Ian, is WP:BITE specifically considered to be NOT-policy at wiktionary?

Jump to: navigation, search

I have received some surprisingly harsh criticism for such offenses as writing an excessively lengthly defense against an rfd, removing what seemed to be a routine mispelling error (at this point moot whether or not it was) and providing definitions that some thought were too fussy. No mention anywhere of correcting the black hole of missing theological terms, which I think may be something I could contribute; it seems that the web attracts a higher proportion of white hat hackers and cyberpunks who are not necessarily up on the traditional religious cultures. Or, for whatever reason; the point being that I would have thought that there would be a more positive reception for those contributions and a somewhat toned down picking of nits. I don't mind being relentless flamed when I am pushing a point - such as the entry of TULIP, and its derivatives. And I don't mind being on the losing side of controversy such as the rejection of Game (the rapper),despite the fact that they are letting in a lot of entries that are probably less defensible. But some of the remarks seem to take the view that it is some kind of crime to have a different perspective, and frankly there seems to be a very strong bias toward UK and Commonwealth English. Be that as it may, the subject upon which I seek your advice is whether in fact WP:BITE is specifically rejected as either guideline or policy. I think I am obligated to find this out, aside from any benefit which may devolve to me from understanding the answer. Please advise. Geof Bard 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Geof Bard01:54, 17 February 2011

Not sure who this person is, but since he's referring to me as critic: (i) he has repeatedly refused to read our basic policies, preferring to rely on long-winded bombast and speeches, (ii) he has made various ill-advised edits on the grounds of being an expert (including some kind of promise or signature in the edit summary, which is obviously not provable or enforceable), and (iii) he is talking here about Wikipedia policies, which do not apply to Wiktionary. Cheers, Equinox 01:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Equinox 01:57, 17 February 2011
Edited by author.
Last edit: 22:04, 26 February 2011

Concerning BITE, I think that we've developed a culture that is less tolerant than Wikipedia of the newbies. This is because we have fewer prolific editors than them, so we need to spend less time fixing other people's mistakes and we're less patient. And this is not just my opinion by the way; it's been discussed before, e.g. on Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/January#Pulling our act together. In reply to your previous question about Jeff (SemperBlotto), User talk:SemperBlotto#Please do not bite the newcomers pretty much explains it all.

Internoob (DiscCont)00:33, 18 February 2011

Thanks, yeah that about sums it up. Well I looked over dozens of edits and Jeff only reverted a couple, so I guess my case was kind of the opposite of the normal new user situation with regard to the definitions. And everybody has been very cool and helpful regarding format issues. I freely admit that I screwed up on respell, which was partly my own arrogant sense of style for which I have always just detested that word and partly my inept clicking the wrong link and missing the voluminous google list of uses of the word. It is a very contentious environment but as far as I am concerned language is sacred. I hope that Equinox revives his account, the guy is brilliant and he has a lot to offer. I think it might be OK to work up a somewhat softer reception for new contributors but the important thing is that Wiktionary does not become responsible for degradation of language, most particularly English and Sanskrit. Again, Equinox could be a major contributor to that, his vast knowledge,skills and abilities are far too important to not undelete and resume. I publicly apologize for antagonizing him by so stupidly overlooking the obvious on the respell matter and if it will bring him back on board I am more than happy to leave Wiktionary for an agreed term. However, I will not concur that he has any right to post that I allegedly "refuse to read" something or other as he has no way of knowing what I have and have not read, nor did I ever post any statement of refusal. It must be annoying to have a newbie whose sin is not the prevailing general ineptitude with language, but rather a poet's sense for it. But for a crew that has some excellent language [chops], it should mitigate any sense of annoyance you folks may have over things to know that I acknowledge that this is a space where everyone else is pretty much as smart or smarter than myself regarding our Sacred Mother Tongue. I hope that other dude - I suppose you call him that "chap" - comes back sooner rather than later, and accepts my apology, despite my reservation. It doesn't make it not an apology, it is just that I can't acknowledge that anyone else has ESP or remote vision and I do speak for myself on what I have and have not read. So if that assertion nullifies the apology, or delays its effect, or if perhaps I am just the lastest straw in a big haystack of setbacks at wiktionary, I honestly don't know what I will do. It is easy enough to see how one could become addicted to wiktionary; perhaps for some it is more productive to step back and write haiku on the beach...I don't know at this point whether that is the more enviable option. In any case, Jeff K. should get a prize for what he's been able to accomplish here, but I hope it doesn't get messed up with imprecise definitions which then propagate like, well, prions...

Geof in a Lao Tsu mood04:56, 18 February 2011