[WikiEN-l] A useful new Google Chrome extension for Wikipedia
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjkdkiimioljbloddpl?hl=en - 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, it
took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 (Wikipedia's
entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral
disdain for human life.)
The coverage in his article and in [[Practical Ethics]] doesn't match the
controversy it created and doesn't pinpoint *why* it created a such a
controversy.
Yeah, I'm aware of {{sofixit}}.
[[User:Pjacobi]]
This would be problematic to take seriously. Singer's arguments that
seem to suggest that infanticide could be morally justifiable under
some circumstances are made in an environment of academic philosophy
where everyone recognizes that they are theoretical investigations,
and not authoritative pronouncements.
Conservatives (of the Conservapedia.com breed, anyway) are really
freaked out by this kind of thing because they think academics want to
replace Jesus as our moral authority -- they're used to accepting
answers to these kinds of hard questions from Divine Authority
(communicated to them through their favored religious institutions,
which relieves them of the burden of independent thought). But the
whole point of philosophical investigation is to figure out this kind
of hard problem through ongoing original thought, discussion, and peer
review. That there are few (if any) sacred cows in this endeavour
enables philosophers to pursue whatever they can argue for in a
persuasive (or at least interesting) way, and while some become
committed to outlandish ideas, usually they don't take hold. Singer's
arguments on infanticide are in that category: they are recognized as
interesting, but he hardly won consensus for them.
This particular breed of conservative thinker, being ignorant of the
advantages of independent philosophizing, waxes histrionic about how
If the Liberals succeed in replacing Jesus in the classroom, they
will command everyone to kill their babies! They are using the
counter-intuitive results of one philosopher's intellectual exercise
as an example of the grievous perils of Liberalism (which they have
thoroughly confused with a systematic academic pursuit of independent
thought). That allowing people to think independently will inevitably
allow some folk to come to conclusions we find reprehensible is a
price we pay, and the only way not to pay it is to enforce the kind of
uniformity that they want. Their shock tactics (A Liberal said
WHAT???) serves that agenda.
As such, maybe the article on Singer should discuss his arguments
about infanticide. As it happens, I think that is undue weight in the
current article, which is badly under-developed on issues where he has
more influence in the discipline.
- 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:42, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic,
it took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51
(Wikipedia's entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide
and moral disdain for human life.)
The coverage in his article and in [[Practical Ethics]] doesn't match the
controversy it created and doesn't pinpoint *why* it created a such a
controversy.
Yeah, I'm aware of {{sofixit}}.
[[User:Pjacobi]]
This would be problematic to take seriously. Singer's arguments that
seem to suggest that infanticide could be morally justifiable under
some circumstances are made in an environment of academic philosophy
where everyone recognizes that they are theoretical investigations,
and not authoritative pronouncements.
Conservatives (of the Conservapedia.com breed, anyway) are really
freaked out by this kind of thing because they think academics want to
replace Jesus as our moral authority -- they're used to accepting
answers to these kinds of hard questions from Divine Authority
(communicated to them through their favored religious institutions,
which relieves them of the burden of independent thought). But the
whole point of philosophical investigation is to figure out this kind
of hard problem through ongoing original thought, discussion, and peer
review. That there are few (if any) sacred cows in this endeavour
enables philosophers to pursue whatever they can argue for in a
persuasive (or at least interesting) way, and while some become
committed to outlandish ideas, usually they don't take hold. Singer's
arguments on infanticide are in that category: they are recognized as
interesting, but he hardly won consensus for them.
This particular breed of conservative thinker, being ignorant of the
advantages of independent philosophizing, waxes histrionic about how
If the Liberals succeed in replacing Jesus in the classroom, they
will command everyone to kill their babies! They are using the
counter-intuitive results of one philosopher's intellectual exercise
as an example of the grievous perils of Liberalism (which they have
thoroughly confused with a systematic academic pursuit of independent
thought). That allowing people to think independently will inevitably
allow some folk to come to conclusions we find reprehensible is a
price we pay, and the only way not to pay it is to enforce the kind of
uniformity that they want. Their shock tactics (A Liberal said
WHAT???) serves that agenda.
As such, maybe the article on Singer should discuss his arguments
about infanticide. As it happens, I think that is undue weight in the
current article, which is badly under-developed on issues where he has
more influence in the discipline.
- causa sui
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his
arguments on infanticide may be too prominent. But there are no
serious problems that I see.
