Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
James Forrester wrote: On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting every time I see it doneand I can't see it going very far with Arbcom or with AN/Iconsidering how many people back it as one of the three most important principles of Wikipedia-- which I disagree with entirely When we founded ArbCom it was entirely with user disputes in mind. I'd be disappointed and surprised if poor user behaviour wasn't dealt with by the current Committee, but if you don't do anything about it and call people on their poor behaviour when you see it, it'll never improve. J. on 10/3/11 7:44 PM, Phil Nash at phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: That's an entirely different proposition from merely being vindictive for its own sake, which seems to be the current modus operandi of ArbCom. Calling people on their poor behaviour may be a function of ArbCom, but only when all other avenues have been exhausted, including RfC, and only when there is no plausible route to rehabilitation, including (but not limited to) friendly advice, a break from adminning to recover from the stress (which, to be honest, might well include death threatson one's own Talk page), or even a temporary desysop in the interests of the admin. Tell me, when did ArbCom last take that position, and actually realise that volunteering to improve Wikipedia, whether by adding content, or dealing with vandalism, or otherwise applying WP policies, is to be appreciated rather than castigated? Clue:Never, in my experience, and certainly not recently. ArbCom is a ramshackle, unaccountable shed, which should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, if not cast permanently into the not fit for purpose dustbin. It's a disgrace as it is now. (I'm catching up on some past posts) I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping. ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the community tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes). The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping. on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the community tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes). The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion. Carcharoth I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
The flaw isn't the oversight body, it's the almost complete lack of policies about 'crime and punishment'. It's not leadership; having a leader is very good, but only if they do the right things. No, what is lacking is a workable theory about what the right thing to do about conflict is in the context of the wiki. The way it works at the moment is anarchy at the administrator level and above. Other than a few rules about not administrating when directly involved, admins are allowed by the policies to do just about anything; and there's essentially nothing to stop admins ganging up on users; and this happens not as infrequently as you would hope. That's where it goes all Stanford Prison Experiment. The reason it's like this is because Sanger was a philosopher of knowledge, and he shaped the policies to collect knowledge really well, but he doesn't have the slightest clue about crime and punishment. The areas that work the best are things like 3RR; because it's fairly clear-cut. But even then, the length of punishments for going 3RR occasionally range from nothing to permanent bans,* more or less entirely on administrator whim (modified only somewhat by the administrators fear of the crowd). It's basically the problem is that editors have no 'civil rights'; there's no policy against severe punishments for trivial transgressions. *- they don't usually ban people outright for 3RR, they just mark people as 'trouble makers' and then ban them for increasingly minor infractions later. It's sort of like a death penalty for parking offenses because you've parked in the wrong place before, and 'know what you were doing' and therefore 'deserved it'. On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping. on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the community tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes). The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion. Carcharoth I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
I agree with much of what you say, Ian. But I see the issues of crime and punishment and getting and keeping the playing field level as just one function of an oversight body. There are many other areas that need monitoring in such a complex project such as WP. The question I still have is how do you get such a body established in the first place in the Project? Marc on 10/28/11 3:01 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: The flaw isn't the oversight body, it's the almost complete lack of policies about 'crime and punishment'. It's not leadership; having a leader is very good, but only if they do the right things. No, what is lacking is a workable theory about what the right thing to do about conflict is in the context of the wiki. The way it works at the moment is anarchy at the administrator level and above. Other than a few rules about not administrating when directly involved, admins are allowed by the policies to do just about anything; and there's essentially nothing to stop admins ganging up on users; and this happens not as infrequently as you would hope. That's where it goes all Stanford Prison Experiment. The reason it's like this is because Sanger was a philosopher of knowledge, and he shaped the policies to collect knowledge really well, but he doesn't have the slightest clue about crime and punishment. The areas that work the best are things like 3RR; because it's fairly clear-cut. But even then, the length of punishments for going 3RR occasionally range from nothing to permanent bans,* more or less entirely on administrator whim (modified only somewhat by the administrators fear of the crowd). It's basically the problem is that editors have no 'civil rights'; there's no policy against severe punishments for trivial transgressions. *- they don't usually ban people outright for 3RR, they just mark people as 'trouble makers' and then ban them for increasingly minor infractions later. It's sort of like a death penalty for parking offenses because you've parked in the wrong place before, and 'know what you were doing' and therefore 'deserved it' On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping. on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the community tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes). The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion. Carcharoth I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
