Locksport on Wikipedia

by **Bud Wiser** » 27 Oct 2006 13:32

So what's your definition? Enquiry minds want to know!

by **illusion** » 27 Oct 2006 13:34

I think it was Vector40 who last raised this issue, but it's always raised a question in my mind.

Now LSI is an abbreviation for Locksport International, but this hardly makes sense, I mean, would it not have to be three words for such an abbreviation?

Why 'Locksport' instead on 'Lock Sport'?

At the moment the correct abbreviation would be LI, since Locksport is but a single word, It just seems well... dumb.

I fully support the group and for that matter any group that promotes ethical lock picking, but I have to ask whether there is some reason for this spelling?

Oh, and I mentioned Locksport to an older relative he thought I was talking about the place called 'Locksport' in the Canary Channel. :lol:

by **Bud Wiser** » 27 Oct 2006 13:41

I can see problems being raised over a more defined definition of locksport or lock sport. btw, I agree two words would have been better. may be they wanted it to look more like locksmith?

We can all agree on the general definition of locksport, it's hobby picking. I like the *sport* part of it verses *hobby* which sounds a bit nerdy. But what happens when we attempt to define it's official parameters more precisely? I mean who's to really say what that should be?

Any way I too would support any attempt to build awarness and recognition.

by **digital_blue** » 27 Oct 2006 15:38

Who's to say how Locksport International should choose to abbreviate?

Yes, I'm aware that there are two words in Locksport International, yet LSI has three letters.

It's a puzzle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Truth be told... LI just didn't have the same ring to it. Plus, it's the opposite of IL. Come to think of it... I think we ARE the opposite of IL. Hmm... ah well... that's history. It's LSI.

So, on the topic of the definition of locksport, it made sense to me that a wiki page was a great place to lay down the definition in a non-biased manner. Clearly, there are those who, despite the fact that they have NOTHING to do with locksport, feel it necessary to have their input on the validity of the term. Funny, eh? I mean, none of us seem to question the term, just perhaps what the exact definition might be. But it would seem that a few disinterested parties with their head up their... never mind... anyway.. seems they want to question the very existence of locksport.

Grr...

db

by **illusion** » 27 Oct 2006 16:15

It's a puzzle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Words wrapped in their synonyms? What a quizzical crux.

I really don't see why you insist on making it one word, but you can keep your little secrets I guess. I was simply curious.

by **digital_blue** » 27 Oct 2006 19:51

Well... like I said, there's not really any "secret" to it. It just is. It is because it is. And for that reason, it is.

Seriously, I favor the term "locksport" over "lock sport" for no other reason than it is one congruous word that describes what it is we do.

I favor the acronym LSI because it rolls off the tongue nicely.

There's really nothing more to it than that.

db

by **digital_blue** » 28 Oct 2006 18:51

Wow. So, I got a little sucked into the argument over on the wiki page, so I spent a bit of time looking into all of wiki's "standards" (if you can call it that).

From my own point of view, what a steaming pile that all is. When more weight is given to someone who spends their time editing wiki pages than to those who actually know about the topic, it tells me there's something wrong with the whole system.

The only thing I don't understand yet is how, exactly, a final decision is made, and who makes it. At what point will the argument be settled and the page either be deleted or allowed to remain?

Anyone familiar enough with the wikiway to explain this to me?

db

by **melvin2001** » 28 Oct 2006 19:07

i think i read something about 5 days.... dont hold me to that though. then probably some wikiwig (thats big wig in wiki speak i suppose) comes along and checks it out. idk about that last part but im 90% sure i read something about 5 days.

by **d_goldsmith** » 29 Oct 2006 10:59

Here is a good example of why it is LSI: deoxyribonucleic acid

Should we all post a keep in that argument? I couldn't figure out how to comment. If I put a little more effort in I'm sure I could figure it out, but I figured I should see what you guys think about having additional Keep's first.

by **digital_blue** » 29 Oct 2006 14:39

Well, if you've got something to add to the discussion then by all means post it! But if you're just going to say "I think it should stay", I don't think that will aide our cause any. Everything I've seen tells me that the discussion page is not just a petition to be signed.

db

by **Bud Wiser** » 29 Oct 2006 15:05

DB did you write all that on wiki? That was great! I'm sure if there is any modifications done to it that it will be very minimum! That is a excellent addition to wiki! Bravo!

by **digital_blue** » 29 Oct 2006 15:05

Actually, having done some more reading, I came up with this:

A wiki on entry deletion wrote:One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.

So, it would seem that to just post a "I think is should stay" might actually do more harm than good.

Man, didn't I start by saying I didn't have the time or interest in learning about all this wiki crap? Boy did I get sucked in...

db

by **rewt** » 30 Oct 2006 6:03

most Wikipedia admins are a*holes who support the topics they want, and spin the topics they dislike in a way that makes them look bad

it is a terrible terrible website, time and again ive seen their gestapo-esque edits

by **digital_blue** » 3 Nov 2006 2:31

So.... yeah.... it's been a while....

Does this issue ever have a conclusion?

db

by **melvin2001** » 3 Nov 2006 2:50

it will probably take awhile before an admin gets a chance to take a look at it.

Locksport on Wikipedia

Who is online