This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boud.
Committed identity: 13eba3a2f9558e471774b91be5723a4f6f900c28ad54fb1e662daf8c5e4565a83f5e5abd31b7b6dda5f66118373df9a9a6fae55f28f086322fcdd07beb0a35f3 is a SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
The Wikipedia is cool and should be is used and developed in universities and schools everywhere, IMHO. Closed documentation on encyclopedic type knowledge has no moral justification, IMHO. But the Wikipedia should be used with an understanding of what it is, as justified by academic studies of Wikipedia.
Moreover, there are many aspects of research and universities where the ethical principles in practice at Wikipedia should be the norm but are not (yet, as of 2023) the norm; by seeing how they work in the "real-world" case of Wikipedia (the world's biggest and often most reliable encyclopedia), pressure to move up to these standards in research practice and university governance - especially including transparent, rational, structured decision-making (the ideal of "collegial" decision-making and governance) - will continue to increase.
If you need to refer to me in Wikipedia discussions, then he/him/his are appropriate. If you really want to use they/them/their about me, go ahead, since it seems like those pronoun-related words may win the popularity contest against s/he, him/her, his/her.
To the uploader: If possible, do not use this tag; please replace it with one of {{tv-screenshot}}, {{film-screenshot}}, {{musicpromo-screenshot}}, {{game-screenshot}}, {{software-screenshot}}, or {{web-screenshot}}.
useful version of expand section tag? - {{Expand section|but don't go beyond a short [[WP:Summary]] of the main article referenced above|date=whenever 20xx}}
Replace the generic link - rough consensus against, but with acknowledgement that Participants who supported replacing it cited concerns about user privacy, potential systemic bias of Google's search engine, and some alternative websites were suggested.
Battles get huge amounts of Wikipedia attention, while peace actions get much less. This is not Wikipedians' fault alone - killing is "sexy" for the media, while negotiations and the creation of networks and organised groups and healthier human relationships are boring and unprofitable. We need to create more peace process structures, since pedants don't want information on battles to be corrupted by "unencyclopedic" information such as elements of peace processes that inevitably accompany battles since (at least) a century ago: see this removal, for example.
How interested were random en.wikipedia readers in these DYK'd topics? (pre- and post- stats not subtracted; time of day of appearance may affect N. American vs European/African vs South Asian vs East Asian/Australasian likeliness of reading):
EmpowerHer Editathon 2024-03-22 to 2024-04-22[edit]
m:Event:EmpowerHer Editathon 2024 - related articles - unclear if the scope is "women in politics, democracy, elections and governance within AU states" or "women in politics, in democracy, in elections and in governance within AU states" - probably the latter is the intended meaning...
arXiv:1610.08914 (green open access) = doi:10.1145/3038912.3052591 (non-open-access, peer-reviewed): research paper about toxic comments on Wikipedia and an AI trained on human-classification of comments - "Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scale", Ellery Wulczyn, Nithum Thain, Lucas Dixon
On the question of how much compression should be done in the long term, I've only just discovered that en.Wikipedia has a whole set of Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state. Given that almost all of these are opaque meetings with at best press conferences following the meetings, the useful information content is about as much as that of a 'Miss' competition. Famous powerful person A meets powerful person B. Great! and what does that have to do with transparent, rational, informed decision-making representing the interests of citizens of A and B's countries? If I were dictator of en.Wikipedia, I would probably delete the whole set. Boud (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikidot got deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikidot - see especially archiveteam's overview of Wikidot and a link there to a plan to sell Wikidot, which could lead to notability if the price were high enough and it hit the mainstream press. I don't understand how a wiki community, of apparently a million users, could fail to get the attention of at least the internet/software geeky press.
The world is round[2]: and orbits another world[3]: 3, 14, 15 , yet some[4] claim that it's flat. Mikołaja also says it's roundish with a reference duplicating biblio info contained in the refs= list.[3] and don't forget a subpage list of references.[5] Maybe also see ref.[6]
^"Diameter". 2011-03. Archived from the original on 2011-04-02. Retrieved 2011-04-02. {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)Cite error: The named reference "Eratosthenes" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ abthis.version.is.ignored if it comes second, i guess, and does not override the first. Cite error: The named reference "Copernicus" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^"Circular argument". 2011-03. Archived from the original on 2011-04-02. Retrieved 2011-04-02. {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)Cite error: The named reference "WMAP" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^The World of Subpages. Mod U. Larity Cite error: The named reference "from the subpage" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^"Rev". 2011-03. Archived from the original on 2011-04-02. Retrieved 2011-04-02. {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
Whether or not bots or parsers should ignore <!-- ... --> or rather {{void| ... }} comments seems to be disputed between different people. TODO: See this discussion and find the (early 2021?) bot owner discussions about this, and get the different people to chat directly and decide what's best.
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks for creating the new article Lawyers for Liberty and helping to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human-rights related organizations. Your work is appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions in improving the neutrality and quality of the Ilham Aliyev article! AntonSamuel (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
According to another volunteer, I have recently beenscrupulously pretending [my]self to be "neutral" in Wikipedia editing. Sounds like a compliment to me. Boud (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I've seen you around WP:CP with a lot of helpful comments and listings. Thank you for your work there! Sennecaster (Chat) 13:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
If you're curious enough to have scrolled down this far and want to see a popular-level, possibly frequently updated account of original research that I've been involved in or find interesting, and other things of interest, then feel free to check out my blog. It's CC-BY, so in terms of copyright, material could be used in the Wikipedia, but for Wikipedia purposes, better would be to go to the research-level material that some of it points to. Just as other Wikipedians whose real-life role is in the search for knowledge tend to do, I'm trying to keep these roles separate.