You're asking the wrong question. The purpose of arbcom-like body is to check that the policies are being correctly interpreted, but the policies like: wp:blocking policy is so full of words like 'may' and vague words like 'disruption' as to be functionally useless. You got into a discussion with another user and reverted each other. That disrupted Wikipedia. You are hereby banned for life. ^ that isn't against the policy In most cases another admin would reduce the length. Maybe... but they don't have to. On 28 October 2011 20:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with much of what you say, Ian. But I see the issues of crime and punishment and getting and keeping the playing field level as just one function of an oversight body. There are many other areas that need monitoring in such a complex project such as WP. The question I still have is how do you get such a body established in the first place in the Project? Marc on 10/28/11 3:01 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: The flaw isn't the oversight body, it's the almost complete lack of policies about 'crime and punishment'. It's not leadership; having a leader is very good, but only if they do the right things. No, what is lacking is a workable theory about what the right thing to do about conflict is in the context of the wiki. The way it works at the moment is anarchy at the administrator level and above. Other than a few rules about not administrating when directly involved, admins are allowed by the policies to do just about anything; and there's essentially nothing to stop admins ganging up on users; and this happens not as infrequently as you would hope. That's where it goes all Stanford Prison Experiment. The reason it's like this is because Sanger was a philosopher of knowledge, and he shaped the policies to collect knowledge really well, but he doesn't have the slightest clue about crime and punishment. The areas that work the best are things like 3RR; because it's fairly clear-cut. But even then, the length of punishments for going 3RR occasionally range from nothing to permanent bans,* more or less entirely on administrator whim (modified only somewhat by the administrators fear of the crowd). It's basically the problem is that editors have no 'civil rights'; there's no policy against severe punishments for trivial transgressions. *- they don't usually ban people outright for 3RR, they just mark people as 'trouble makers' and then ban them for increasingly minor infractions later. It's sort of like a death penalty for parking offenses because you've parked in the wrong place before, and 'know what you were doing' and therefore 'deserved it' On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping. on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the community tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes). The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion. Carcharoth I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
But the article whichever version is used still needs a massive citation needed tag added, and better sources. The monkey stuff seesm to come from the experiment described here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/02/02/monkey-see-monkey-facepalm/ Trouble is, most easily findable sources are blogs like this: http://www.healthkicker.com/754153008/the-science-of-facepalm/ Which shows that the definition is not exactly stable. +1 to this. I would suggest looking at the Law Enforcement (and other scholarly) work on body language. A few books leap to mind - some that I am sure I have in my library somewhere. WIll try to dig something up... Tom ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 10/03/11 8:22 PM, Risker wrote: On 3 October 2011 16:06, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote: I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK. Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick. Every day, I see perfectly civil people facepalming. I have yet to see a civil person turn to someone in public and say Don't be a dick. I think perhaps some peoples' civility radar is somewhat out of tune. I was unaware of the term facepalm until I read this thread. If someone had tagged me with this symbol, I wouldn't have had a clue about what he was trying to say. It seems that geekish. If somebody is being a jerk isn't it better to bluntly tell him directly instead of drawing upon an unfamiliar term from geekdom. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
If somebody is being a jerk isn't it better to bluntly tell him directly instead of drawing upon an unfamiliar term from geekdom. +1 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
-Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l- boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton Sent: 04 October 2011 10:45 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm? If somebody is being a jerk isn't it better to bluntly tell him directly instead of drawing upon an unfamiliar term from geekdom. +1 ___ Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual communication in the language of Shakespeare. (But, ho, you calling a trekie-meme geeky???) Scott ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual communication in the language of Shakespeare. FWIW, I've known the face-palm gesture for ages, and never knew it was in any way related to Star Trek. I suspect our article on the topic may be slightly over-egging things there. I've used and seen the facepalm gesture used more like the doh! gesture from The Simpsons. Is it lacking in civility to go DOH! when you get something wrong? Or is it only when you use such terms for what someone else says. I've also mentally seen someone else trip up and fall flat on their face over something (metaphorically speaking) and thought to myself that's a facepalm moment. But only when something is so wrong it is funny, if you get my drift. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual communication in the language of Shakespeare. Oh, please. I'd call you a flap-mouthed miscreant, but instead I shall risk accusations of incivility and just facepalm quietly to myself. