Talk:Functionality creep

A thought

This is an interesting phenomenon when you consider how it could be linked to evolution and the false concept of irreducible complexity. DS 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Example of Functionality Creep

Drivers Licenses. If I didn't have to use it everytime I wrote a check I might then know where it is when I need it for it's original purpose. Since I write less and less checks these days, and since checks are headed for extinction, perhaps the main purpose of drivers license will revert to their original function.

POV

Instead of an article about Functionality creep, what we seem to have here is one example that has almost become an essay against personal identification numbers. It's careful not to cross the line, but it's pretty pov-ish in my opinion. Ideas? --Zantastik talk 05:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Function Creep" Wikipedia page should be deleted...

The "Function Creep" Wikipedia page should be deleted because it fails to follow Wikipedia Style Guidelines, and is a narrower definition of the subject, which relies on subjective definitions of sinister and malicious applications of technology, rather than alterations over time from original intended purpose.

Obviously this is a stupid dispute. "Function" and "Functionality" are both nouns. Function refers more to overall utility, while functionality refers to the utility of specific qualities of the object. This is splitting hairs. Who invented the telephone ? Alexander Graham Bell or Elisha Gray ? Well ... A.G.B. got to the patent office first ... that is his patron did. Nonetheless, the Function Creep purveyor has a blog about the subject, which tracks contemporary examples of technology becoming sinister from innocuous origins. While the purveyors of Functionality Creep seem to indicate a more broad definition, to wit: "Functionality creep is what occurs when an item, process, or procedure designed for a specific purpose ends up serving another purpose for which it was not intended." The purveyors of Functionality Creep clearly are indicating that, good or bad, malicious or innocuous, the definition transcends any moral judgment. The purveyor of Function Creep is solely focused on sinister applications of technology, which is narrower than what the purveyors of Functionality Creep intend. Besides, judging by the irrational vitriol included in the Function Creep Wikipedia page, and it's total lack of attention to Wikipedia style guidelines, the Function Creep Wikipedia page should be deleted. This user should be required to create an account and follow Wikipedia style guidelines. This identical posting will be pasted to the Functionality Creep Talk Page. Kreepy krawly 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another POV

Is the distinction between these two terms even necessary? And if so, who are the human beings interested in non-sinister forms of function creep? Corporate bores and engineers. Everything else aside, "function creep" is the accepted vernacular of most people on this planet. Your very actions regarding this debate (snitching to admin, managing to remove the function creep website from Google's search engine) illustrate a kind of "function creep". And it's a really creepy application (war of the words). If yr forefathers had used similarly dirty tricks, who knows? Maybe we'd all be using portable telephonic devices now instead of cellphones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.139.121 (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Response to "Another POV"

Yes the distinction between these two terms is necessary, Mr. David Blackwood, AKA blackwoodchannel.blogspot.com. It just so happens that "corporate bores and engineers" are the creators of most of our daily wonders, endlessly marching towards the source of the "Strange Attractor." The "Strange Attractor" is the hypothetical point in future history where and when technology becomes "sufficiently advanced" to render biological activity meaningless. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but your definition of "Function Creep" contains subjective value judgements which most phraseology prohibits in public discourse. Whatever you think about the current trends and future uses in technology, and I'm not dissagreeing that there are sinister trends as you profess, your definition is mere vernacular. And vernacular has no place in the public toolbox of the human mind. It is useful for subcultures and cults as catchphrases, but not as universal language. To insure the safety of the future, we as humans must increasingly guard against vernacular containing hidden subjective value judgements CREEPING into common phraseology and general discourse. This is because the history of mankind has been manipulated by an ivory tower society of intellectuals and technocrats that consistently have defined current trends by their own subjective value judgements, which limits public discourse. The creators of technology, the investors in these wonders, the marketers, have a veiled interest to limit the definitions of their products to suit their own ends, whatever the intention. There is a complex mixture of intentions among these various involved parties. So carefully defining the terms of which we speak is necessary. Carefully maintaining objective definitions will attract notice to the concept of "Functionality Creep," rather than render it to the junkpile of cultish vernacular. "General acceptance" of a term does not substantiate its definition. Objectivity is not subject to a public vote. Facts are facts regarless of who thinks they are true. All of humanity could profess that the sky is red, ignoring facts. Sometimes the sky is red; this is where carefully defined objective distinctions of public phraseology comes into such crucial play. Do you choose to accept the very tactics of the so-called sinister corporate bores and engineers you profess to seek to limit and keep in check ? Kreepy krawly 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Response to "Another POV"

