- Strike ballot
The following editors are going to strike: each day these ads appear, they will make no edits (excepting discussion of the strike and related issues). The strike requires 50 editors supporting to go into effect.
-
Rd232
talk 11:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
SKATER
Speak. 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It's time we, as the lifeblood of this project, stand up and let the Foundation hear our voices. We volunteer countless hours to help make something monumental, and then our opinions are marginalized by those who are too far removed from the true essense of Wikipedia: it's contributors.
Angryapathy (
talk) 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Editors opposed to a strike
-
The Wordsmith
Communicate 16:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- because?
Rd232
talk 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment on Talk page.
The Wordsmith
Communicate 16:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Stupid idea, disruptive and clearly not going to be taken up my any significant (or even noticeable) proportion of the community. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
consulate─╢ 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You said at
WP:VPR "Remove the banner – it's rubbish.". Many agree with you. Do you have a better idea for getting the Foundation's attention?
Rd232
talk 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I know what I said, I said it. I don't think that this proposal is suitable, or likely. Sorry. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
presiding officer─╢ 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- This is beyond absurd.
Protonk (
talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Look, I know that these banners are silly and all, but a bunch of editors going on strike can, frankly, be just as disruptive...
Until It Sleeps
Happy
Thanksgiving 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- 50 editors supporting is enough? That's like 1% of all active editors, you'd probably need at least 500 for it to be noticeable. By the time you get that many people, the drive will be half over. Coming from an
area where selfish labor unions have helped destroyed the economy, I've found that striking generally does little good for the strikers, the organization, and the general public (as well as occasionally
failing miserably).
Mr.
Z-man 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It's not intended to bring Wikipedia to a standstill, Z-man, it's intended to get the Foundation's attention. And unions didn't destroy Detroit... but that's off-topic.
Rd232
talk 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- And 50 people won't do that anymore than the big list of complaints that people already generated. If you include all of the non-English Wikipedia projects, 50 editors going on "strike" for a week or so will be little more than a minor blip. (I didn't say they did it singlehandedly, but they were a major factor)
Mr.
Z-man 00:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The campaign is lame, but this will probably just mean the Wikimedia Foundation get to roll in less cash than they'd hoped, and they might not spend $$$ on hiring PR firms to produce lame ads in future. I'm sure there will be plenty of infighting and arguments in the WMF without us needing to lift a finger, and it'd be best just to ignore the whole thing and get on with editing.
Fences&
Windows 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- This is like protesting your favorite sports team by sitting at home watching a soap opera wearing that team's official merchandise. -
Jeremy (
v^_^v
Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 00:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- This would be the lamest strike in the
history of strikes. What we need is a
work-in. That'll learn em.
MickMacNee (
talk) 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Administrators (and particularly bureucrats) orchestrate a mass page-move-vandalism spree. This is about as realistic as the "strike" proposal. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Really? Not editing is on a par with mass vandalism? That's so unfair it's borderline rude.
Rd232
talk 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Actually it was
reductio ad absurdum. If you read what I very carefully wrote, I did not say "not editing is on a par with mass vandalism." You can read what I said above, by reading what I said, above, but the gist of it was, that the concept of getting together an effective strike that achieves its aims is equally realistic to organising a mass vandalism spree. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
draftsman─╢ 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- If you can link to the argument, you should understand you didn't employ it. In any case, admin/bureaucrat-endorsed mass vandalism is clearly not as likely to happen as a temporary withdrawal from editing. One is a destructive violation of policy which will result in immediate desysopping/etc, the other is an exercise of a right we all have - to temporarily desist from editing.
Rd232
talk 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- If the likes of
Zoe, and
RickK can leave because they feel so strong about a cause, others can too.--
SKATER
Speak. 19:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It should be noted that subsequent evidence has determined that RickK and Zoe were the same person.
MBisanz
talk 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Really? The most I've seen is both accounts were compromised, but nothing absolutely damning.--
SKATER
Speak. 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Mmmm, yeah, they were the same.
MBisanz
talk 02:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Huh, so was the puppet master a banned user like the whole
User:Archtransit saga?--
SKATER
Speak. 02:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- No, just one person, two sequential accounts, no saga.
MBisanz
talk 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
|