Talk:The Wrong Version
This whole article, indeed even the concept of the "wrong version" itself is entirely a matter of the author's opinion, and does not belong on Wikipedia at all.
It is not a sign of the "right" or "wrong" version of an article, but CENSORSHIP to stifle one opinion at the request of another. Excuse the language, but this particular aricle is the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen in a so-called fact-based Encyclopedia. Dump it, for your own integrity.
- Can I just point out that this article is not in the encyclopedia? Look at the URL, this is meta.wikimedia.org; I believe the encyclopedia is constrained to the default namespace of *.wikipedia.org. As the domain name implies, this is meta data, not encyclopedic content. Oh, and for the record, this is this biggest pile of shit I've ever seen in an encyclopedia. Bmearns 15:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think you missed the ever-so-subtle point of this article - that no matter which version of a page a sysop protects, someone is going to complain that its the wrong version. Raul654 21:02, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The alternative point of view is that a page is always protected on the right version as the version doesn't matter. It's locked to cause discussion or cause those involved to seek outside assistance from the community to resolve the disagreement. So do those things. Not with the sysop who locked it. :)
Can we just assign numbers to these so that people can save time and typing by just specifying, say, "you protected the wrong version, reason six?" It would be so much easier.
- Sounds like a good idea. -- Tim Starling 08:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- No! Even better: use templates!!! :) - Fennec 11:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This whole article cracks my ass up. --Evan 17:39, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That comment is so excessively POV, it should be deleted and the page frozen --14:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
This article ist so wright that it can't be wrong! --Katharina 16:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) (extremely radical feminist in every case)
Funny and everything, but... 
This is funny and everything, but implicit in all the joking is the notion that admins don't abuse their powers, don't make prejudicial protections, and shouldn't be criticized or even questioned for them. But in fact such does occur. Furthermore, I don't think one should dismiss so quickly concerns about pages being protected on vandalized versions. So, ha ha ha, but a real issue is being swept under the rug. VeryVerily 23:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Spoken like a true edit warrior. Bravo! 188.8.131.52 05:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not only swept under the rug, but by a evil/biased conspiracy/cabal/younameit. Please elaborate this further, VeryVerily, as you seem to be an expert in conflict resolution. 184.108.40.206
- I disagree that this sweeps the issue under the rug. I read the page and the points I took away from it were (a) don't be annoying when you have a legitimate concern (it won't help you win favor, anyway), and (b) just think twice and be as objective as possible before making such a claim.
- Indeed, some sysops could potentially be biased, and others may just plain make mistakes. But I think the whole point of this page was that everybody tends to feel that they've been cheated (hence the statement that no sysop ever locks The Correct Version), and that's obviously not the case. It's easy to just go with this feeling, but it's a Good Thing to take a minute and think rationally about it before you make that claim. Then if you still believe the sysop did the wrong thing, you can discuss it rationally and appropriately with the community, instead of just burning up the sysop's talk page with angry criticism and incindiary accusations. Reaching a community consensus over what the correct thing to do should have been is another Good Thing, and a good place to start. If the community at large seems to agree with you, then you can start thinking about whether the sysop was actually absuing his or her power, or if they just made a mistake. From there, you can take the appropriate actions to deal the problem (if any) rationally. Note that that has been the key word through out, "rational".
- Perhaps to avoid any confuscion and further scandal, there should be seperate "non-humurous" page dedicated to the proper way to handle these situations, to which this page can link?
- Bmearns 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the laffs! I can think of several people I know (from usenet debates) who could benefit from reading this article.
But then, it's always these kind of offenders who never realise when you are making fun of them anyway... 220.127.116.11 15:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bugger! I haven't got an account at Meta. Is there any way to link to my userpage at Wikipedia rather than make new Userpages at every wiki I go to? I am, in fact, User:PaulHammond 18.104.22.168 15:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not an editor, but a translator, and I have only been witness of one edit war.
They are stupid and draining, but I think that as frustrated as one can get, there is no excuse for using sarcasm to make a point. It's immature, non-professional and definitely not getting the message through. I am one of Wikipedia's biggest fans, and this article just... dissapoints me. --Arca 21:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
this humor is in poor taste. 
