 | Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify him! |
| — Wikipedian ♂ — | |
| Name | Benjamin Ikuta |
|---|---|
| Born | January 9, 1997 |
| Nationality | American |
| Country |  United States |
| Current location | Riverside, California |
| Languages | english |
| Time zone | Pacific Time Zone |
| Ethnicity | Japanese American |
| Race | French, German, Japanese |
| Height | 5'10" |
| Weight | 140 lbs |
| Hair | dark brown |
| Eyes | brown |
| Handedness | right |
| Sexuality | straight |
| Family and friends | |
| Marital status | single |
| Education and employment | |
| High school | Canyon High School (Santa Clarita, California) |
| University | University of California, Riverside |
| Hobbies, favourites and beliefs | |
| Religion | atheist |
| Politics | liberal |
| Contact info | |
| [email protected] | |
Hello, my name is Benjamin, and I am new at this.
This is my user page, I guess.
I now attend UC Riverside.
I'm a teenage boy from California.
Update: I'm not a teenager anymore.
I don't want to grow old. = (
I apologize in advance for the poor quality of my edits.
I wish other editors would try to improve my contributions rather than just undoing them.
Many of my edits are controversial, and are reverted before I manage to find a way to say it right.
Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing.
Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest.
I voluntarily follow the one revert rule.
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User:Benjaminikuta/Students_for_Rand
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User:Benjaminikuta/contributions
https://simple.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User:Benjaminikuta
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User:76.95.155.84
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Special:Contributions/216.175.80.194
Looks like the earliest edit of mine that I have a record of is 9 December 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User:Benjaminikuta/todo
This user has been on Wikipedia for years, days, and months.
This user has a native understanding of english.
This user is still trying to figure out userboxes.
Feel free to talk to me.
I'll always reply.
You can email me if you want.
My email is my username at gmail.
I'm concerned Wikipedia may be lacking in areas that don't lend themselves well to acedemic study.
I think policy should be better defined.
If something isn't well suited to academic study, should I just assume it's not important to know, be familiar with, and have an opinion on, or should I try to base my understanding on less than highly reliable sources?
I am particularly concerned with this line from https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources.
"if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."
Is it really safe to assume that the mainstream media reports on everything worth reporting on?
https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/d8d1f/dear_entire_mainstream_media_please_stop/
Wikipedia celebrates curiosity.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you
"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
I'm concerned about the usefulness of Wikipedia.
I'm concerned about how it treats the unknown.
"you can read about slavery in history textbooks and on wikipedia or wherever but this makes it real to me."
I'm interested in the history of Wikipedia, and a fan of Larry Sanger.
"Benjamin, stop trolling and go do something useful please." --Jimbo Wales, November 2017 [1]
 | This user is a university student. |
| incl | This user is an inclusionist. |
 | This user supports The Pirate Bay. |
 | This user is interested in politics. |
 |
Basic Information
|
Religious Beliefs
|
Political Beliefs
|
Languages
|
 | This user is interested in Japan. |
.svg) | This user thinks they might have too many userboxes. Oh well... |
| This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.
The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth". |
|
| @ | This user can be reached by email. |
 | This user enjoys overcast weather. |
 | This user is Addicted to Wikipedia. |
 | This user scored 312 on the Wikipediholic test (revision 809545978). |
 | TIP: Try DownloadHelper[2] Save YouTube, play with VLC It will change your life! ;) |  |
 | This user believes that Congress really should make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press... and neither should Wikipedia. |
This user thinks that the vast majority of the budget of the Wikimedia Foundation is unessential to hosting Wikipedia, and the ad campaigns are unnecessary and annoying at best, and dishonest and misleading at worst.
 | This user wastes far too much time editing Wikipedia. |
This user thinks Victoria should never have been fired.
The ability to make judgements that are grounded in solid information, and employ careful analysis, should be one of the most important goals for any educational endeavor. As students develop this capability, they can begin to grapple with the most important and difficult step: to learn to place such judgements in an ethical framework. For all these reasons, there is no better investment that individuals, parents and the nation can make than an investment in education of the highest possible quality. Such investments are reflected, and endure, in the formation of the kind of social conscience that our world so desperately needs. --Aga Khan IV
| This user is proud to be a Wikipedian. |
 | This user thinks you can learn a lot by editing an Encyclopedia. |
| This user edits on Wikipedia under his real name. |
https://meta.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Avoid_copyright_paranoia
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Dissent_is_not_disloyalty
 | This user has been the victim of an unintentional block. |
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Special:PrefixIndex/User:Benjaminikuta
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Template:Citation_needed
I want to better understand why consensus is the way is it, so I wish past discussions were better summarized.
