't want to be made a fool of, and I absolutely do not want my real name given out. FFFearless, give me a reason to trust you (for example, a similar story you've written) and then we'll talk. The story sounds good, but as I said, I've been burned before. RedRollerskate 16:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Most serious wikipedia editors are busy editing. They aren't really interested in self promotion. People who have perceived "beefs" with wikipedia have more to say. That's all. It is not a unique problem with wikipedia. People satisfied with the status quo don't spend a lot of time talking about their issues. They don't have anything to talk about. There is not reason to assume that the volume or frequency of complaints or negative comments is any indication that they ever represent a majority opinion in this, or indeed, any issue ever. --Jayron32 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail address

It's a really bad idea to put your e-mail address all over Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages (including user pages) are mirrored extensively across the Internet. This wouldn't be a big deal except for the fact that people run scripts which harvest e-mail addresses for spamming. It would be a wiser decision to include a link to Special:Emailuser, which allows users to e-mail you through Wikipedia if you have a registered e-mail address (the address is not visible to other people). In case you don't know how to link things, here's a link:

E-mail me

Hope this helps. ~ Flameviper 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. If you want to interview somebody about Wikipedia, I'd be glad to talk. Just post me. Thanks.

In response

As much as I would love to be interviewed about Wikipedia, I'll have to do that tomorrow; I have to go now. See you tomorrow; looking forward to our discussion! ~ Flameviper 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you get my message yesterday?

I haven't heard back. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Me either. BusterD 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy working on a few other things. I got the messages but haven't had a chance to read them thoroughly. Will get back to you after the weekend once I've had a chance to devote my entire self to reading them. Thanks! FFFearlesss 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly understand. You've got us a bit interested; keep us apprised. Enjoy your holiday! BusterD 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to know you received it. Durova^Charge! 17:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've posted my emails on a user subpage

If anyone else wants to post their emails there I have zero objection, or if anyone else desires to create such a subpage which links here I encourage this. I did not post Brian's emails, I merely posted my replies which answered his questions and an additional email I felt important to send this evening to sum up my experience. BusterD 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)