I've taken the liberty of editing out my real name. I should hope you'll respect my wish to remain unsigned. Also, I hope you'll spare a minute and read my developing story called "Function Kreepy: How I Got Erased". It's about ethics on the internet, specifically the tactics used by Kreepy Krawly to maintain control of the Function/Functionality Creep wikipedia page.... Kreepy krawly 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol

A simple "who is" search can come up with that info.

From your own words: Do you choose to accept the very tactics of the so-called sinister corporate bores and engineers you profess to seek to limit and keep in check?

Is this a discussion of issues at all ? ...

I wonder if the above statement is on topic in any way whatsoever. It seems to avoid any of the issues raised in the exhaustive response entitled "Response to "Another POV"." What is this person actually trying to say ? If he or she is so dedicated to maintaining a Wikipedia page, why does this person not log in with a Wikipedia account ? What does the above statement under the title "Lol" accomplish ? Perhaps it is time to identify the issues, and seperate emotion from logic. This person seems offended that Wikipedia administrators redirected the "Function Creep" page to "Functionality Creep." While it is understandable that this person has a personal, emotional connection with the topic, nonetheless, that is not the point of Wikipedia. Kreepy krawly 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment on kreppy krawly's actions that I've noticed.

[ Note: the actual identity of the registered user is: Kreepy krawly ]

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12755205&postID=116514578404038489 Lucky you didn't post it to wikipedia, it is hardly becoming of you or at all civil. Please try and shape up and not behave like children over this matter. Mathmo ^Talk 12:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT WITH LINK TO VIRUS DELETED

That wasn't very Wikipedian of Mathmo to provide a link to a virus, which did not actually infect my computer because it was blocked by Avast! virus protection. I almost laughed, though, at the attempt by a member of Wikipedia Project Cycling to do something so anathema to Wikipedia standards, netiquette, common sense, and logic. Kreepy krawly 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not blank sections of a talk page or make false accusations. You are worrying me, the more I see of your actions the more it disturbs me. If you blanked my edit how many more edits might you have blanked? Mathmo ^Talk

Please do not post fake links to sites with viruses. A Wikipedia administrator contacted me and assured me the post with the link had been deleted. I deleted it based on Wikipedia Vandalism Policy. It is disturbing that a registered user is providing fake links. If you wish to see my editing history, you can go to my history page. It is as simple as that. Seems you are intent on discrediting me, but that just won't work. My history speaks for itself. Your history speaks for itself. Please either join into a constructive dialogue regarding this site or leave it alone. Kreepy krawly 04:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, this is starting to get tiresome. This is not a virus, you have made your point that you understandably do not like that web page. Now please stop with the claims of "virus". Tell me, which admin contacted you? There is no mention of it whatsoever on your talk page, the only admin I know of who has contacted you is through an IP you where using. User talk:71.210.62.238, where he is reminding you not to be personally attacking me. Mathmo ^Talk 05:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While that may be the IP I have sent from, I am Kreepy krawly, not 71.210.62.238. This is an unsecured wireless network in an apartment building, and I have counted now at least 26 people who use this IP. So talking to that user, whoever that may be, is what needs to be accomplished. Good luck with that. That person should not have engaged in personal attacks. I do not support or endorse those malicious comments. Kreepy krawly 11:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you describe the personal attacks ? I have no recollection of such actions on my part. Kreepy krawly 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Check your talk page, plus there will be evidence collected on Requests for Comment. Mathmo ^Talk 06:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I have been informed by certain unassailable, non-Wikipedian parties, that the link is now a link to a blogger comment page. Yes, I posted those comments, which were overwhelmingly positive and constructive. What in those comments is unbecoming to the Functionality Creep dialogue ? And why would comments on a blog be part or parcel to the discussion of Functionality Creep ? I am puzzled by the assertion that comments on a blog are part of the Wikipedia discussion. Kreepy krawly 11:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The malicious link has returned somehow ...