The admins should be careful to avoid developing a dismissive dehumanizing attitude and culture towards the community. Before you know it, you may be calling offenders "slimeballs" like the cops do. Yes, there is a lot of truth behind the humor on this page, but there are also a minority of admins that collude with or support "friends" or their POV when they protect a page. This type of humor is likely to increase their sense of entitlement. -- Silverback
- I absolutely agree. This page is clearly the work of The Cabal. It's obvious that the whole point of this page is to belittle and shame people into keeping their comments and totally justified concerns to themselves so that they can continue to reign unimposed and unencumbered. =J. Bmearns 15:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Truly very very funny. Such clever humor. Really. So clever and original and fresh! 22.214.171.124 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is excactly what it is made for. To make fun of people and to belittle them. People on the encyclopedia are actually refering to this article for that purpose. It should be removed ASAP. 126.96.36.199 13:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Truly very very funny. Such clever humor. Really. So clever and original and fresh! 188.8.131.52 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
VfD the wrong version 
the wrong version should be deleted. Whenever it is cited it is invariably an insult and personal attack by the person citing it. It promotes a culture of mocking entitlement and hubris among the admins, which is increased even more by Jimbo's apparent approval of it. It is in poor taste. the wrong version is an insult to us all that take wikipedia seriously, and try to work within both the spirit and letter of its rules. We all know cases of admins violating and abusing the application of protection, and this article's mocking tone contributes to that attitude. I vote that it be deleted, and good riddance. --Silverback 09:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sad that you fail to see it as humour (satire, specifically). Nevertheless, its status as such remains.
- James F. (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you see this as humor, but there are other people citing this article to insult people, make fun of them and belittle them. I agree with removal. 184.108.40.206 13:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Umm... This is not Uncyclopedia. 
I say it should be deleted. This sort of content does not belong on here; it's already being linked to on help pages. It needs a really drastic change for it to be usable.
- The point of meta is for inter-project communication, especially with regard to social issues that can arise from how a community works on a wiki. This is exactly what this article is. Meta exists for this sort of article. Of course it's being linked to. That's its purpose.
- James F. (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Um, excuse me, please ensure this article isn't deleted from meta-wiki. Instead, if it has to go, have it moved to Uncyclopedia. :) --Nerd42 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Abso-bloody-lutely lollable, fun to read. --en:User:WikiSlasher October 17, 2006 12:17 (UTC)
This page starts out sounding legitimate, but by the time you get 2/3rds of the way through, it's quite obvious it is satire. I have no objections to keeping it, but the intro should hint more at the satire or even flat out claim so. However, like VeryVerily said, a real issue *is* being swept under the rug. If you don't want to acknowledge it on this page, then by all means create another, but the issue remains and it needs dealt with. Signed, the1physicist from the english 'pedia.
- Really? It souds legitimate to say, as the second sentence:
- There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the "right" version.
- ... to you? Wow. What about:
- Some legal threats or lawyer letters are sometimes advisable; FBI, European Court of Justice or Sacra Rota might also find your complaint really interesting.
- ..., hmm? My advice is that your irony-meter is evidently set to the wrong scale. Perhaps you need to change the dial from "American" down past "Germany" to "British"? ;-)
- James F. (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh ... why is this article at MediaWiki? 
This looks like something imported from WikiPedia. Shouldn't wikimedia help articles stay out of WikiPedia policy issues? --Ikester 08:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- As another user once said, MediaWiki was built for this kind of humour. -220.127.116.11 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I LOVE this page. 
Thank you : )
THEPROMENADER 16:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha, only serious... 
I wonder if alot of the commentors on this page have ever heard this expression. I certainly don't intend to belittle Wikpedia (I love this project, 5/6ths-heartedly) but let's face facts, we're all sitting here spending countless hours in front of a CRT or LCD editing a virtual encyclopedia with entries like Everyone Poops and Doorknob (the latter of which I can take shameless credit for). How seriously can we really take ourselves? Certainly there's some amount of seriousness required for a task like this, it is a legitimate and worthwhile endevour that lots of people have worked tirelessly on improving. But if we loose our sense of humour along the way, we're no better than World Book. Certainly some people have brought up legitimate issues that need to be taken "seriously", but other's seem down right offended by this page, and I think that's a Bad Thing.
Bmearns 15:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
label or not 
Should we really trust the general public to understand humor? Label or not, comments? 18.104.22.168 06:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is labeled, see the little Category:Humour at the bottom? --(en:User:tjstrf) 22.214.171.124 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It`s fine that it`s in the category of humor, but it`s not seen until the bottom and might not be seen at all by the casual user. Wikipedia has a template to make this clear.See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Perhaps a simler template could be used here?(of course, with the referance to wikipedia changed)--126.96.36.199 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Not true 
In fact I know two cases where a sysop protected The Right Version after an edit war. In both cases it was the same sysop though... And this was not in the English Wiki.--188.8.131.52 21:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone directed me to this page. Please help me get to "You are right and probably a very reasonable and logical person". --184.108.40.206 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What the Hell? 