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual communication in the language of Shakespeare. Oh, please. I'd call you a flap-mouthed miscreant, but instead I shall risk accusations of incivility and just facepalm quietly to myself. This whole conversation is starting to get a bit WP:DICK-ish... :-) Seriously, have a look at the article on facepalm. It is terrible and might be causing a fair bit of misunderstanding here. For starters, lowering one's face into one's hand is wrong. You raise your palm to your face (as clearly shown in the pictures). The act of lowering your face into *both* hands is known a variant of holding your head in your hands (sometimes shaking the head in despair as well). The Star Trek image in question isn't even a classic facepalm: http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/554/original/facepalm.jpg?1248715065 That is just holding your forehead with one hand supporting the head from the side. A completely different gesture. There is also a similar gesture where you avoid looking at something because it is embarrassing, that involves turning the head away slightly and cringing mentally and covering the eyes. Not to mention slapping your forehead in mock disgust/frustration. Really, we need a better article on body language, with scholarly sources, rather than stubs with urban dictionary references or worse. I suspect looking at the page history will throw up a better version than the current one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Facepalmoldid=332507973 That version dates from 18 December 2009. The redirect discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_12 But the article whichever version is used still needs a massive citation needed tag added, and better sources. The monkey stuff seesm to come from the experiment described here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/02/02/monkey-see-monkey-facepalm/ Trouble is, most easily findable sources are blogs like this: http://www.healthkicker.com/754153008/the-science-of-facepalm/ Which shows that the definition is not exactly stable. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Phil Nash wrote: That's an entirely different proposition from merely being vindictive for its own sake, which seems to be the current modus operandi of ArbCom. Let's not forget Arbcom doesn't make policy, which usually ends up meaning Arbcom constantly makes de-facto policy while pretending not to, and you can't challenge it because since Arbcom doesn't make policy, any Arbcom-made policy you challenge doesn't exist. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: FWIW, I've known the face-palm gesture for ages, and never knew it was in any way related to Star Trek. I suspect our article on the topic may be slightly over-egging things there. I've used and seen the facepalm gesture used more like the doh! .. Carcharoth That's my word. I would think, that this gesture : http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/554/original/facepalm.jpg?1248715065 would be generally understandable across the world (so it had to be understandable without the StarTrack, without its contribution) At least myself, I would not know that this gesture is supposedly originating from StarTrack and I would expect it is just normal gesture, I would understand it normally (being in another continent and in community using different language from english). And I also believe, that both the possibilities (1 lifting up the palm to the face; 2 lowering ones face to the palm) might coexist alongside themselves, with just the meaning little bit shifted. I just think of girls I know, - blushing, just turning red for some awkward reason, lowering their heads in just reminiscence of the above gesture - the second case. So lowering ones head in facepalm is more like ones escape from my own embarrassment, while lifting rather the palm to ones tired head is more like escape from others in disbelief. That's how I would read the gesture intuitively. The template does not differentiate between those two. And I saw it being applied in both of the circumstances. Sometimes I felt it, to be surprisingly judgmental. I saw some users in good standing using it as shortcut for something, I would decipher as: Its so stupid/naive argument, that I am not going to answer any more then this. Please stop here Petr (a.k.a. Reo On) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
Like many others, I've seen the facepalm used to represent a fairly broad spectrum of emotions, both directed at one's own actions and that of others. It's certainly been around since well before Star Trek, since I remember it being used before that show was on TV, and in fact I wouldn't be surprised if William Shatner brought it with him as part of his Canadian heritage; it's endemic here, and has been for generations. I've taken a look at a lot of the examples that were provided of uncivil use of the facepalm template. Careful backtracking of several of the discussions revealed that the template doesn't seem to be being used with newbie editors as frequently as was being put forward; in fact, it seemed to be used most frequently when dealing with editors to whom explanations of poilcy/guideline had already been given, sometimes by multiple users. One example in particular hit home to me because it was in response to a multi-project serial sockmaster on his fourth or fifth account, improving an article with his own personal version of history that conveniently also bolstered his financial prospects. So perhaps a better focus of discussion would be how to deal with editors who are unable to or unwilling to understand project guidelines and policies. It seems that the primary use of this template is by editors expressing frustration at the inability, despite their best efforts, to address this issue. Risker/Anne ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
-Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l- boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker Sent: 04 October 2011 18:25 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm? So perhaps a better focus of discussion would be how to deal with editors who are unable to or unwilling to understand project guidelines and policies. It seems that the primary use of this template is by editors expressing frustration at the inability, despite their best efforts, to address this issue. Risker/Anne But 'facepalming' them in (even legitimate) frustration at their evident obtuseness is, like calling someone a WP:DICK, unlikely to improve their behaviour, whilst it encourages people to use the same facepalm in situations where the recipient is a good faith editor, and the inference that they are being obtuse is unhelpful and uncivil/inflammatory. Anyway, templates are always poor substitutes for actual communication, particularly in situations where tempers are apt to fray, and miscommunications are more than likely. Scott ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
If ArbCom would be damaged by people opening [[WP:DICK]] labeling cases, it
certainly wouldn't be helped by people opening facepalming cases.
