User talk:HeidelbergKid/Eve

So why do we need an essay on Eve if we have a perfectly suitable article on the topic?
Huh? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 00:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's his take on the article without anyone else's interference. He decided to put it in essay space.  And honestly, do we "need" any of the essays we have?  I thought that was the point of essay space--  01:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted the article written one way, others wanted it written a different way. I heard in the Saloon Bar that if you wanted your article to be unedited by others, you could put it in an essay. So I copied my version of the article into an essay space. It's a fair compromise. We each get our desired articles on Eve. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I wanted the article written one way, others wanted it written a different way.." <Unclear on the concept of a wiki. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 01:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * {ec}And this way others can evaluate your finished work, and perhaps incorporate elements of it in mainspace. However, most people do this in "userspace."  That is, they move the article or recreate the article at the address like so: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:HeidelbergKid/[insert article title here, using underscores to denote spaces] .  As an example, the following poorly focused piece of crap, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Brxbrx/uspolitics is within my userspace, and will remain there until such time as I gather the mental energy to finish it, as well as the courage to turn it loose on a mob that has developed a slight antipathy towards me.  Alternatively you can start by making an internal link to your userspace, like so: User:HeidelbergKid/Eve, and click on "edit this page."  But don't worry, you haven't really committed a wiki-crime.  It's fine where it is now--  01:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ... So you have something against others touching your work? Im sure youd be BF's with ken--Mikalosa (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2011 (U
 * We NEED essay space cause we have lots of things to comment upon. We have things to say about our lives, about our experiences, about our views on the world.  usually those don't belong in main space, but they are often very compelling issues.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   No, That's not the same thing.  You just don't get it". 01:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Give him break, he had his own vision of the article, and this way it has a chance to breathe--  01:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against what he did, i just found the concept of wanting an article to be the way yopu want, not how others want to also add, to be funny--Mikalosa (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How's it funny? I'm not offended, just curious. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cause you reacted as if it were your article. First you say "notice this article it's worthy of a bronze or even a silver".  so we noticed it.  and on the challenge "is this a silver", we cleaned it up.  (we did the same today with Ray Comfort.  You didn't like that, you wanted the article your way.  I'll tell you a secret.  had you never said anything about making it a silver, i doubt anyone would have noticed, much less the mob that swarms around here when we have an article that gets noticed and we all pitch in to fix.  When you tell people how good an article is, they are going to say "yep" or "nope', and either way, likely change it.  it's the nature of wiki.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   No, That's not the same thing.  You just don't get it". 02:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * {ec}On a wiki, the idea is that all works are collaborative, and that no single person has final say as to what goes into an article. Your stance might appear to be in direct contradiction to that spirit--
 * So I just set up this one, MUCH BETTER VERSION of the article, for people who don't want an article that sucks. Is it possible for me to set up an entirely new version of RationalWiki where I can do what I want with it, where everything is the way I want it to be? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You seriously think your article (this essay) is "much better"? Oohhhkay....[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   No, That's not the same thing.  You just don't get it". 02:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Is it possible for me to set up an entirely new version of RationalWiki where I can do what I want with it, where everything is the way I want it to be?" YES. Now bugger off. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * {ec}Your mistake is in assuming that your version is objectively superior, when clearly others disagree. Perhaps you should explain why you feel that it's better, and you'll be received better--  02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mainspace version is better.-- 04:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You certainly could set up your own version of "RW". Though you would have to rename it to something else, finance it, get some hosting, learn about mediawiki set up, find collaborative editors and all.  But then you might find that the new editors also did not agree with you about what made a "good" article which would leave you back where you started.  As the site owner you would potentially have the last word of course and could force the issue to turn out as you wanted - but using that last word would probably drive your collaborators away.  And that rather defeats the point of a wiki.
 * But, yes, it could be done. In point of fact you could even port over our existing articles as long as you gave proper attribution in accordance with our  copyright restrictions - which are fairly generous.  Such things are called "wiki forks" I believe.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying "fork off"? 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In a way, though forking off would seem to be an extreme reaction to a debate over a single article.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You can tell it's men having this discussion. Forking off is not nearly as good as spooning. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   No, That's not the same thing.  You just don't get it". 13:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He did make one... But he hasn't done anything with it. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 08:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, he probably realized making a wiki isn't as easy as it sounds... also, on a completely unrelated note, Wikia now has achievements? What the fuck. -- Nx  / talk 08:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not an essay
While you have a right to write what you want in essay space, i suppose this isn't an "essay". You are not writing about anything, you are writing a 2nd verion of a page. You have not talked about your views or your life, or whatever else makes up essays. YOu've not done original research like "eve has been bastardized by men all her life, and is not really a temptress". You are just making "lighter" more "easy to read" less factual mainspace. Again, your right, but if you want this to be linked to the Eve page, it aught to be a real essay with some opinion, some point of view, some attempt to sway thinking, etc. --Godot  No, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 02:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I explained to him how to move it to his user space (though I will not comment on the quality or usefulness of my instruction).-- 02:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure he can do that. or better, add things that really make it an essay.  Why eve is who she is; how Eve effected him.  even "why the wiki process is annoying as all hell".  I know when I wanted to redo the abortion page (and got shot down), I stuck my revisions in my user space and used them to make an essay about the topic I'd wanted to add.  Turned out ok, actually.   So maybe that's a place he wants to go - just a thought.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   No, That's not the same thing.  You just don't get it". 02:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)  PS I actually love the essay space, and try to link any thought provoking essays into relevant articles.  I think the minds around here, even if i don't agree with them, generally have some great things to say.
