Debate:Property rights in WIGOs

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by ListenerX.

Question

The other day, I made an edit to a WIGO. Shortly thereafter, much to my surprise, this action resulted in an obscene image being placed on my talk-page. Now, seeing as I have set off a block war over roughly the same question, this matter had better be settled.

At issue: Are WIGO entries, or parts of WIGO entries, to be regarded as the "property" of the person who wrote them in a similar manner to pages in user or essay space? I have always considered WIGOs to be collaborative efforts, free to be edited at will, but Ace McWicked provides reasons why this might be poor policy.

Comments? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened was.....

I was pissed off because not only did ListenerX change it within seconds of me posting it he merely changed my wording to what he thought was better. I hadn't missed any insight nor was there any misinterpretation. LX just didn't like it. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed the idea that Terry Koeckritz was challenging Mr. Schlafly's authority on the Wiki. I happened to remove the gratuitous insult at the same time I added that, which I probably would not have done had I known you would get so wound up about it. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr, no, I didn't miss the point. TK was asserting he was in charge. As I posted. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That could be read as TK throwing out one of his usual lines about having absolute authority over a mere peon editor; that was what I thought when I first read it. But in any event I am not proposing misinterpretation, insight-missing, etc., as criteria for allowing editing of WIGOs that is otherwise disallowed. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Listen buddy, do whatever the fuck you want (which includes posting four five shit wigo's on a row). I don't want this debate but my points, as linked by you above, stand. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you been drinking again?!? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one who is worked up about this. I brought the talk here to settle a question you raised. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As above, dickhead. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the issue with a bit of clarification, Ace? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 06:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In actuality I speak to Andy at least weekly, and communicate with him several times a day. No one was challenging him, and in spite of what people here like to make up or think, that has never happened. As much as it pains me, I have to go with Ace on this one though...given the gratuitous spin WIGO's are, they shouldn't be the "property" of any one person. After all this is supposed to be a collaborative community, right? Although I rarely agree with anything "Ace" everyone here should be glad he is willing to jump in, unprompted, and try to improve things. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Try to read a debate before jumping into it, please; you would have seen that Ace is the one promoting WIGO ownership. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I did. I go with his being willing to jump in and make things better, is all. You missed the whole point of my post, which wasn't a challenge to Schlafly, but just the stating of a truism, given Andy's time constraints. It is really odd you think anyone could challenge him, as he owns the site. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are completely fucking wrong Listener, I am not promoting WIGO ownership, I am merely gobsmacked at your presumption to rewrite someones take on a bit of CP madness because you don't like it. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, put another way, "I am not promoting WIGO ownership, but stay off my WIGOs!" Very consistent. Also, note that I had a reason for making at least some of the alterations; it was not altogether capricious. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first statement in this edit comment and take it as a concession. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I concede nothing to you LX and stand by all my statements. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you maintain that I had no business editing "your" WIGO substantially without your permission, no matter what the content of the edit? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night LX. I had enough of your bullshit. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Because if your issue was solely with the content of the edit, I have no desire to press any further dispute on that score. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It was boring and you took away someone elses laughs - be it mine or anyones. But whatever LX. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that, so long as your WIGO is legible and there are no other issues with it (i.e: Capturebot programing for it, spelling), then the WIGO should be left alone, and any touch-ups of it should be brought up on the writer's talkpage. This, of course, would exclude updates to the WIGO. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not draw the line quite so tightly; I know that many WIGOs I wrote have been improved either by correcting a misinterpretation I made or by adding an insight that I had not thought of. I have done the same thing to other WIGOs with little controversy to speak of. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I don't really participate in writing WIGOs very much, so my input should be treated with minimal weight. Especially now that I read Human's opinion on your talkpage, and it he makes a good case against "owning WIGOs." Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If everyone just wrote flawlessly worded WIGOs we wouldn't need this debate! Keegscee (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty tough to screw up a wiki (especially this one). The whole point of a wiki is the added insight of others who may not see things in the same light. If one thinks they have a better/funnier/moar vandalism insight, they should, by all means, add it as they see fit. I doubt anyone here would maliciously fuck up a legitimate WIGO. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's cool to modify WIGOs. I suppose some people may feel attached to a WIGO because it's a way of breaking news from the other place. I wouldn't bother modifying one unless it was a necessary correction, or an update to increase the lulz. --^{Ask me about your mother} 10:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with amending WIGOs if it makes 'em better. IMHO Listener's edit didn't. Ace should have reverted, probably with a caustic edit comment. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 11:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Toast. Sometimes somebody writes a wigo in a very matter-of-fact way, & somebody else works it into something much wittier, or somebody posts something rambling & incoherent, & somebody else cuts it down to something much snappier, or occasionally something is slanderous or in very bad taste, & it gets written out. All of this is fine. When it's just bowdlerising it to remove an expletive, as in this case, it's unnecessary & a little irritating. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) I agree with Toast also; my only issue is with Ace attempting to justify his revert by saying that it was "his" WIGO rather than citing any demerits of the edit being reverted, as the manner generally is.

(2) I removed an entire insult, not merely the profanity it contained. I also introduced a clarification, as discussed above. I would have stuck to fixing the grammatical error had I known the other changes would create this sort of firestorm. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Sterile neck 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Turdblossom
This is one of many discussions that has descended into petty sniping and trolling idiocy on RationalWiki.
Here are the others, in case you are curious, bored, or enjoy pain:
- Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009 -- Community Standards/Revamp draft -- Requests for comment/HeartOfGold -- Community Standards/disruption -- HeartOfGold Sysop vote -- Site politics -- User:Copyvio's campaign to stop copyvio -- Serious Business -- Epic debate -- Cat fight -- Constitutional Convention, April 2008 -- Barroom brawls -- Voting Procedure -- Inactivity -- Nuclear Option -- Privacy clusterfuck -- The Rationalwiki Reform Society -- Community Standards/TK -- Drama dump -- The case of MarcusCicero -- Voting standards -- User rights and moderation revisited -- Make TK a sysop? -- Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union -- The mobocracy -- Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees -- Is RationalWiki under the control of Feminist activists? -- Chicken coop/Archive37 -- Chicken coop -