https://meta.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies
 | This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron. |
This user wishes Larry Sanger would return.
 | Come chat with us on the Wikimedia Community Discord server! |
| # | This user chats on the Wikimedia Community Discord server as BenjaminIkuta#1908. |
| This User is excessively addicted to Wikipedia. |
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #218 |
This is a problem: https://i.imgur.com/xOC2HaN.png
This image of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia is partly in jest, but partly serious. Coppied from: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Should_administrators_be_able_to_unblock_themselves?
 | This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify) |
 | This user has visited Santa Catalina Island. |
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User_talk:37.122.157.121#lifeblood
 | This user believes in freedom of all types of information for all. |
I think omitting information is just as worthy of careful consideration as including it.
I think content is the most important thing, and I wish the community would refocus on it, like in the old days.
This user supports increased transparency in the finances of the Foundation.
I am somewhat distantly related to Sandra Segal Ikuta.
|
Released into public domain |
|
|---|---|---|
| I agree to release my text and image contributions, unless otherwise stated, into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under public domain terms, please check the multi-licensing guide. |
|
Licensing rights granted to Wikimedia Foundation |
|---|---|
| I grant non-exclusive permission for the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to relicense my text and media contributions, including any images, audio clips, or video clips, under any copyleft license that it chooses, provided it maintains the free and open spirit of the GFDL. This permission acknowledges that future licensing needs of the Wikimedia projects may need adapting in unforeseen fashions to facilitate other uses, formats, and locations. It is given for as long as this banner remains. |
I have contributed most to List of common misconceptions.
 | This user drinks milk. |
| they | This user considers singular they standard English usage. |
I really like the Signpost and I'm sad it's having trouble.
I thankful for all those who have worked on it, and I hope more people will consider working on it again.
| This user is hopelessly addicted to editing Wikipedia. |
 | Slap me with a trout if necessary. Go ahead; whack away! |
Listen for the whimper, not the bang.
 | This user is a wikiarchaeologist and likes looking through page history for no particular reason.± |
This user is not a WikiDragon, but admires them, and aspires to be one.
This user would rather donate money toward an editathon prize fund than to the Foundation.
 | Rude or speedy deletions of articles and categories drive away editors and donations. See also. |
.svg){kind=logo} | This user supports free software. |
 | This user is a hacker, or identifies with and promotes the hacker ethic. |
|
This user supports the ACLU. |
|
This user is opposed to online censorship. |
|
This user knows that Wikipedia has become too bureaucratic. |
 | This user supports Wikileaks and Julian Assange. |
|
This user is against computer and video game censorship and regulation. |
I agree with DGG that "Wikipedia is unreasonably restrictive about many elements of copyright.".
I get frustrated when I'm downvoted on reddit for saying that YouTube is not a reliable source.
I sometimes edit Wikipedia using a second generation iPod Touch, and I quite like that the site works well with such an old browser, unlike many modern sites.
 | This user loves Wikipe-tan, the cutest personification of Wikipedia. |
I oppose 2FA. It's quite inconvenient.
 | This user is NOT known for taking themself too seriously. |
All Wikimedia projects should be merged into a unified Wikipedia.
Seriously, who even uses WikiTravel?
If you're thinking of travelling to a place, chances are you look at the Wikipedia article.
Abolish WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTSOCIAL, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTADVICE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Abolish TRUTH and OR. V is all that matters.
https://i.imgur.com/hX1sWAC.png
"That would be a disaster, many important topics are not notable by en-wiki standards but are essential to people that speak minority languages. As an example, African chieftains; generally deleted at AfD as minor politicians, but very relevant to have biographies for in a minor African language Wikipedia."
"with a stop near the top of Chair 1" isn't directly supported by the source, but I think it improves the article.
Wikipedia doesn't have ads because that would compromise its neutrality, or something like that. But what about the large donations from Amazon and Google? Wouldn't that have a similar effect?
Donate to Internet Archive, not the Wikimedia Foundation.
They're much more in need of funding.
They haven't even backed up all their data yet.
A nuke on the WMF cluster and we can rebuild fairly easily, a nuke on the IA cluster and you've just lost two decades of Internet, forever.
"The Wikipedia editor community seems to be firmly independent of what outside organizations want from Wikipedia. Even WMF!" ~IRC ?
"Probably the most famous incident was the image viewer/superprotect debacle on dewiki.
TL;DR: WMF spent like five years and obscene amounts of money developing a new image viewer overlay, but it had severe faults that led to many experienced editors wanting it disabled, dewiki finally held an RfC and making it opt-in won by a huge margin, and the WMF stepped in and said "uh, no" and added a new level of protection that makes it so only foundation staff can edit and enabled it on dewiki's interface page.