 * This is my essay on Eve. It fits into the definition of the word "essay", which is (according to The Free Dictionary) "A short literary composition on a single subject, usually presenting the personal view of the author" or "something resembling such a composition". This would be an essay, as it resembles a short literary composition on a single subject: it's only different as it is longer. An essay on why the concept of wikis is annoying would be a different, completely unrelated subject so would go in a different essay. If you don't like it, tough. I made it here so I can have an article on Eve which I could actually consider good. I still want to know if/how I can make a version of RationalWiki where I can have the articles the way I want. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your definition ≠ THE definition. And go ahead, make your own fucking version of RW, go ask wikia to make a wiki for you so you can do that. make it RW V3. However, it wont be RW, it will be "What Heidelbergkid wants" wiki. and will be as useful as conservapedia.--Mikalosa (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do love, HK, that you proved my point. "usually contains the views/opinions of the author".  hence the reason i said "this is not an essay".  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   No, That's not the same thing.  You just don't get it". 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Key word "usually". Not "always". Still fits in definition. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is your right to write it. I'm not removing it or suggesting it should be removed.  I'm just saying that if you bothered to put some of that "opinion" stuff in it, it might be worth linking to. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   No, That's not the same thing.  You just don't get it". 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the user using essay space for this. One of the reasons for essay space is to give people with views which don't fit with the mainstream view an opportunity to express their views and thus avoid groupthink.

In consequence, I think that our definition of "essay" needs to be as broad as possible.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for Essay space being for stuff that challenges groupthink and preconceptions but it should not be a repository for vanity. I don't think hosting pages about people's made up religions, crackpot science or alternative versions of extant pages which people want to "own" is really on-mission. 09:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm totally in agreement with our local marauder this is another example of what RW is, what it ought to be, and how we square that circle. We have a long-standing tradition of non-censorship except in extremis. As such we've had a number of internet cranks who have found RW a place to air their views. Earthland, JimJast, CUR and Fall Down all spring to mind.Should we stop them? We certainly can't reason with them. But, if we're to close off essay space to their madness, where do we draw the line?
 * The boring bit is that I don't have any answers to these questions. More than that, given that we just emerging, at last, from a period of unrest as we argue out how RW is to be run, I really don't feel the time is right to get into a censorship debate. As such, whilst I agree with Ghengis, let's let this one go for a while. It really doesn't hurt us that much. Bad Faith (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's just this former article in essay space, & not linked from mainspace or in any mainspace categories, I don't see the harm. If HBK is serious about creating a RW mirror site under his own editorial control, that would have to be off-site & with proper attention paid to copyrights where applicable (site name, logo, etc.).  12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This Brainstar nonsense
I should point out that the example essay you gave is not a valid precedence for a number of reasons, not least in that it wasn't the original author that put the brain there. What does it matter to people for anyway? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Chime in here. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that HeidelbergKid is too new to understand what brainstars are about, but now I'm left wondering as to whether the brainstar should be left on that essay. --  22:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming essays can have brains - and i'm dubious of that, since only one person can contribute in most cases - the article is worth a bronze. but i'm not a fan of essays having brains.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  No, That's not the same thing.  You just don't get it". 23:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why?
