Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 45 Next >>
Topic: Wikipedia (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
David Uzumeri
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2005
Posts: 23
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:23pm | IP Logged | 1  

Dave, they DO ban trolls from Wikipedia. Someone has to report the trolls first, though. And every single edit that the troll made is recorded, and can be reverted within seconds, even before the ban takes effect .

For each addition to an article, Wikipedia records WHO MADE IT, and WHAT THE ARTICLE WAS LIKE PREVIOUSLY.

If everything "JesseBaker" does is vandalism, he'll be blocked from editing.
 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31170
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:23pm | IP Logged | 2  

Will do.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:24pm | IP Logged | 3  

The stuff that Jesse Barker is trying to include:

"A controversial writer/artist known for his use of the "N-Word" and hatred for blonde latino women, Christopher Reeves (who Byrne believes should not be considered a "hero" for the way he dealt with his crippling injuries substained in a horse riding accident) and anatomically correct robots, Byrne is imfamous for his hatred for anything not done by him. Many fans blame his widely beloved Superman reboot for starting this, as John Byrne took on a jihad in the wake of the reboot's success to "fix" all comic books and comic franchises that didn't need fixing, leaving a trail of damaged characters, who thanks to Byrne's pointless meddling, have been rendered so utterly defiled so as to prevent any further writers from using them."


How the heck does Wikipedia expect us to "work" with this guy, and others like this? How can we even find common ground with this? And Wiki does not ban these guys, they are just content to let them and us trash it out. I think this will ultimately not be a thing for "contributors" to decide, but for the courts to settle.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:27pm | IP Logged | 4  

One has to understand Wiki has their own definitions of "editing" and "vandalism". The commonly accepted idea of editing includes the deletion of information. Wiki tends to see this as "vandalism". If someone writes "SHIT" on their article, to delete it would be considered vandalism. If you replaced it with "FECES", that would be considered "editing". 

Edited by Joe Zhang on 15 September 2005 at 1:29pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31170
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:30pm | IP Logged | 5  

Still not seeing any changes, James.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Gamaliel Snapdragon
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 September 2005
Posts: 11
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:32pm | IP Logged | 6  

The Jesse Baker problem is easily solved.  His contributions are easily reverted.  If he reverts the removal of this material more than three times in 24 hours he can be immediately hit with a temporary block by any administrator.  If he keeps up general trollish behavior, I can block him permanently, though I must show that I attempted to reason with him for a reasonable amount of time before I do something like this. The system is not perfect, but in general Wikipedians believe that we can put up with a little fuss to preserve the open nature of the project. Personally, I'd prefer a little less talk and a little more troll smiting, but I have to work with the system we've got.

Back to Top profile | search
 
David Uzumeri
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2005
Posts: 23
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:33pm | IP Logged | 7  

No, it's that if you delete the WHOLE PARAGRAPH just because someone added "SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT" to the end of it, that's vandalism.

Cleaning up the lies, that's one thing - and yes, there were a lot of hateful lies in there. But the whole point is to pick out the stuff worth keeping, and only delete the rest.

What's wrong with this, for instance?

"John Byrne was born on July 6, 1950 near West Bromwich, England. His first exposure to the American superheroes that would dominate his professional life was at the age of six when he first watched The Adventures of Superman on the BBC. In Britain, he was able to read domestic comics such as The Eagle, as well as the occasional DC Comics reprint, but it was not until 1958 when his family migrated to Canada that he first experienced the full breadth of America comic books [1].

His first encounter with Marvel Comics was in 1962 with Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four #5. He later commented that, "the book had an 'edge' like nothing DC was putting out at the time." [2] Jack Kirby's work in particular had a strong influence on Byrne and he has since chronicled many of the characters Kirby created. This included a stint on the Fantastic Four that is considered by some to be second only to Lee and Kirby's run. Besides Kirby's influence, Byrne has also stated that his early artwork was heavily informed by the realistic style of Neal Adams.

In 1970 Byrne enrolled at the Alberta College of Art and Design in Calgary, but he left shortly before graduation to pursue a career in the comic book industry. At college he produced his first full-length comic story, The Death's Head Knight, as a promotional portfolio of his comic book art. That book was seen by a fellow Canadian comics fan, who put Byrne in contact with both the then burgeoning fanzine community, and Marvel Comics."

Back to Top profile | search
 
James C. Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4705
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:33pm | IP Logged | 8  

Brian, check the history section and see if any of my edits appear. If two don't appear, then you're viewing cache.

Gamaliel to his credit has warned "JesseBaker." I would prefer a bio and credits listing for JB, as to a casual observer, what else would truly matter?
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Dave Pruitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6162
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:39pm | IP Logged | 9  

Absolutely. This rumor stuff, how/why JB ever left a book, stuff about what's been said on this forum, who cares about that outside the usual message boards? Maybe wikipedia is a good thing, but this taints it horribly.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31170
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:42pm | IP Logged | 10  

They do, James. Is there a certain time period before edits appear in or as the main listing? When I pulled up the main entry on him, it still had the not-so-nice stuff about him on it.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jacob P Secrest
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4068
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:44pm | IP Logged | 11  

The entire page has been deleted, everything except the bibliography,
honestly, I think there could of been a better solution than that.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Roger A Ott II
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5371
Posted: 15 September 2005 at 1:45pm | IP Logged | 12  

Gamaliel Snapdragon: The system is not perfect, but in general Wikipedians believe that we can put up with a little fuss to preserve the open nature of the project.

It's this rule that makes me want to have no part in it, though.  I honestly think you personally are at least trying to rectify the problem at hand, but letting something like this stand for as long as it has just sours me to the entire concept.

Open nature is one thing, but allowing an obvious hatred-fueled lie to even become part of an article in the first place just tells me the concept has a huge flaw.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 

<< Prev Page of 45 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login