Re: [WikiEN-l] IAR
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: You're jumping from IAR does not cure all (no disagreement) to IAR is harmful and must be removed, which does not logically follow. No I am not. I am saying however that slow is fast and you've got to learn the rules before you can break them. These are not pillars - these are *arcana derived through a teaching environment, and should never be expressed to novices. The core policies are not just cider house rules - they are principles. Foundational ones, even. By the way, would anyone like to take a guess as to who (whom?) added the language to WP:DISRUPT that instructs us to treat even comments (ie. 'on talk pages') to be regarded, and thus treated, as edits? And who here in general thinks its cool to block people with a different point of view just for trying to discuss their edits on talk pages? -Stevertigo Skyscrapers are scraping together your voice.. ___ 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] IAR
On 10/2/09, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is, IAR doesn't specify or imply what they mean by 'improve'. That's intrinsic to ignoring all rules. If they could give you a rule for when to ignore the rules, then they could codify that as a new rule and ignoring rules would never be necessary--every conceivable eventuality on Wikipedia would be covered by a rule. The world doesn't work like that. This policy relies on people trusting themselves to make decisions and take actions that seem okay to them, knowing that if there is a problem somebody else will spot it and fix it. It's an anti-policy, a way of saying that the rules are only there to make things better and they should not ever be used to stop that happening. There is a theory that when everybody finally understands Ignore all Rules it will be taken away and replaced by something even more baffling. There are some people who say this has already happened. ___ 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] IAR
Because it reminds people that the true responsibility to be a good Wikipedian lies with themselves, and not official police or arbiters. On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: That's intrinsic to ignoring all rules. If they could give you a rule for when to ignore the rules, then they could codify that as a new rule and ignoring rules would never be necessary--every conceivable eventuality on Wikipedia would be covered by a rule. The world doesn't work like that. This policy relies on people trusting themselves to make decisions and take actions that seem okay to them, knowing that if there is a problem somebody else will spot it and fix it. How does IAR help limit Civility violations, personal attacks, and slander? -Stevertigo ___ 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] IAR
2009/10/4 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: Then do we even need WP:Civility, if we have IAR? David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That's actually a subclass of [[m:Don't be a dick]]. Well your heirarchical classification skills leave something to be desired. By the way, according to Charles: There is actually no substantive consensus position that uncivil editors are a net negative to the site. With the current mantra being 'all for the good of the project,' In your opinion, shouldn't the rule instead be [[WP:Be a huge dick]]? -Stevertigo ___ 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] IAR
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:59 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/4 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: Then do we even need WP:Civility, if we have IAR? David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That's actually a subclass of [[m:Don't be a dick]]. Well your heirarchical classification skills leave something to be desired. By the way, according to Charles: There is actually no substantive consensus position that uncivil editors are a net negative to the site. With the current mantra being 'all for the good of the project,' In your opinion, shouldn't the rule instead be [[WP:Be a huge dick]]? How's that working out for you? (rimshot) ___ 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] IAR
stevertigo wrote: With the current mantra being 'all for the good of the project,' In your opinion, shouldn't the rule instead be [[WP:Be a huge dick]]? The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: How's that working out for you? (rimshot) What do you mean? -Stevertigo ___ 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] IAR
stevertigo wrote:
FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
there would also be users who would find ways around [Civil], ways to
offend, upset, annoy, provoke, or distress, that they could claim
wasn't strictly against the rules.
But a great number of people do these things and get away with it
within the current climate. I can offer examples, if you like. Are
you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good* dicks to act
like dicks?
We saw that with civil POV warriors.
{{fact}}
[[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing]]
I recall a case, was it RJ? He used to be fairly civil, but tendentious
none the less.