This is not an essay, this is a content fork. If HeidelbergKid does not want to have his writing edited mercilessly, he can go start his own wiki. Why should we host this? -- Nx  / talk 13:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cause right now, it causes no harm. I think that quick reactions are as dangerous as not reacting.  my own view? just revisit in a week or two.  --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   Have you tried turning it off and on again?". 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually try to disagree with Nx, but I think he's 100% right on this. The Kid either needs to inject some sort of an editorial/subjective take on this material and make it into an essay, or live with an article on the subject that is developed in a collaborative fashion. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It fits the definition of essay. Live with it.  23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Essays should be free from requirements, aside from the loosest (no advertising, no threats, etc.) They should always remain a place for any sort of dissent, and instituting ideas about what is an acceptable essay or not is a poor idea.  It costs almost literally nothing to host even the longest essays, unless they get a lot of traffic.  This naturally implies the tactic of ignore it if you don't like it.-- 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no "dissent" and no "ideas" present in this essay--it's just some guy taking his bat and ball and going home because he's pissed that other people didn't like his writing. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that certainly qualifies as dissent, just not the kind supported with reasoning and evidence-- 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dissent ussualy imples they have a reason to dissent besides "i wanna be the king!"--Mikalosa (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Defining what is valid dissent is a very slippery slope. Essays like this cost essentially nothing and don't clutter up mainspace or any useful area.  Maybe we don't have to impose rules and guidelines over this section of the wiki, but can just let it be and ignore the crap we don't care to see.-- 00:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You act like if we dont allow an editor to be stupid and think he deserves his own article were going to slide down into Dictatorship and execution squads. Have you been reading x-men or something lately?--Mikalosa (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Slippery slope" does not necessarily imply autocracy. I just mean that, like any site, we can have a tendency to groupthink.  And we should make sure to avoid that as best we can, especially in instances where it costs us nothing.  Even if HDK's essay is silly and self-indulgent, maybe next week someone forks a page to an essay that is better than the established version.  Neither costs us anything, and the latter might help the wiki.  So if we avoid imposing rules on what are acceptable essays, we might benefit.-- 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You can bitch all you want that theres a slippery slope but in the end a wiki RUNS on a community deciding whats best, and they decided his version was shit. IF somebody makes a better version, good for them,, the good stuff will be merged into the existing article. What this guy is doing is say "FUCK HOW A WIKI WORKS, I WANT CONSERVAPEDIA!"--Mikalosa (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you a part of the crowd complaining about all the new rules, Mikalos?-- 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * New rules?--Mikalosa (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on voting and stuff. It's possible I'm confusing you with somebody else.--  00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only edit ive made about all that is complaining i kept seeing wiki wide notifications--Mikalosa (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So? Fuck him, don't read the essay.  It doesn't hurt anything to be here, and a similar thing like it might do good.  Just go edit another article and forget about this.  It's not going to knock on your door with a bottle of wine and insist on coming inside and showing you slides of its trip to the Bahamas.-- 00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "good might come cause we let shit on the wiki!". I dont see how removing this changes anything existing. Unless your going to argue that if we do we start the execution squads--Mikalosa (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your justification for removing it? That it's a fork made into an essay?  But another fork might be better, so a rule against them is a bad idea.  That it's a bad essay in general?  But if we start removing essays because we think they're subjectively "bad" that shuts down a lot of future legitimate dissent, which should have an out-of-sight outlet not subject to community sanction.  So why exactly do you want to delete it?-- 00:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it isnt an essay, or a fork. its an editor saying "FUCK YOU ALL" because he didnt get the article how HE wanted it. This is userspace, not an essay--Mikalosa (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So what's the principle at work, then? Are you saying that the community can delete or move essays to userspace if they think the essay is motivated by petulance?  Just tell me the rule or principle you're proposing.  Or will you admit it's just a subjective rejection of something we find annoying?-- 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"the community can delete or move essays to userspace if they think the essay is motivated by petulance." Well put. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 00:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We did delete one of colby's... Tytalk 00:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont find this annoying at all. I dont MIND whats in the article, but his REASON for making this "essay" was entirely because he didnt like that other people might have the balls to edit HIS article on eve, dirtying it with what they want in the article. that IS why i dont like it, because he only did it because he wanted total control over the eve article, didnt get it and so set this up. IT simply doesnt deserve to have the name essay, having be be user: x/Y works better and makes more sense.--Mikalosa (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, respectfully. It's a bad idea to require essays to have the right motivation behind them.  I agree that his motivation is childish and silly, but people should be allowed to write essays on whatever they want and from any motivations.
 * Maybe it would help if I explained myself. I have written some essays, including one that spends a lot of time chiding people about how they should be vegetarians in a rather pretentious judgmental way.  It's not hard for me to envision a scenario where people had greeted such essays with anger over my preaching ("We don't need to host this one editor's attempts to convert us all") or because of my perceived motivation, and had deleted my essay or insisted I move it to userspace - and maybe if I was a less-established editor or was generally disliked, or the essay had been more angrily/badly written, that might have been the case.  And because I think what I had to say was important, that possibility troubles me.
 * We don't need to take principled stands on this - "It simply doesn't deserve to have the name essay" is frankly a bit silly. We have some tremendously crappy essays, far worse than this, and ones with downright destructive motivations behind them (like MC's).  This one has the right to exist, just as those ones did.