DO NOT CLICK ON THE HYPERLINK ABOVE IN THE COMMENTS BY USER:MATHMO. LAST TIME I CHECKED, IT WAS A LINK TO A SITE WITH A VIRUS. SINCE IT HAS RETURNED, I CANNOT VERIFY THAT ANYMORE. PERHAPS IT MUST REMAIN. WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS HAVE BEEN CONTACTED REGARDING THIS MATTER. Kreepy krawly 04:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION: THE LINK HAS BEEN REVERTED TO AN ACTUAL LINK TO A BLOG COMMENTS PAGE. Kreepy krawly 11:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the link has all along been to a comments page. Now this shows that even you admit that all your accusations to do with a "virus" is nothing but out right lies. Mathmo ^Talk 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that the link has "all along been a link to a comments page" is a lie. The link went to a web page with a virus. My computer has active virus scanning software, Avast!, which sets off alarms when a virus is present. Then it catalogues the information about the web site and the virus. Seems my esteemed colleague has been caught red-handed with an appendage in the hacker-jar, and is desperately trying to save face. Well, that just won't work. I don't need to "prove" to anyone that the link was fake and a virus was waiting for my computer; I experienced it, and that is enough for me. The more useless information that is generated regarding this unfortunate incident, the more useless information will expend exponentially, destroying the collegiate tone of Wikipedia. I was warned of a phemonenom called "trolling" before I entered as a registered user. I was warned there are users who's only goal is to confuse, obfuscate, irritate, distract, and destroy for fun. There is a precedent for such behaviour in the annals of psychology. Some people are felt left out, so they force themselves into any situation any way they can. It fulfills some basic psychological need. What actual content has my esteemed colleague Mathmo contributed on this talk page besides obfuscation and destruction ? This "argument" is distracting at best. I look forward to Mathmo's first constructive contribution to the concept of Functionality Creep. I am very interested to learn what he is able to provide. Kreepy krawly 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use all caps because it is highly annoying, and I doubt administrators have been contacted regarding this. You history shows no mention of you editing any administrators' talk page. But if you have indeed then please name names so I may but forward my side of this matter. As for the link, I've explained already that to claim it has a virus appears to be nothing but a false accusation on your part. Mathmo ^Talk 05:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While you may doubt it, it has occurred. It is in my email, and not on any talk page. You have no side of any matter. You have chosen to use a talk page to bicker and maliciously vandalize. How unfortunate. What a waste of bytes. And you provided a false link for which you have already been reprimanded. Perhaps you have removed the virus. I don't know because I haven't returned to the site. It doesn't matter. What does matter is IF YOU WILL CHOOSE TO USE WIKIPEDIA FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE OR NOT. This Talk page is to discuss matters related to Functionality Creep, if you haven't noticed. Do you have anything constructive to add to the matter or not ? Well ... I'm listening. But I don't hear anything yet. Kreepy krawly 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did consider email being how you were contacted, but I highly doubt it. However I am perfectly open to you proving me wrong, you could start my naming who this admin is who has contacted you. Also I have not been reprimanded for any "false link" that I supplied on this talk page. What I put here I felt was relevant to this page on wikipedia for it's future development, and I have tried to take this dispute away from this talk page to your user talk page. But you have failed to make any comment there, so am now bring it to Requests for Comments. You are invited to participate as you are one of the parties under discussion. Mathmo ^Talk 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is very interesting to witness the genesis of random and useless information. Although I have generated none. My original intent was to continue a constructive dialogue regarding the Functionality Creep page. I have not seen any useful comments on the issue thus far since the beginning of this Talk Page. I seem to be talking to myself here. I welcome my new RFC page. It will give Wikipedians an opportunity to witness the genesis of useless information. While my esteemed colleague may feel "personally attacked," the attack on my computer is an act I consider akin to "a undeserved punch in the nose in a crowded nightclub while talking to a fine woman." The virus upload failed, but nonetheless, I find the act somewhat, and this is an undestatement, undesirable to my precious computer's well-being. Essentially, it was a physical attack, in that my computer was placed at risk. Certain parties may deny the attempt to upload a virus, but I need no discussion on the matter as a computer scientist has already confirmed it with skill, care, and zeal. Talk away, but my focus is the TOPIC OF FUNCTIONALITY CREEP. As my esteemed colleague has already stated, this is tiresome. But attemping to upload a virus onto my precious is not acceptable; it is a threat I take very seriously. My tone here confirms how seriously I take this issue. I signed onto Wikipedia to improve it, surf it, learn from it, help others, discuss issues as any good philosopher would; not to bicker with vandals who do not offer useful information on the topic at hand. That is a nice way of summarizing this "discussion." Now, how about that Functionality Creep ? What say we on that issue ? Kreepy krawly 09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"bicker with vandals"?! Are you yet still claiming that I'm vandalizing? Unbelievable. What are the contact details of this "HP computer scientist", or are you going to be hiding behind his continued anonymity? Mathmo ^Talk 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes bicker ... with vandals. Users who provide fake links to web sites with viruses are vandals. Believable. And, no, my esteemed colleague, the identity of the "HP computer scientist" shall remain anonymous. She is a personal friend of mine who shall not be identified. While you may claim that my actions are to "hide," I have no such intention. I don't care if the fake address can be verified as fake, or if a virus can be positively identified by anyone. My Avast! software doesn't lie. The exact time and place of the virus is recorded, and my registry logs do not lie either. So any further attempts to coax or intimidate the identity of my friend will be met with silence. Thank you for your anticipated insight into this matter. Kreepy krawly 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Formatting on the talk page

