Wikipedia talk:WikiGnome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Description 2 Wik creatures 3 Be a Wikignome! 4 Need WikiGnomes' opinions 5 NOT written by WikiGnomes 6 Why further examples are useful 7 Typo 8 Does this qualify? 9 I'm a WikiSlave 10 wikigoblin? 11 WikiGrunt?

[edit] Description

If you spend all your time on the Wikipedia browsing the recent changes list or jumping to random pages hoping to find something that you can copyedit, you might be a wiki gnome. --Ardonik 09:24, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

If you watchlist disambiguation pages you've worked on, just so you can check every now and then to see if anyone has mistakenly linked to it, you might be a wiki gnome. Catherine\^talk 14:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the exlamation point from spot one, its you might spot one. not you might spot ONE!

People who are disqualified (or perhaps a special case?) are users who make corrections anonymously but also occasionally start flamewars and indulge in wikistalking. Specifically, their aim is not to make the Wikipedia (or general wiki) better, but simply to be right and feed an endless need for self-congradulation and wallow in delusions of superiority. PS I'm not sure what "spot one" refers to, but I believe in the sense of "you MIGHT spot one!" or "YOU might spot one!" could justifiably end with an exclamation point.

[edit] Wik creatures

I wonder the what the description is for an wikipedian who frequently creates full fleged articles form scratch and other "large edits" to wikipedia..? I suppose an simpliar description would be an wikignome who makes Major edits frequently. -Zero^Talk 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A wikipediholic or a wikiholic.- You people don't need further encouragement to indulge in fantasy worlds with cutesy fantasy labels. You need help! Hello. My name is Megaman Zero and I'm a wikiholic! Cuvtixo 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about WikiHobbit or less copyright infringing a WikiHalfling? WikiHalflings "liked to have books filled with things they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions" ^[1]. Unlike WikiFairies or WikiGnomes WikiHalflings do not make small edits, but add new lengthy articles (never stubs) or expand articles on subjects they already know too much about. They probably have a relatively low edit count but still feel they have made a substantive contribution to wikipedia. C mon 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ J.R.R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, (1954), London (George Allen & Unwin Publishers), p.7 (prologue)

WikiDwarves (Specifically WikiGimlis) make short simple of-average-skill posts but disproportionately are extremely proud and boisterous, WikiOrcs like to destroy posts and cause wikipagewars. WikiElves are wikiers who seem excessively feminine. WikiHumans are neutral and the most average of a wikier you can get. WikiDragons are omniposters that offer giant reward wikichests full of barnstars and wikigold if defeated in a wiki post or NPOV war.--Exander 07:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be a Wikignome!

The 6th chapter in the Gospel According to Matthew says that you should be a WikiGnome: do good deeds without clamoring for attention! (Obviously, the word "Wikignome" is not used in the Bible, however.) JaredW! 12:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Quit clamoring for attention. -- Sy / ^(talk) 22:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Steveo2 quit clamoring for attention as Sysy said. Caleb09 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need WikiGnomes' opinions

Since there doesn't appear to be a Wikignome project or any other community center, I'll post this here. WP:NNOT is a proposal to protect articles from being deleted due to being non-notable. The issue has been raised that conserving nn articles places additional workload on wikignomes to maintain articles that aren't very valuable. One opinion is that nn articles are care about less, therefore fewer people spend time edit them. I'd like wikgnomes' opinions on this: would additional nn articles keep you from editing the rest of WP? Please post opinions on Wikipedia talk:Non-notability. --Ephilei 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOT written by WikiGnomes

This article obviously isn't written by WikiGnomes. By definition they are too humble for that. Thus the official wikignome standards are defined by non-wikignomes. Also people with the "This user is a Wiki-Gnome" tags are not true wikignomes by definition. True wikignomes are invisible, untangible, and unknown, just like leprechauns. Leprechauns cannot be defined because a true leprechaun has not come forward with information because in doing so it will no longer be a leprechaun.

Of course I am not a wikignome. Please note my signature and remember my name for this epic post! --Exander 07:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a wikignome, and just edited the article appropiately :-). Dan100 (Talk) 08:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why further examples are useful

I believe the list of further examples (see below), improves this page because:

1. It provides a number of interesting (at least to me), and undoubtably useful to the 'pedia tasks which may be of interest; and some of which, I at least, hadn't heard about before now.
2. The page is not overly long (less than a screenfull on my screen).

I look forward to further discussion on this topic. If I don't receive a response within 1 day of this posting, I will assume there are no further objections, and re-introduce the text. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The text in question:

Further examples of gnome-like work include: adding ISBNs of books that people mention and making an entry for their articles in the List of books by title, tracking down the authorship of "someone once said" quotes, adding links to text already in an article or to useful categories; adding redirects; or adding examples and details to information referenced in the text (for example, adding "such as Silence and Deep River" to the line "Shusaku Endo has written important books").