- 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote: Ryan, All, (Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]]) Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his arguments on infanticide may be too prominent. But there are no serious problems that I see. Have you compared the German articles (at least using online translation)? It's not an ivory tower philosophy discussion, it got a lively real world controversy with activists from the disability rights movements and other (mostly far left) organisations trying and often succeeding to prevent Singer speaking in Germany (and elsewhere). A stream of articles and books published against and in defense of Singer? And while I have no overview about the situation in the US, there seem to be parallels, e.g. http://www.thearclink.org/news/article.asp?ID=426 Peter The controversy about Singer's ideas has definitely spilled outside of philosophy journals (where emotions don't run so hot). I don't read German, but the article on en.wiki covers that controversy pretty well, from what I can tell. I'm not sure what problem you are suggesting en.Wikipedia has, or what should be done about it, on this point. - 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:23, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his
arguments on infanticide may be too prominent. But there are no
serious problems that I see.
Have you compared the German articles (at least using online translation)?
It's not an ivory tower philosophy discussion, it got a lively real world
controversy with activists from the disability rights movements and other
(mostly far left) organisations trying and often succeeding to prevent
Singer speaking in Germany (and elsewhere). A stream of articles and books
published against and in defense of Singer?
And while I have no overview about the situation in the US, there seem to
be parallels, e.g. http://www.thearclink.org/news/article.asp?ID=426
Peter
The controversy about Singer's ideas has definitely spilled outside of
philosophy journals (where emotions don't run so hot). I don't read
German, but the article on en.wiki covers that controversy pretty
well, from what I can tell. I'm not sure what problem you are
suggesting en.Wikipedia has, or what should be done about it, on this
point.
- causa sui
Okay, I looked at [[de:Peter Singer]] using the Google Chrome
translation tool. It's coming through as pigeon English (It remains
unclear for some critics of the status does not articulate or later
only to articulate interests.) but I'm not getting the sense that the
public protests are better covered in de.Wiki than en.Wiki. The
section at [[Peter_Singer#Criticism_of_Singer]] seems more detailed
and historical, and includes a more balanced representation of
Singer's response to the controversies that result from a second-hand
reading of his more sophisticated and well-developed ethical system.
If there is content more comprehensible to German readers that should
be added to the English article, then this is indeed a {{sofixit}}
problem.
Further, after a closer reading of [[Peter Singer]], I really strain
to detect any liberal bias in this article. Although reasonable
suggestions for improvement could easily be made in various places, I
seriously doubt that any will come from Conservapedia authors: we
should expect that the only content that would satisfy them would be
polarizing histrionics about the evil demon Peter Singer and his
baby-eating liberal drones. Anything less, in their view, is liberal
bias -- see the above (reality has a liberal bias, etc) for an
explanation as to why.
Remember that the primary goal of a Conservapedia article is to remind
the reader about why conservatism is so great, why liberalism is so
bad, to reinforce conservative viewpoints and to produce angry
judgment while terminating independent thought and investigation. If
you want to know the full sum of what Conservapedia editors think you
need to know about Peter Singer, look no further:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Peter_Singer
- 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:36, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to stop there, with a general observation - I think they're
right on one big picture thing: Wikipedia has an editorial bias - our
default neutrality is that of a moderately internationalist,
left-of-US-center somewhat more intellectual than average and more
young internet user than average position, compared to the US
political landscape as a whole. I.e., our userbase (editors) is
skewed younger and more liberally, with the Internet early adopters
general population statistics.
I am concerned not so much with the specifics they are pointing out,
but at a general trend that we may include more negatives about
conservative positions and people than about liberal positions and
people, which would be worth some statistical analysis. Ancedotal
examples, especially those cited by someone so far off on the right
end of the spectrum as young-earth creationists, aren't particularly
useful for identifying the pattern.
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
I don't get this objection, really - that is, if I'm reading you
right, that you should be concerned that your articles include fewer
negatives about conservative positions. Your goal ought to be to
represent facts, not to strike a balance between highly politicized
narratives that are woven to serve the interests of political
movements rather than accumulate knowledge.
The generally 'moderately left of center' perspective of most
Wikipedia articles reflects the same bias present in US media sources;
and some people{{weasel}} (me) would consider that to be quite an
extreme conservative perspective, eg in articles on Islamic terrorism,
well to the right of most people in the country (and the facts, for
that matter).
The great thing about an encyclopedia is supposed to be that compiling
the facts cuts through these preconceived notions, but when your
sources are already themselves biased, it may be time to look in the
mirror a bit.