Kreepy krawly I'd rather if you didn't change the indentation of my edits to the talk page, while I'm not going to say anything like it is a hangable crime or whatever... it is however in poor taste to be fiddling with another person's edits on a talk page. Because it distorts the history of the discussion which is recorded here. [1] [2] [3]Mathmo ^Talk 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While you may imagine that I will not correct formatting errors, I will continue do such things, for the sake of clarity. Each comment will be spaced by one space from the preceding comment. Each comment will receive proper indentation according to the number of the entry under a unique banner. For example, comment eight under a unique banner will recieve eight, count them, EIGHT, colons at the head of the comment. This allows for ease of seperation of comments for simple visual identification. So now our Functionality Creep discussion has devolved into a discussion of the number of colons. Again, when will my esteemed colleague BEGIN to discuss the issues surrounding Functionality Creep. It is becoming apparent that this discussion is an intentional distraction meant to prevent the Functionality Creep page from developing. I will limit my comments to short sentences from this point forward. I thank my esteemed colleague in advance for their anticipated cooperation on the matters and concepts of Functionality Creep. Kreepy krawly 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Kreepy Krawly lives in Montana, USA.

Anticlimax to contrived "Conclusion"

Kreepy krawly (with a lowercase "k" for the second word in the phrase) is an identity that over one-hundred internet users utilize. It is a vast hive consciousness which permeates the web. Three such users live in Montana. One is Kalispell, and two in Missoula. This has some kind of association with the topic of Functionality Creep ? We fail to find the connection. I can create a list of the whereabouts of the rest of us, if that would please the court. The actual, seed Kreepy krawly lives in England. Sounds like someone is engaging in personal attacks. That is hilarious to us. We would love to return to the subject of Functionality Creep. Thanks. Kreepy krawly 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a WP:POLICY covering use of a registered user account by more than one person? If there isn't there should be. It should be called WP:ASP for Anti-SockPuppet, as it is the opposite. A sock puppet is one person using multiple accounts, here is multiple persons using one account. I know what I would do if I was an admin here... --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 02:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive such a policy does exist. You might wnat to take it to incidents. Not that I can figure out what the hell it's talking about or what it's got to be so smug about itself. Artw 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)