This is fantastic, much better than the uncyclopedia
I've reverted this series of edits made by an anon to make the article "npov" and remove "nonsence" [sic], by removing sections of it and placing an POV-warning template in Russian.
These seem to somewhat miss the point of this article, hence my reversion, but I'm happy to de-revert if people think that they made a positive contribution to the article.
- The template is being used on wikipedia as the regular POV-warning (in English), i dont know why it is in Russian here. The article is full of pov statements 220.127.116.11 13:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This article should be removed because it is being used to make fun of people on the wikipedia encyclopedia. 18.104.22.168 13:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- is that wrong? 22.214.171.124 14:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This is being misinterpreted by some admins on en.wiki to mean that they are permitted to explicitly choose (by reversion) what version should be protected - it apparently only means that accusations of having done so when it has not in fact happened are often made frivolously, but not that admins are _actually_ permitted to pick and choose what version to protect. I think this should be changed to be made more clear. --Random832 01:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Wrong Version Tag Needed Urgently!!! 
I have just red this article and teh Rouge Admin won. i see a desparate need for a new Tag Template:Wrong Version - can someboy please create it? Or should I just follow teh Basic advice in the Article and bass my approach on that? An article I have sinsesrly contribbed to has just been tagged as being Put to Moderation and I just knkow I will need this tag very soon! Please reply immediately, as I am logged in on my Balckkberry and my prepaid phone credit is about to run out!
Foolestroupe 09:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I heart this essay 
After dealing with a series of issues, disputes, and wikidramas, and plain old work, coming to this page was like an ice-cold drink on a muggy, sun-baked summer afternoon. Not that I haven't read it before, but it reminded me again of why we are here, and how all of this to-ing and fro-ing is an entirely necessary part of the process. If I could, I'd form a mob to carry this document's authors around on our shoulders, shouting huzzahs. And if you are reading the talk here in preparation to arguing that this should be turned into something serious and dreary, proceed no further. I demand that you stop immediately, go to your nearest tavern, and have three neat shots of quality tequila. You will thank me for it later. Wiliam Pietri 23:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto! Thanks for bringing a smile to my day!--126.96.36.199 17:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Who actually laughed at this? 
Honestly, I didn't even smile. But maybe I'm not trying hard enough.
Proposal for 'may not reflect consensus' hatnote 
I propose that when an admin protects a page undergoing edit war, a hatnote (template) be added to say something like: "This page has been temporarily locked to prevent editing, due to a high frequency of recent edits. This version may not represent consensus among editors about the content, and there is probably at least one editor who feels that this is The Wrong Version. For a history of recent edits or more information about the alternative viewpoints regarding the content of this article, see its Talk page."
The wikilinks should be updated as appropriate, this is just a content prototype for the basic message. This could save some folks (e. g. the admins who protect pages) a lot of grief and help the public identify pages that are under current hot debate, so they rely less on those (which are likely to be lower quality, for reasons discussed in this article). Also please forgive me if this already exists.
WBTtheFROG 16:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
speaking of sarcasm... 
This article will most absolutely definitely encourage editors upset with the protected version to think twice and come to their senses. I'm sure it'll work in an unknown way in the end because this page is too humorous to fail. There is not a chance that some editor will refer to this page and accidentally cause a protected version's opposition to view the case in even greater discontent, so there's nothing to worry about. 188.8.131.52 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- You assume that our editors are idiots. I'd hope that that's not true (certainly, I've met lots of them, and they aren't). I'd also hope that they wouldn't deliberately mis-use a core point that we've had here since 2004. Maybe we should Assume Good Faith?
- James F. (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring 
This page has been stable for years with the existing capitalization. Nobody except one unregistered editor seems to support changing it from the long-standing The Wrong Version to the wimpier the Wrong Version. Capitalizing the article is a stylistic technique with a long history both on wiki and in the real world. The capitalization conveys meaning: We disdain people who know The Truth, for example, but not those who know the truth. WhatamIdoing 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. The page should stay as it was written unless and until you can prove that someone in addition to you thinks that it's a good idea. WhatamIdoing 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)