 * Essays have been and should continue to be places where you can write whatever you want, no matter how unpopular, within certain very broad confines (no threats, etc.) They shouldn't be subject to community sanction or be required to prove their worth or utility.-- 04:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way: if there's a vote going on, why was it moved before the vote was finished?-- 04:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Blue jumped the gun--  04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. I moved it before the vote started and was merely cleaning up after PFoster and WfG. 04:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record....
The reason I made this article is not (in my opinion) childish. I spent much of my time pretty much on my own bringing the article on Eve from a near-stub to a bronze, and was aiming to make it silver. I felt that the article was, in a way, mine, as I was the primary contributor to it. I had plans to "build up" other articles after this, as I thought I was bettering the wiki. I was rating articles based solely upon the official criteria for brainstars, as I thought that was what was supposed to be done. I was heartbroken when I found out that nearly the entire article was deleted and replaced: all my work destroyed with a click, which also violated the manual of style (things must be talked out before any mass deletions are made). After a futile edit war when I was at my most irrational, I decided to make this essay (which meets the definition of the word) so I could have a place where my version of the article could live on. If you don't like it, then please kindly fuck off. Thank you. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I felt that the article was, in a way, mine." Well, there's your problem. It's not yours, it's ours. If you don't like it, then please kindly fuck off. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Major 7 - articles are not 'owned' by their primary contributors, generally speaking. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 02:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence why I fucked off from the mainspace article on Eve. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't normally complain about people's writing, or their style, but you are all over yourself on this. your article as it stood was barely bronze.  It was chaotic.  It had actual errors.  it made assumptions.  It was sorta, kinda, i suppose, cute... but it was not a good article.  I've done the primary work to 40 or 50 stubs.  some are nearly where I started, and others have been turned into something I cannot even recognize.  That's a wiki.  Again, your biggest problem was shouting to the world "look at my article, it's so great it deserves a silver".  Had you left it alone, probably no one would have seen it.   And as for "fucking off", kindly realize you came to this site to play a game with grownups who edit wikis.  for good or bad.  to say we should not have cared that an article on this wiki was a quality article is BS.  to now say that we should not care if essay space is used for ego (and for the record, i've defended your right to have this essay -- i just think the essay is bullshit), is also BS.  the wiki is "ours" who ever that "us" is.   So of course we are, and we aren't going to fuck off.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   Have you tried turning it off and on again?". 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heid, do you actually understand how a Wiki works?--Mikalosa (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A wiki's an online encyclopedia. What's not to understand? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot apparently. A wiki is a collaborative user-editable website.  An encyclopedia is only one possible application.  RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia.  18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what parts are factually wrong. Don't correct them for me, just tell me myself so I can fix them myself. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling a vote.
Do we let a selfish noob who appears to be clueless about how wikis work host his own private articles on the wiki, or do we ask him to work in a collaborative manner on an already-existing article on this exact topic and deep six this non-essay essay?

Let him have his own private articles

 * 1) -- 03:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Get him to edit the wiki in a collaborative manner, deep-six this thing

 * 1) B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Il'Dictator of Jakeopolis II votes. Although if it stays in userspace its also fine,but he needs to learn how to edit a wiki --Mikalosa (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) If you want to fork, don't fork on the same site you're forking from. That defeats the point of forking. Of course this point is only about essays - I couldn't care less about userspace.  04:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) The 'article' in question is pointless. It's a fork of the community article solely because of a personal desire for ownership in which case it doesn't belong on a wiki. As an essay it fails the criteria of being challenging or first person revelatory in relation to the site's mission; the only challenge or dissent is to the plurality of article creation. It's not a question of hosting space or bandwidth of Essays, it's about what we want RW to be and it surely isn't being a dumping ground for drive-by editors to post random vanity projects.  11:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) I don't give a fucking shit what he does with his essay space, but you can be damned sure I'm not going to have it linking to main space. wow, i cussed.  on RW.  Good thing there was a fight brewing.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   Have you tried turning it off and on again?". 02:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not hurting anything and we should have a place for free dissent, even if this particular example is stupid.

 * 1) RW doesn't need a nanny to make things neat and tidy. This doesn't affect mainspace and it would set a bad precedent to delete it/move it because it's disagreeable.-- 03:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, as long as it's in userspace and isn't really affecting anything else (aside from whatlinkshere, but that's unavoidable), I don't care. -- Nx  / talk 06:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) So long as it stays in Userspace I don't care at this point. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 03:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I have no problem with it being an essay. Surely we are big enough not to get too excited and frothing-at-the-mouth about this. What difference does forcing it to userspace make?--BobSpring is sprung! 11:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)