___
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] IAR
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: The danger there... ...is in starting out statements with phrases like the danger there. ...has always been... There is a danger in saying a thing has always been. For example, there is the danger that it is not true. ...that examination of civility gets elevated over examination of POV pushing. The POV pushing should always come first and be examined first. If, Carcharoth, you are saying here that we need some kind of conceptual separation between issues and behavioral disputes -- between behaviourist and editorialist approaches -- I strongly agree with your agreement to my idea. If you don't do that [treat POV pushing above incivility], the danger is that people use claims of civil POV-pushing to bludgeon opponents in content disputes... Using myself as an example, would people here appreciate it more if I was less civil when I bludgeon someone? In my experience, people will just jump on the Civility violation anyway - the only difference being their emphasis on mine and not theirs. -Stevertigo ___ 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] IAR
I took Carcharoth's use of bludgeon here a bit out of context. He wrote: the danger is that people use claims of civil POV-pushing to bludgeon opponents in content disputes, and say look, he is being civil, how awful!. I've been accused of late of 'bludgeoning opponents' *while* being Civil, and so I had a different concept in mind. In fact his point is apt to my case: Look, he is being civil, how awful! - is precisely how some are trying 'bludgeon' me, while ignoring the actual editorial / POV issues. -Stevertigo ___ 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] IAR
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: But a great number of people do these things and get away with it within the current climate. I can offer examples, if you like. Are you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good* dicks to act like dicks? No. I'm saying IAR ensures that /if/ an admin wishes to act against a genuinely problematic editor, wikilawyering (but policy allows what I did!) won't easy prevent them doing so. There is a perennial open doorway that says The wording only goes so far. The spirit and the benefit of the project trump exact wording. There is a perennially open doorway that says even if it hasn't come up before, and policy is designed to prevent some misconduct that is superficially similar in some ways, or policy has an unfortunate wording loophole, you can make an indfividual judgment on it. In a project where anyone can write wordings, the communal sense of the spirit of a policy, and its pre-eminence, is quite a significant thing. FT2 ___ 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] IAR
hooray for godwin! On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:48 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: stevertigo wrote: Are you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good* dicks to act like dicks? FT2 wrote: No. I'm saying IAR ensures that /if/ an admin wishes to act against a genuinely problematic editor, wikilawyering (but policy allows what I did!) won't easy prevent them doing so. Breaking that down: 5) There is nothing easy about wikilawyering. Blocking for wikilawyering on the other hand can be quite dickish.4) Wikilawyering is just a subjective ad-hominem (I'm alleged to be an expert, so I should know). Its an under-handed label that has meaning only because Arbcom is short-handed. 3) genuinely problematic editor is a total oxymoron (editors are not problematic), in addition to being a quarrelsome subjective, if genuinely is not [[well-defined]]. 2) /if/ an admin wishes... has to be a joke: 'If and only if [anyone] really really wants to...' If an admin wishes cannot qualify as a definition. 1) IAR ensures has to be a joke: i.e. 'this caveat guarantees...' [if] policy has an unfortunate wording loophole, you can make an indfividual judgment on it. I try to do that all the time, but my opposition in particular squabbled lately have *also* cited IAR to violate even Civil (an actual pillar). IAR only creates discordian paradoxes. In a project where anyone can write wordings, the communal sense of the spirit of a policy, and its pre-eminence, is quite a significant thing. Communal sense does'nt mean anything -- the Nazis had one also. We don't let wikiality guide article development for a reason -- why should wikiality continue to guide policy? -Stevertigo ___ 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] IAR
Ken Arromdee wrote: The result is people constantly claiming that you can't ignore rules for BLP or privacy concerns, since helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia. Hang on, you've set up a straw man there. You haven't shown how helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia is actually true. Which is wrong, because there are instances where helping the BLP subject does improve the encyclopedia. Most people who participate in debates of this nature are usually wise enough to recognise that there are two sides to the debate: the side that says maintaining good PR and taking moral and ethical concerns into consideration makes us a better encyclopedia, and the side that thinks that presenting information that is reliably sourced, verifiable and neutrally presented best improves the encyclopedia. Most sides will concede that you can IAR either way, but the important thing is that if you do IAR either way and someone feels you called it wrong, you don't actually quote IAR but instead you join the debate and reach and respect a consensus. IAR works fine until you use it as a defense. It isn't a defense. The defense is why you used IAR, not that you used IAR. I'd hate to arrest some of the people who misuse IAR; they probably carry a get out of jail free card from monopoly in their pocket for use in such circumstances. ___ 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] IAR
On 10/2/09, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: But the IAR policy is clear, if ANY policy, including BLP stops you improving the wikipedia then you can override it. ...until someone objects. The important caveat. Steve ___ 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] IAR
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/2/09, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: But the IAR policy is clear, if ANY policy, including BLP stops you improving the wikipedia then you can override it. ...until someone objects. The important caveat. Heh. That's interesting that the application of a policy (pillar even) that itself is simply a caveat, requires another caveat with regard to its application. In any case, the problem lies with both policies: IAR, as everyone here knows is a practical oxymoron, and a relic from a bygone era of adequate-ness, where a simplistic policy could substitute for a simple one. BLP is just a range-specific application of OFFICE and RS -- reliable sources itself being a necessary, but nevertheless idiopathic stepchild of the [[objectivity (journalism)]] principle (our NPOV), with a quasi-subjective misnomer in its name. -Stevertigo ___ 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] IAR
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote: The result is people constantly claiming that you can't ignore rules for BLP or privacy concerns, since helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia. Hang on, you've set up a straw man there. You haven't shown how helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia is actually true. It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be something that people believe and which can be gotten from a fairly straightforward reading of the rule. Which it is. ___ 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] IAR
On 02/10/2009, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be something that people believe and which can be gotten from a fairly straightforward reading of the rule. Which it is. The problem is, IAR doesn't specify or imply what they mean by 'improve'. Improve in what way? Is an encyclopedia improved by adding encyclopedic content on somebody who has been kidnapped or not? There's no value system; NOR, NPOV, BLP, ISNOT all give a value system, the wikipedia values this or that, but not that or the other. IAR doesn't, but can over-rule the rest. I'm saying no, it *can't* override BLP, because BLP is about protecting, not the wikipedia but a real life person from what is essentially libel. -- -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