Be it namecalling or implication of rude gestures, these are both civil
issues and both need attention.
At the same time, I feel the {{facepalm}} template can be (as I often see)
used effectively without directing it at another individual, usually as in
oh I can't believe I just said/did that.
And re: the Star Trek stuff, I think the most credit we can give Star Trek
(if even this) is coining the phrase (if they in fact did). It's found
throughout common American culture predating Star Trek.
Bob
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker
Sent: 04 October 2011 18:25
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
So perhaps a better focus of discussion would be how to deal with
editors
who are unable to or unwilling to understand project guidelines and
policies. It seems that the primary use of this template is by editors
expressing frustration at the inability, despite their best efforts, to
address this issue.
Risker/Anne
But 'facepalming' them in (even legitimate) frustration at their evident
obtuseness is, like calling someone a WP:DICK, unlikely to improve their
behaviour, whilst it encourages people to use the same facepalm in
situations where the recipient is a good faith editor, and the inference
that they are being obtuse is unhelpful and uncivil/inflammatory.
Anyway, templates are always poor substitutes for actual communication,
particularly in situations where tempers are apt to fray, and
miscommunications are more than likely.
Scott
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
-Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l- boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge Sent: 04 October 2011 21:08 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm? On 10/04/11 3:51 AM, Tom Morris wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual communication in the language of Shakespeare. Oh, please. I'd call you a flap-mouthed miscreant, but instead I shall risk accusations of incivility and just facepalm quietly to myself. Pedantry is no more communicative than the memes of pop culture. Ec To be pedantic, I think you mean verbosity. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote: On 04 October 2011 at 21:08, Ray Saintonge wrote: On 10/04/11 3:51 AM, Tom Morris wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04, Scott MacDonald wrote: Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual communication in the language of Shakespeare. Oh, please. I'd call you a flap-mouthed miscreant, but instead I shall risk accusations of incivility and just facepalm quietly to myself. Pedantry is no more communicative than the memes of pop culture. To be pedantic, I think you mean verbosity. What part of Ten foot pole, not touching. don't you understand. Would that work better? Did you all manage to miss the point that Tom wasn't being pedantic or verbose? He was being Shakespearean (responding to what Scott said about the language of Shakespeare), doing so with the words 'flap-mouthed' and 'miscreant'. Unless that is considered a form of pedantry? See here for some examples: http://www.squidoo.com/shakespearean-insults I feel an you are all idiots moment coming on (that's an in-joke). Or rather, you are all pribbling plume-plucked puttocks. No, I don't know what that means either, but (to use Scott's phrase) it sounds 'kewl'. I wonder if Shakespearean insults would work better than trout and facepalm templates. Probably not. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
According to our article [[Facepalm]], this is a startrek internet meme
indicating an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief, disgust,
shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of perceived
idiocy.
Well, that must be right.
Given that, I am wondering why we tolerate a template {{facepalm}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Facepalm
This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just
looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional use
in self-deprecation, generally it is used as a shorthand put-down:
implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest contribution
self-evidently moronic.
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Thoughts?
Scott
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Thoughts?
Sounds reasonable on civility grounds. You could probably get a TFD to fly.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
According to our article [[Facepalm]], this is a startrek internet meme
indicating an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief,
disgust,
shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of perceived
idiocy.
Well, that must be right.
Given that, I am wondering why we tolerate a template {{facepalm}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Facepalm
This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just
looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional use
in self-deprecation, generally it is used as a shorthand put-down:
implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest contribution
self-evidently moronic.
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Thoughts?
{{facepalm}} (sorry... couldn't resist ;))
I bet any TFD goes off the rails...
On the one hand the template does have somewhat negative connotations. On
the other hand it always stuck me as a slightly less confrontational way of
saying that's stupid. *shrug*
Tom
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
I wouldn't judge it on the connotations, I'd judge it on the use. Self
deprecatory such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Winters is
fine.
Some of the other times it has been used are more troubling, but is it any
worse than some of the intemperate language we sometimes see? I'd prefer
that we keep it and try to resolve the conflicts rather than the symptoms of
those conflicts.
WereSpielChequers
On 3 October 2011 11:07, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
According to our article [[Facepalm]], this is a startrek internet meme
indicating an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief,
disgust,
shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of
perceived
idiocy.
Well, that must be right.
