Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Hello all, New here; first post. I'm a longtime Wikipedia user and recent first-time editor. Had a rather discouraging incident with regard to my first article on the site, rather an eye-opener as I've attempted to study up on how things work -- or are supposed to work, and finding out that the loftier philosophies of the site really don't seem to hold a great reverence within the system. This is not just based on my one experience -- I was trying to save the article I'd written from deletion and trekked around the site looking for proper reasons it should survive. And I found them! Presenting them -- another matter. I then researched other such situations and found a very common theme. I also found external articles with numerous examples of discouraged editors -- and especially former editors. So on point with this situation, how do you talk the guy off the ledge -- naturally that's situational, but after that's resolved, the good question for prevention is why did he get there? And from what I've seen, there seems so much room for frustration, and so much room for conflict. The site has an article for so many internal situations, too -- and it almost begins to seem like the Bible in that someone can find a section to address nearly every circumstance. i.e., you can justify both yes and no some way or another. Hard to believe then, that conflicts arise? The site sounds so wonderful as you enter -- Come on in! Start writing! Be bold! Break the rules! and you're heartened by the seeming generosity of spirit. Until you actually encounter some experienced editors. The problem here then becomes something I've seen over and again in my own career -- people are actually more comfortable with rules than with vague standards which could allow for wiggle room. They all KNOW about the pillars and IAR and pay lip service -- but in practice, they have little real application. What's surprising is -- administrators seem to behave the same! My own philosophy as a supervisor/manager in my own career has been: if you're only there to make sure the rules are adhered to -- then you make yourself obsolete. No company needs a walking, talking version of the policy manual. What a supervisor exists for is more toward making sure the spirit of several objectives are met, including the policy's intent weighed against what's actually best for all concerned. If the policy says you close at 6:00 and the customer gets there at 6:01, you can turn him away and be right but suffer loss of goodwill and business for the company -- so how good was your judgement in that situation? And would you expect the company's owner to pat you on the back after that customer gets ahold of him? This may be overly simple in an interest to keep this short-ish, but it feels like the starting point of sorts would seem to lie with these administrators. Maybe they are just editors with better tools, but they have the experience with the site and they are the ones looked to for fair judgement and good example-setting. Special attention should be given to them as they are the de-facto frontline conflict resolution sources, and their education on how to do that well will serve to stave off larger conflicts and ALSO keep conflicts from escalating into the laps of the higher-ups, who would likely rather spend their time dealing with loftier matters! I don't know what the actual screening process is here; perhaps it does contain elements of the higher intentions of the site before approval is reached. Usually as advancement goes in most companies, a front-line worker does a good job and expects a promotion -- but everything he learned as a worker is not geared toward supervision. Soon after that promotion, his former fellow workers start grumbling and complaining about his power trips. Because -- as a new supervisor, he is overly diligent toward that policy manual, and tries to gain respect by insisting on his authority. So who really trained him on wiggle room and earning respect? Who teaches them that real power is had by knowing how to lead without carrying a sledgehammer by one's side? That's part of the goal then -- to get rid of the sledgehammers so that people don't keep getting clobbered. ___ 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Hi Mr. Goodman, I think you are talking about me when you mention the genius that sometimes accompanies valuable and important people who unfortunately tend to put on displays of individualistic irascibility that are unacceptable. As Manhattan Samurai, I was one of the best at this. I'm fortunate that I was eventually kicked off the English Wikipedia and most of my work progressively deleted. You'll now find my bibliography of William Monahan much improved at Squidoo, along with a web page about Dining Late with Claude La Badarian: http://www.squidoo.com/William_Monahan_Bibliography http://www.squidoo.com/Claude-La-Badarian I even have a blog: http://nypress-studies.blogspot.com/ Keep on truckin' Bill From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 2:06:03 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge? Frankly, I see that as unwarranted pessimism. The sets of people who want to change things and people who want to cause trouble are not identical, though there is a substantial intersection. Admins who have the lack of judgement to try to force their desired change into policy by using their arbitrary power of their ability to bully people, are at least as much a problem as the over-conformist. Indeed, I think it my role as an admin to be a conformist, and do only what is generally supported. When I want to work to get something different, that has to be done without the presumed immunities and special power of an administrator. To a certain extent the role does require tolerated the other admins, but that is just analogous to the requirement that an editor tolerate other editors. In both cases, the difficulty is that we have no usable sanctions until things become outrageous. Mild disapproval over the distance of the internet is very easy for someone to ignore entirely, until they have gotten themselves into an impossible position. My personal view remains that we should not tolerate insult even from the best and most established editors or administrators. A more civilized environment in these respects will help us get many addition new good editors and administrators to replace the ones who can not work in an acceptable fashion. Joining in a collective work is not the place for displace of individualistic irascibility, even when accompanied by genius--such people are very important and very valuable, but they should be working creatively-- and independently. On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:54 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ 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