I think it's a solid addition. Nobody said it had to be/could be comprehensive, and it can always be modified. Maybe a mention of User:Dragons_flight/Category_tracker? -- nae'blis 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added it. I wasn't sure how to phrase the mention of Dragon flight's thing, so I didn't add that (although I find it very useful). Feel free to do so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now reverted Dan100's undiscussed reversion to his cut version, which also screwed up various small fixes (a missing word, an old category, etc.) and reintroduced an image removed due to it probably being a copyright violation. It's simply to respectful to go against two other contributors and revert to a version that'd already been rejected, as Dan's had been. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

I just fixed a typo on the WikiGnome page. Now is that ironic or what ? :-) --Fils du Soleil 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also fitting. The reason I joined after only using Wikipedia for a very short time was that I saw typographical errors on three pages on three pages in a row. One was a comma, where it really did not want to be (like the comma I just put after the word "comma") on the Introduction page. Then I saw a "sentence" that was a less-than-half-finished rewrite, The words seemed to contradict themselves because too much old material had been deleted and not enough new material had been written. I hate it when my fingers don't keep up with my brain. I did not mind being anonymous when I made the first changes but I was not going to hide behind anonymity for the last one.

The good news is that the comma was removed within hours after I saw it. The bad news is that I cannot remember where I saw the other errors. There is a high probability that I cannot find them because they have already been fixed.

JimCubb 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this qualify?

I add alot of templates to newly created articles (be they nonsense, in need of Wikifying, requiring sources etc). I also welcome new users. Does this make me a gnome?--Edchilvers 20:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so. All of those activities, while not directly related to adding encyclopedic content to Wikipedia, are nonetheless crucial to helping everything run smoothly. EVula 05:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a WikiSlave

I was a naive Wikignome once, then for a short period entered some hot debate on some articles' talk pages (no edit wars!) where creative trolls are pushing their POV, in my humble opinion. So I got myself banned by rogue admins, and now I consider myself a WikiSlave: Still a WikiGnome, sort of. Still doing copy edits, for typos, grammar, and punctuation -- but very well aware that my opinion is not being cared for regarding more difficult topics that do need attention. Being reverted for "obvious trolling" even in user talk pages, however civil I behave. Even worse: No reason must be given at all, because "banned editors may not edit". But those minor edits I still contribute are not being reverted. Don't get me wrong: I liked being a Wikignome, but now I realize I don't have a choice, and that's where (admittedly, volunteer) WikiSlavehood begins. It exists, I'm sure of that much. But did it happen to anyone else? 87.78.180.212 13:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, slave seems an odd word to describe voluntary action... Esspecially because, if you wish, you are free to make copies of the controversial articles you consider bad, make your changes, and publish them on a webhost. All that is being forbidden you is to publish your preferred versions on Wikipedia. I believe your claim that we have some biased people controlling articles on various controversial topics; I even believe that you may have been banned illegitimatly - the throughput at this point is so large I'm sure we make a few horrible miscairages of justice every few days, at least - but "slave" still seems a, um, wildly disproportanate term to use. Thanks for your comments. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to be a little provocative - at this point, that shouldn't do any more harm. Maybe WikiBitch comes closer? - Thanks anyway for your remarks, I know (always knew) that there are still many very reasonable people around, but their number and power is limited, and proportionally declining. Since the time when I first stopped by, Wikipedia has grown to a point where the sheer possibility of influencing people instead of honestly and neutrally informing them is heavily attracting jerks who deliberatly abuse policy. Unfortunately for wikipedia and its readers, many of those "creative trolls" are professionals at gaming the system, i.e. shamelessly exploiting policy and guidelines to their ends, and are often well-connected to likeminded admins (cabals do exist). I've seen enough good users getting kicked or annoyed to the point where they give up their faith in this project. - Although I do appreciate how much hard work policy-making is, still I wonder why people in charge don't intervene. Is this the way Jimbo wants it? -- 84.44.170.176 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest they (or anyone else) do? Remember - any troll of even minor skill knows to claim it's their opponents who are the real trolls; and, as you said, Wikipedia now has a big enough audience that professional opinion manipulators are getting involved. I'd like to see your suggestions for alternatives - so would Jimbo, considering his response to the existing forks (Wikinfo, Citizendium). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikigoblin?

id like to add a new category of wikipedians similar to the gnomes, that like gnomes and fairies, are not much interested in creating long pieces of articles or large entire articles or participating in editwars, and like me, are less interested in constructive edits in articles at all, and more interested in observing if all is done correct and neutral, and butting in in the talkpages if its not. those that enter sections in the talkpages such as "is this correct" or "shouldnt this be...", as well as suggesting compromises in talkpage debates or editwars, pointing out if a wikipedians arguement is illogical. probably certain types of gnoming could overlap with this such as replacing a word in an article for a word thats either more accurate or neutral or better to understand, or linking words that may require to be linked and such, perhaps filling in some missing information. maybe it could be called a wikigoblin....

this is the kind of editer that i am, and i wonder if there are more. or is this just considered a form of wikignome?· Lygophile has spoken 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

hmm..come to think of it...what i described may possibly just be a combination of a gnome and...a wikidebater or something. but something like that with a term to go with it may need to be added· Lygophile has spoken 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiGrunt?

I find that the name WikiGnome is appealing. However, I'm not sure if it is the appropriate name to use for someone who does, as it were, the grunt work for others. Do any of the rest of you know anyone who might qualify as a wikigrunt? John Carter 18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)