Given that, I am wondering why we tolerate a template {{facepalm}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Facepalm
This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just
looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional
use
in self-deprecation, generally it is used as a shorthand put-down:
implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest
contribution
self-evidently moronic.
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we
shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves
to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Thoughts?
{{facepalm}} (sorry... couldn't resist ;))
I bet any TFD goes off the rails...
On the one hand the template does have somewhat negative connotations. On
the other hand it always stuck me as a slightly less confrontational way of
saying that's stupid. *shrug*
Tom
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
Now on TFD, suggest we take it there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_Oct
ober_3#Template:Facepalm
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: 03 October 2011 11:05
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient
and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless
delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we
shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template
serves to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Thoughts?
Sounds reasonable on civility grounds. You could probably get a TFD to
fly.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Template:Jackass exists as a navigational template for the show.
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
Usually when I facepalm it's because I have a moment, not someone
else...
I believe [[WP:DICK]] is a bigger issue than {{facepalm}} at the moment
Bob
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we
shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves
to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Template:Jackass exists as a navigational template for the show.
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Schnautz
Sent: 03 October 2011 19:25
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
Usually when I facepalm it's because I have a moment, not someone
else...
I believe [[WP:DICK]] is a bigger issue than {{facepalm}} at the
moment
Bob
Dick has a didactic point - facepalm has none.
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Scott
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote: I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK. Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 13:06, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote: I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK. Because invoking it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick. One of the fun things we wrote into the policy right from the start was that invoking it was reflexively wrong, so really people shouldn't (barring extreme circumstances). It's primarily foundational (or constitutional) policy from which other merely high-level policies spring (e.g. No Personal Attacks; Don't Revert, Discuss; Consensus Can Change, etc.). If you find examples of people invoking it against others, you should take that to AN/I or a similar venue as it's generally a violation of NPA. ArbCom citing it in a case doesn't count, obviously. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting every time I see it doneand I can't see it going very far with Arbcom or with AN/Iconsidering how many people back it as one of the three most important principles of Wikipedia-- which I disagree with entirely When we founded ArbCom it was entirely with user disputes in mind. I'd be disappointed and surprised if poor user behaviour wasn't dealt with by the current Committee, but if you don't do anything about it and call people on their poor behaviour when you see it, it'll never improve. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting every time I see it doneand I can't see it going very far with Arbcom or with AN/Iconsidering how many people back it as one of the three most important principles of Wikipedia-- which I disagree with entirely Bob On 10/3/2011 3:11 PM, James Forrester wrote: On 3 October 2011 13:06, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote: I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK. Because invoking it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick. One of the fun things we wrote into the policy right from the start was that invoking it was reflexively wrong, so really people shouldn't (barring extreme circumstances). It's primarily foundational (or constitutional) policy from which other merely high-level policies spring (e.g. No Personal Attacks; Don't Revert, Discuss; Consensus Can Change, etc.). If you find examples of people invoking it against others, you should take that to AN/I or a similar venue as it's generally a violation of NPA. ArbCom citing it in a case doesn't count, obviously. J. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
James Forrester wrote: On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting every time I see it doneand I can't see it going very far with Arbcom or with AN/Iconsidering how many people back it as one of the three most important principles of Wikipedia-- which I disagree with entirely When we founded ArbCom it was entirely with user disputes in mind. I'd be disappointed and surprised if poor user behaviour wasn't dealt with by the current Committee, but if you don't do anything about it and call people on their poor behaviour when you see it, it'll never improve. J. That's an entirely different proposition from merely being vindictive for its own sake, which seems to be the current modus operandi of ArbCom. Calling people on their poor behaviour may be a function of ArbCom, but only when all other avenues have been exhausted, including RfC, and only when there is no plausible route to rehabilitation, including (but not limited to) friendly advice, a break from adminning to recover from the stress (which, to be honest, might well include death threatson one's own Talk page), or even a temporary desysop in the interests of the admin. Tell me, when did ArbCom last take that position, and actually realise that volunteering to improve Wikipedia, whether by adding content, or dealing with vandalism, or otherwise applying WP policies, is to be appreciated rather than castigated? Clue:Never, in my experience, and certainly not recently. ArbCom is a ramshackle, unaccountable shed, which should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, if not cast permanently into the not fit for purpose dustbin. It's a disgrace as it is now. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 16:06, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote: I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK. Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick. Every day, I see perfectly civil people facepalming. I have yet to see a civil person turn to someone in public and say Don't be a dick. I think perhaps some peoples' civility radar is somewhat out of tune. Risker/Anne ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