[WikiEN-l] for years been promoting admins who go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:32 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni Yes, that does seem to be the main requirement, a successful candidate must never have taken a stand. This for a job that requires taking stands. Fred I failed my first try, and could have failed my second if I hadn't made a serious effort to ameliorate a negative perception from taking a stand earlier. The edge of the knife that we must balance on is both being willing to take stands, and be open to feedback from the community and from other admins if we take the wrong stand. Balancing there all the time is very hard. Being willing to admit you're wrong on something and still come back the next day willing and ready to make a hard call on its merits is not easy. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Somehow this thread became about RFA standards. What happened? - causa sui -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:56:22 +0100 From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge? To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4c3d5f96.6010...@ntlworld.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Ryan Delaney wrote: Somehow this thread became about RFA standards. What happened? True. We seem to be missing the point that the trouble with the Administrators Noticeboard is at least in part that it is a noticeboard, i.e. not a process for which there is a charter, but an unchartered discussion forum. Any claims that AN has the authority to do anything are complete nonsense, and admins act entirely as independent, responsible agents whatever thread they are pivoting off from. I don't see why this has to be the case, and have not done so for around three years. The community can require more. In fact it should require more. AN has long been something that should have been the subject of an RfC. Charles Message: 4 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:15:37 -0600 (MDT) From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge? To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 49934.66.243.197.173.1279098937.squir...@webmail.fairpoint.net Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Fred I failed my first try, and could have failed my second if I hadn't made a serious effort to ameliorate a negative perception from taking a stand earlier. The edge of the knife that we must balance on is both being willing to take stands, and be open to feedback from the community and from other admins if we take the wrong stand. Balancing there all the time is very hard. Being willing to admit you're wrong on something and still come back the next day willing and ready to make a hard call on its merits is not easy. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To tie this back to the original post: It is this sort of insight that enables a person to continue to participate and contribute over long periods of time. That sort of insight has been developed by people who have participated in the give and take of making decisions, some of which have worked out, while some have not. So how can we, in a practical way, socialize administrators in the skills
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Jon Q wrote: The site sounds so wonderful as you enter -- Come on in! Start writing! Be bold! Break the rules! and you're heartened by the seeming generosity of spirit. Until you actually encounter some experienced editors. The problem here then becomes something I've seen over and again in my own career -- people are actually more comfortable with rules than with vague standards which could allow for wiggle room. They all KNOW about the pillars and IAR and pay lip service -- but in practice, they have little real application. What's surprising is -- administrators seem to behave the same! You make some good points. Of course Wikipedia isn't utopian - nothing is, and even less so on the Internet with no screening of editors. Translating from the world of wiki to the world of work, as you do later in your post, what we really lack in admin selection could perhaps be summed up as a standard psychological test that could reveal who would show up in tense situations with an understated, reasonable, but firm approach. This thread originated in an issue where there must have been some failure to observe such standards, and not just on one side. I don't think there is any consensus as to what should be done. I'm of the school that thinks that admins should get on with editing and routine tasks, and only get involved with issues as they crop up (but should never duck those that do). The trouble with the other, more authoritarian approach typefied by AN is that it produces both wrong outcomes and an adverse reaction that now reveals itself as nay-saying in the community. My two cents. Charles ___ 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] Another sourcing problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Fall_Off_Boy Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the character who had the similar name. The Wikipedia article is allowed to mention none of this because it assumes that reliable sources are professionally published and we can't use fanzines and blogs for information... and professionally publishing anything about a joke character whose superpower is that his arm falls off is not too likely. (Also, previous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Zimmer_Bradley . Bradley had a dispute with a fan writer over fan fiction (whether it even counts as fan fiction is highly questionable). The fan's side of this dispute is available in blogs and fan sources; Bradley, being a published writer, could get her side described in sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards. Therefore, Wikipedia only tells one side of the story.) ___ 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] Another sourcing problem