Some see WMF raising a substantial amounts of funds, mostly on a claims that is usually interpreted by the public that the funds are needed to keep the servers running that host Wikipedia (in all its language variants) and to pay for bandwidth. But the amount of funds raised far exceeds those costs, so WMF finds other things that "need" to be done.
In general the WMF is seen as kind of out of touch and throws vast amounts of money toward things the community doesn't really ask for." ~ IRC ?
Jimbo made a really bad mistake when he made Wikia for profit.
He should have make it nonprofit.
The advertisements and other governance issues on it are very bad.
The key turning point was the increase in emphasis on WP:VERIFY. It unquestionably improved the quality of the encyclopedia, but it just as unquestionably changed us from a large community of online users sharing everything they know to a much smaller community of scholars willing to put in a significant amount of effort researching and documenting their use of reliable sources. That was a good thing for producing a more informative and trustworthy reference work, but it was effectively the end of "the encyclopedia everyone can edit", since most people simply can't or won't make the effort to do the kind of research required to make significant edits when every such edit requires an inline citation to a reliable published source. That combined with the exhaustion of many of the easiest topics has inevitably lead to the community shrinking. --Rusty Cashman (Source:The Signpost 2011, a comment)
|
Aaron H. Swartz known as AaronSw on Wikipedia
Departed January 11, 2013 "I just can't believe someone so brilliant is gone so soon." /ƒETCHCOMMS/ This is an irreconcilable loss for humanity! We were fortunate to share his association, and as stewards, responsible to adopt his endeavors into our care, and conservancy. RIP (condolences) |
Articles I've created:
Tax cuts in the United States (redirect)
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Template:2nd_chance
I vaguely remembered reading this many years ago, but only just found it again.
"All banned editors are theoretically redeemable."
ToBeFree: "about the brand survey, I personally think that the Wikimedia Foundation, theoretically, should be a replaceable institution that a free encyclopedia does not depend on -- reality is different, and if the WMF decides to act against the community will, they'd probably even be able to sustain donations by readers who donate to Wikipedia without having any deeper knowledge about the internal structure. I believe that even if the WMF became evil, replacing Wikipedia by a fork would be nearly impossible today. This puts a lot of potential power and responsibility in the hand of an organization that in my opinion should ideally not have it"
 | This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge. |
Isn't there a contradiction between Jimbo's stated goal of collecting "all human knowledge", and the rather narrower prescription of policy?
"Participants did not know about the WMF, and did not know where the fundraising money goes. They did not understand how the community can participate in allocating the resources. I told them the my opinion, that the WMF still hasn't learned how to share its leadership together with the community and that they are operating as a company, which alienates me because they are not respecting the spirit of the projects." ~ Micru
"Participants reported that the current definition of knowledge by Wikimedia projects is narrow-minded and does not fit the relationship with knowledge that exists in other parts of the world." ~ Micru
 | This user wanted to thank bots before that ability was implemented. |
https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
"If you look at new editors’ talk pages, they can be pretty depressing - they’re often an uninterrupted stream of warnings and criticisms. Experienced editors put those warnings there because they want to make Wikipedia better: their intent is good. But the overall effect, we know, is that the new editors get discouraged. They feel like they’re making mistakes, that they’re getting in trouble, people don’t want their help. And so they leave, and who can blame them?" ~Sue Gardner
Category:Images that look like memes but are serious Wikipedia illustrations
https://pastebin.com/raw/NfWRcdNM
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents
Hosting the servers only costs about 3% of their budget.
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-18_-_Independent_Auditors%27_Report.pdf
Wikimedia file URL:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Union_Township_Works_from_Dimmick_Road.jpg
_in_flight_with_transmitter.jpg)
In general, I think economic heterodoxy is given undue weight on Wikipedia.
"I'd rather have a small stub than nothing" ~Steven Pruitt
"I will, occasionally, see an editor make a mistake, and there comes to be a pile-on on the talk page, and I think it scares them off. It's unfortunate." ~Steven Pruitt
 | This user feels physical pain when hearing others refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki". |
https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User_talk:TaylanUB#Block_appeal_#2
 | Today is 14 October 2024 |
I've always been a bit bothered by the fact that I can't comment on discussions after they're closed. Consensus can change, and all that. Of course I can open a new discussion, but that's not always appropriate, if I don't expect my input to change the outcome. But it still is valid input, isn't it? And it might still contribute slightly to the incremental change of consensus in the future, right? And it particularly bothers me that I can't view the content of deleted articles, in order to form an opinion on them. It seems inconsistent that content should be deleted that would be fine to keep in history elsewhere. (revdel worthy content notwithstanding)