- 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] Evaporative cooling in online communities
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:54 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sundays-2-the-evaporative-cooling-effect/ Warrens versus plazas. The former scales (writing articles), the latter doesn't (the project space areas of Wikipedia, participating in which sets you firmly on the path to working through your eighteen-month wikiburnout). - d. Now here's the interesting point: High value participants are treated as special because they have recognition reputation from the community. But, as the community scales, these social mechanisms break down and often, if nothing is done to replace them, high value members get especially miffed at the loss of special recognition and this accelerates the Evaporative Cooling. We have the reverse problem on Wikipedia, where visibility and reputation allows some editors to get away with behavior that we otherwise wouldn't tolerate. John Locke called this kind of reputation 'prerogative' -- it's now become a technical term in political science, but it basically means that when we notice someone making decisions that everyone else goes along with, we start to 'go with the flow' and accept that person's authority in future cases as well. It's a kind of momentum building of social power, and since it's the only real power anyone has on Wikipedia, it is very significant - and vulnerable to abuse. Where a contributor known to make lots of valuable contributions in other areas suddenly demonstrates insanity on a specific topic, people will tend to give way where they wouldn't if it were coming from someone they didn't know or view as a 'valued contributor'. The result is the 'evaporative cooling' of those who don't have that social power on Wikipedia, or less of it, but whose edits are no less valuable - if only less voluminous. This is a problem that is largely the result of what this author calls the 'plaza' nature of Wikipedia: where one has had a pleasant and long-standing editorial relationship with a contributor, you will tend to afford a lot of prerogative to that contributor, even when you see them engaged in disputes about which you know very little. You respect and maybe admire that contributor, but you don't see them from the standpoint of other people -- whose experience may not be so rosy. The Wikipedia community has the illusion of being homogenized, but it is not, in that sense; because every editor only has his fingers in so many pies, he can't know whether the rest of them taste good or not. - 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] Evaporative cooling in online communities
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: Now here's the interesting point: High value participants are treated as special because they have recognition reputation from the community. But, as the community scales, these social mechanisms break down and often, if nothing is done to replace them, high value members get especially miffed at the loss of special recognition and this accelerates the Evaporative Cooling. We have the reverse problem on Wikipedia, where visibility and reputation allows some editors to get away with behavior that we otherwise wouldn't tolerate. John Locke called this kind of reputation 'prerogative' -- it's now become a technical term in political science, but it basically means that when we notice someone making decisions that everyone else goes along with, we start to 'go with the flow' and accept that person's authority in future cases as well. It's a kind of momentum building of social power, and since it's the only real power anyone has on Wikipedia, it is very significant - and vulnerable to abuse. Where a contributor known to make lots of valuable contributions in other areas suddenly demonstrates insanity on a specific topic, people will tend to give way where they wouldn't if it were coming from someone they didn't know or view as a 'valued contributor'. The result is the 'evaporative cooling' of those who don't have that social power on Wikipedia, or less of it, but whose edits are no less valuable - if only less voluminous. Arguably we have the reverse of your reverse problem. What is the ultimate status-lowering action which one can do to an editor, short of actually banning or blocking them? Deleting their articles. In a particular subject area, who is most likely to work on obscurer articles? The experts and high-value editors - they have the resources, they have the interest, they have the competency. Anyone who grew up in America post-1980 can work on [[Darth Vader]]; many fewer can work on [[Grand Admiral Thrawn]]. Anyone can work on [[Basho]]; few can work on [[Fujiwara no Teika]]. What has Wikipedia been most likely to delete in its shift deletionist over the years? Those obscurer articles. The proof is in the pudding: all the high-value/status Star Wars editors have decamped for somewhere they are valued; all the high-value/status Star Trek editors, the Lost editors... the list goes on. They left for a community that respected them and their work more; these specific examples are striking because the editors had to *make* a community, but one should not suppose such departures are limited to fiction-related articles. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net/ This could be interpreted to reinforce the point I made in the quoted post. Articles penned by authors who are experts in obscure (from the standpoint of US culture: see Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias) social or historical topics are generally deleted by pitchfork-wielding mobs of vested contributors, who are vested due to their contributions in other areas. Gnomes and anonymous users never banded together to delete valuable content. - 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address, failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a message from either group. John As a OTRS member, do you really believe the language you just used in that email as appropriate? Seriously. It is beyond depressing to be continually reminded that this kind of behavior is still condoned and even expected. I'll be singing off this mailing list shortly. Good luck turning things around. - 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
I wouldn't over-interpret my parting shot. I was on the way out the door anyway. - causa sui On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: John Doe has been desysopped, or possibly resigned as an administrator. He has not been outcast from the human race. He has minimum responsibilities which he performs in a reasonably competent manner. We are not pure and have no intentions of attempting to become pure. However, as always, John Doe is reminded to be consistently courteous regardless of circumstance. If you feel the rough and tumble of the agora is too much; well, sometimes it is. Fred Bauder On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address, failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a message from either group. John As a OTRS member, do you really believe the language you just used in that email as appropriate? Seriously. It is beyond depressing to be continually reminded that this kind of behavior is still condoned and even expected. I'll be singing off this mailing list shortly. Good luck turning things around. - 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 ___ 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] Destructionism