My first instinct would be to ask what state of mind the comic writers were in when creating these characters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter-Eater_Lad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_Boy But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of like further reading. Carcharoth On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Fall_Off_Boy Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the character who had the similar name. The Wikipedia article is allowed to mention none of this because it assumes that reliable sources are professionally published and we can't use fanzines and blogs for information... and professionally publishing anything about a joke character whose superpower is that his arm falls off is not too likely. (Also, previous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Zimmer_Bradley . Bradley had a dispute with a fan writer over fan fiction (whether it even counts as fan fiction is highly questionable). The fan's side of this dispute is available in blogs and fan sources; Bradley, being a published writer, could get her side described in sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards. Therefore, Wikipedia only tells one side of the story.) ___ 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] Another sourcing problem
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote: But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of like further reading. The *character* is in a reliable source, it's just that the fact that it was based off a fandom joke or that the character's creator thought it was preexisting are not in reliable sources. And for the Marion Zimmer Bradley example, the *dispute* is present in reliable sources, it's just that *both sides* of the dispute are not (since only the side who is a professional author gets to publish her side professionally). And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken when it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying if it's not in a reliable source, there's nothing you can do misses the point. Sure there's something you can do: fix the definition of reliable source. ___ 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] Another sourcing problem
On 15/07/2010, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken when it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying if it's not in a reliable source, there's nothing you can do misses the point. Sure there's something you can do: fix the definition of reliable source. Or, isn't this the point of IAR? -- -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] Another sourcing problem
Ken Arromdee wrote: On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote: But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of like further reading. The *character* is in a reliable source, it's just that the fact that it was based off a fandom joke or that the character's creator thought it was preexisting are not in reliable sources. Why is this any different from any other kind of arcana? And do people really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business, whatever. If we wait until this becomes information - is documented in at least some literature about the area - that should be fine. Most specialist areas have at least a magazine. I don't think simply multiplying instances where at the margin the content policy works as it is intended to by itself undermines its purpose. Charles ___ 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] for years been promoting admins who go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users
I have a few problems with the above thread too, but perhaps different ones. Admins will naturally have a strong say in decisions being active experienced users who have achieved wide respect and are often involved in abuse and conduct related decisions. But they don't necessarily have special standing beyond any other users. While only an admin can actually block or unblock someone, any user/s can open or involve themselves in the discussion. As admins, they make important decisions but the community as a whole has a right to become involved in those. It is largely the community that is expected to self-manage. Admins have areas they proactively act and are going to act like experienced active users more than most, but this is not intended to marginalize the full community. Far from it - anything that expects admins to act like custodians and decision-makers to the point of overriding and marginalizing the community will be a concern. So the above thread seems wrongly positioned. The first priority for admins is to understand and exemplify the community's norms to a high standard. Good judgment, good sense of what the project is about, what helps it, what harms it. There are wide views on this so wide views in admins is expected. But some things are basics. Do no harm to the community itself. Admins who can be relied on to judge calmly, be neutral, be fair, be a good face of Wikipedia when they speak to new users who may be asking for help for the first time. Also admins need to be users who will make honest thoughtful judgments when something is bad for the project or when a user or dispute comes to attention. No cliques or putting friends and personal topics above the project, no emotional dramatica - admins have to be trusted that way moreso than for other users. But this is meaningless if they have the wrong initial attitude to adminship and the project in the first place. Beyond that, everything else is secondary. Going with the flow is a problem, but moreso is being an admin when one is not a good custodian of Wiki norms and has a basically substandard or poor attitude on wiki basics. 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Fred Bauder wrote: It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred IOW, Wikipedia isn't a suicide pact? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ 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] for years been promoting admins who go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:22 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: I have a few problems with the above thread too, but perhaps different ones. Admins will naturally have a strong say in decisions being active experienced users who have achieved wide respect and are often involved in abuse and conduct related decisions. But they don't necessarily have special standing beyond any other users. While only an admin can actually block or unblock someone, any user/s can open or involve themselves in the discussion. As admins, they make important decisions but the community as a whole has a right to become involved in those. It is largely the community that is expected to self-manage. Admins have areas they proactively act and are going to act like experienced active users more than most, but this is not intended to marginalize the full community. Far from it - anything that expects admins to act like custodians and decision-makers to the point of overriding and marginalizing the community will be a concern. So the above thread seems wrongly positioned. The first priority for admins is to understand and exemplify the community's norms to a high standard. Good judgment, good sense of what the project is about, what helps it, what harms it. There are wide views on this so wide views in admins is expected. But some things are basics. Do no harm to the community itself. Admins who can be relied on to judge calmly, be neutral, be fair, be a good face of Wikipedia when they speak to new users who may be asking for help for the first time. Also admins need to be users who will make honest thoughtful judgments when something is bad for the project or when a user or dispute comes to attention. No cliques or putting friends and personal topics above the project, no emotional dramatica - admins have to be trusted that way moreso than for other users. But this is meaningless if they have the wrong initial attitude to adminship and the project in the first place. Beyond that, everything else is secondary. Going with the flow is a problem, but moreso is being an admin when one is not a good custodian of Wiki norms and has a basically substandard or poor attitude on wiki basics. FT2 This all sounds good, and comes off as straightforward -- and it would be, if we lived in a world where Wiki norms were clearly defined and universally accepted. The problem there is that there is a great deal of disagreement about what those norms should be, as well as what should be done in any particular case, and disagreement often leads to exactly the kind of personal judgments about character and fitness to be an admin in general that you make here: These are the expected standards [chosen by me - who else?], we need people who exemplify them, and if you don't either because you can't or don't want to, you're not fit to be an admin and should be desysopped. That is profoundly alienating in practice, and you cannot win people over to your point of view when your approach is that authoritarian -- and it is the norm on AN/I. If I had to read minds, I'd guess that this is exactly what Jimbo was trying to avoid when he said adminiship is not a big deal. Obviously, it has become a big deal, but not for any good reason, and you're going to continue to lose valuable contributors as long as this continues to be the standard. - causa sui ___ 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] for years been promoting admins who go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users
I should say, the fact we are willing to discuss not assume is fine. Obviosuly the harm and upset arising is not. On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:18 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: (Snip) The second problem beyond that is the problem of fiddling while Rome burns. While we potter round discussing if, perhaps, such and such an incident was uncivil or BITEy, and whether anyone feels consensus exists to act, the user affected may be discouraged and leave. That's fine, we want to go careful and not be over extreme. Again we count on users to act to a high standard and enact the norms of the community. if they do - and the norms are pretty uncontroversial - then these issues would largely be resolved by the involved person themself. Given that the community has fairly stable long term and universal norms (although the detail and edge cases are very uncertain) what we need is admins who at least agree and follow those norms or try to, to a high standard. This would mean taking care in grey cases to avoid risk of upset even if it's an edge case... take care to be visibly fair and neutral even if they could argue they aren't involved, take care to explain and apologize if needed rather than assume or act rough. This is what I mean by needing users to have the right basic attitude. the rest then overlays that. ___ 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Fred Bauder wrote: It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred IOW, Wikipedia isn't a suicide pact? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen Ideally, Wikipedia is a life-long avocation. Fred ___ 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] Another sourcing problem
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Ian Woollard wrote: And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken when it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying if it's not in a reliable source, there's nothing you can do misses the point. Sure there's something you can do: fix the definition of reliable source. Or, isn't this the point of IAR? I don't think IAR is for systematic problems. ___ 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] Another sourcing problem
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote: Why is this any different from any other kind of arcana? And do people really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business, whatever. If we wait until this becomes information - is documented in at least some literature about the area - that should be fine. Most specialist areas have at least a magazine. I don't think simply multiplying instances where at the margin the content policy works as it is intended to by itself undermines its purpose. The Internet is available to hundreds of millions people. I think that disqualifies anything on it from being insider information. And the policy isn't working as it's intended to. The reliable sources rule isn't supposed to rule out arcana. We have rules that are actually about arcana to handle that. (Though I'm not sure exactly what the reliable sources rule is for. It's not, of course, about truth.) And even this excuse doesn't work for the Bradley example. Having only one side of a dispute because one side of the dispute is a published author and can more easily get her side published in a reliable source certainly isn't arcana. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
