--- On Sat, 5/2/11, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Academic writing makes a judgement
about what the most likely state
of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an
academic paper ,
in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions.
(I am
likely to skip ahead and
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe
Sent: 05 February 2011 10:21
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender
gap in Wikipedia
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA
standard, we'd need
to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer
was allowed to
start from scratch and write a new article,
I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components
which
usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged
editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never
defined
which of these is core and which is the means to the end, on the
On 05/02/2011, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state
of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper ,
in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am
likely to skip ahead and read the
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids
for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is
expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source
for
the
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some
people take
a percentage approach to it. My view is that the amount
of weight
something has in an article is a function not just of the
*amount* of
text, but also
That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the
more
heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the
more
lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.
NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to
reflect the shrill
Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state
of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper ,
in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am
likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem
interesting, then go
The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken
over by
single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and
continued
participation by a reasonable number of independent editors
with new
voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification
stagnation. At
various times, one or
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of
real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a
good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until
On 2/3/11 11:59 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of
real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a
good start. Once the demographics
On 3 February 2011 11:26, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
What about Wikipedia's culture actually led to an encyclopedia being
written, with a lot of good information, and a fairly neutral tone for
the most part?
Nerds are obsessive about things being right and not wrong. This leads
to most
On 3 February 2011 11:28, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is IMO W
... Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting
everyone edit the website.
-d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just
letting everyone edit the website.
Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly
encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to
be problems with me.
-MuZemike
On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
From: MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody
starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on
biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to
be problems with me.-MuZemike
All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to
be problems with me.-MuZemike
All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids
for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is
expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for
the subject.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from
mature, and still beset with problems
[...]
it is not easy to say what fair, proportionate representation
actually ought to mean in practice.
I
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2011 04:02, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
George, it may be how it works, but it also misleading - or worse. To
state that any decision made in this manner is a consensus of the Wikipedia
We seem to be confusing several separate issues here.
1) Directive versus self organising organisations.
Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are
inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self
organising organisations where power is devolved and
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
that there in
i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the
consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be
there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the
authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong
enough to block consensus - in any
so this leaves this proposed council with a responsibility to mediate
policy disputes and the authority to decide a deadlock in favor of a
strong majority based on strength of arguement and core values
(openness transparency etc) - this would basically end up being a
fairly weak system especially
so this leaves this proposed council with a responsibility to mediate
policy disputes and the authority to decide a deadlock in favor of a
strong majority based on strength of arguement and core values
(openness transparency etc) - this would basically end up being a
fairly weak system
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
The only danger i see is some people
will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor
of status quo.
The fact that consensus can change on Wikipedia is both its great
strength and its great
Marc, you should know me better than that.
No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia has
proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference
source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source
that has ever been created. This is hardly a
on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, you should know me better than that.
No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia has
proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference
source for most routine purposes--probably the most
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate
in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is dangerous is
just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
- remember that? The rest is just
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate
in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is dangerous is
just more nonsense of the libertine
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:12 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate
in policy discussions, and that any
David (Goodman) and Marc (Riddell) said it better than I could have
done. But I don't think stepping back and watching is necessarily the
best response. Those who have the time should take part in discussions
like this, and refine their positions as a result of what they say and
read. And write
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a benevolent dictator
position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities
are, and how and when they should intervene.
I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open
comment page and secret
(This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as
HTML and mucked up the formatting)
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a benevolent
dictator position, but we still would need to be clear on what their
responsibilities are, and how and when they should
Fred, this authority could bring order to the present chaos. As for my
proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them
out
with persons who also believe this change is necessary.
This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came
formatted on my
Yes, the civility message is garbled.
Because:
1) the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are generally,
tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and
breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is
also essential (and that,
Fred, this authority could bring order to the present chaos. As for my
proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them
out
with persons who also believe this change is necessary.
This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came
formatted on
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
1) the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are generally,
tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and
breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
That means we need a stronger executive that can decide
to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so
that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation.
These are the two
My own simple solution would be to elect a policy advisory committee
*The PAC would only consider policy areas, and only as a last resort, where the
status-quo did not enjoy evident consensus, but where repeated community
attempts to resolve the problem had proved futile.
*The PAC by majority
on 2/1/11 12:43 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term consensus
and, especially, the term community consensus used in many contexts on
this and other
On 01/02/2011, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
If you don't consider it as a trade-off then bad things happen, you can
lose
the most productive members.
Good propaganda, and it worked, but our most productive members are not
habitually nasty, only a few are.
This is a good
Carcharoth, we evidently edit entirely different wikis.
You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not
building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to
problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that
work. A bullheaded quick fix might look
How about this for starters for a leadership council. 5 members,
serving staggered 3 year terms, and possibly subject to recall, with
the following duties:
- To engage members of the community in open and frank discussions
about policy, technical, and content/style issues.
- To participate in
on 1/31/11 11:43 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
It's time.
To march on Tahrir Square?
Or the tower of babble :-)
I think you will find that Choosing a leader only works if you have
This idea arose in the context of a discussion which generally addressed
civility. The warnings would be civility warnings.
Fred
To that end, a warnings tool would be helpful,
supplementing or replacing the uw- templates with a MediaWiki
extension that requires that warnings be acknowledged
On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term
consensus
and, especially, the term community consensus used in many contexts
on
this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
That means we need a stronger executive that can decide
to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so
that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation.
These are the two
My own simple solution would be to elect a policy advisory committee
*The PAC would only consider policy areas, and only as a last resort,
where the status-quo did not enjoy evident consensus, but where repeated
community attempts to resolve the problem had proved futile.
*The PAC by
On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.
The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a
city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two
people are in the same
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute
content, but that anyone can help make policy. Though it's a little
harder to be accepted for this, even newcomers are listened to,
especially if they do not trying to do propaganda for promotionalism;
it is not necessary to
on 2/1/11 5:32 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Snip
We have something that has proven successful far beyond any
expectations. It puzzles me why anyone would want to risk a
fundamental change in its structure.
Because it, as well as its needs, have grown beyond its original
On 1 February 2011 23:06, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1/11 5:32 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
It cannot do everything, or suit
everybody. If one wants something different, try other projects.
David, are you really saying what I hear you saying - []If
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute
content, but that anyone can help make policy.
You don't seem to live in the same world as
on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by
the
Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer
and
donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have
I could make out the last sentence
which
contained the phrases, meaning of consensus, and consent of the
entire
community. No one has yet defined for me the meaning of
consensus,
nor
described for me how the consent of the entire community is
determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 7:52 PM,
I could make out the last sentence
which
contained the phrases, meaning of consensus, and consent of the
entire
community. No one has yet defined for me the meaning of
consensus,
nor
described for me how the consent of the entire community is
determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 7:52
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
that there in Community consensus, knowing that this consensus cannot be
factually validated?
It is
I could make out the last sentence
which
contained the phrases, meaning of consensus, and consent of the
entire
community. No one has yet defined for me the meaning of
consensus,
nor
described for me how the consent of the entire community is
determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 7:52 PM,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and
declaring
that there in Community consensus, knowing that this consensus
cannot be
factually validated?
On 2 February 2011 04:02, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
George, it may be how it works, but it also misleading - or worse. To
state that any decision made in this manner is a consensus of the Wikipedia
Community is fundamentally dishonest.
Marc, you're still looking for a
63 matches
Mail list logo