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. You have an erroneous assumption: that there is perfection or that even a high quality article says all that anyone would ever want to know on the topic. It tends to proceed in a cycle. Well-written, someone adds more stuff they think is missing, someone polishes the writing once more, someone adds more stuff. Those who did the polishing get *really annoyed* at the people adding more *stuff*, but it probably benefits the reader. People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its polished writing. Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. - d. I don't think you have to have delusional ideas about article perfection to understand that at as article quality increases, the chance that any individual edit will improve it decreases. - 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
What do you propose? On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:00 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: It's a major issue, and needs recognition as such and a cultural problem, not just on ANI but anywhere it happens. FT2. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: It seems like the trick is to work toward implementing this as an actual cultural ideology, which it certainly is not on AN/I right 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 ___ 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 5:18 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: But I think the key norms are universally accepted. Take No personal attacks and civility as two examples. Differences may exist whether a particular matter is or isnt an attack or uncivil, whether to act or ignore it, and a number of long-term users and admins have at times posted in a way that clearly breaches those and do not seem to hold them in high regard judging by their conduct. Despite all the breaches of these, in 10 years I have yet to see any communal proposal gain any kind of traction to agree that incivility is okay, that rudeness or attacks are sometimes allowed, or that vested/long term users should be held to a different standard than anyone else. Nothing to that effect has ever been proposed seriously nor gained traction. Why? Because we don't believe in those things. The belief in a common high standard is universal, even if some users don't act up to it. What we have trouble with is people who _know_ these are universal norms but still seem to think who cares about them. The first problem is basic attitudes - people who know what is agreed but flagrantly ignore it when it suits them, or selectively apply it. 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. FT2 I'm still losing sight as to what this has to do with administrator flame-out. Anyway, I think you've chosen easy cases for universally accepted standards. Let's try a hard case of a disagreement about basic values that directly led to my 'flame out' and retirement: Should an administrator avoid the appearance of impropriety by declining to use sysop tools to enforce the Biographies of Living Persons policy in a dispute where he could be seen as a participant? My opinion, and that implied by a few interesting Arbcom rulings, is that it's dangerous -- but BLP-violating content is much more dangerous, so we ought to remove it with all possible haste. That is not at all everyone's opinion, as I found out. Now, in my view, that's a kind of disagreement people ought to be able to talk about. Both sides are plausible and it's a hard nut to crack, and you could hold either viewpoint in good faith. So suppose I really was wrong. Someone should be able to peer-review administrative conduct and say Look, you don't want to do it that way because X Y and Z consequence is bad for the project. That's how we reach this kind of consensus about how things ought to be done that gradually takes form in the policy. The problem was that not only did people disagree with me, but they were fundamentally unwilling to talk about it, or even listen to what I had to say: rather, they took on this exact same attitude that you display here: These are the rules, you fucked up, so grovel and apologize, and you should be desysopped. It's not necessary to explain why the rules are the rules because they're the rules. If you don't understand or disagree, you're a problem, and having you around is bad for the project. What you said is the nice way of saying the same thing. Why would anyone want to be an administrator in this kind of environment? - 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
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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
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 ___ 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?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: 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 involved in continuing to participate effectively in an important project when everything isn't going as you might like. This happens in all large organizations. I keep thinking that stories of our adventures are relevant. That's what happens in other social situations, building the culture of how difficulties are coped with. Stories of successes and disasters; I'm afraid most of that lore has been closely held by insiders and not widely shared in the administrator community, as much of what when on was confidential for one reason or another. We'd like people who get into trouble to work through it and continue to contribute on a long term basis. That is a different path from someone getting into trouble, then we're done with them. Fred This is good stuff and I think it's a good thing for people to learn how to cope with adversity in general. Mistakes and stressful situations are inevitable, and working in an administrative capacity is inherently more likely to attract flak when people don't like the decisions you make. I developed a pretty thick skin doing RCP, for example. I was harassed and received death threats as a result of blocking vandals or protecting pages on The Wrong Version during a content dispute. It happens all the time. Some people don't deal with that well, especially when they're also getting second-guessed by the community, and the project would be well served if administrators had psychological tools available to them to handle the inner conflict. The other side of that coin is that when there are systemic problems that necessarily reduce in stress or even abusive treatment of administrators, you ought to be identifying and correcting that. Right now, you have exactly such a situation. Working toward identifying and correcting whatever cultural aspects of Wikipedia community compound rather than relieve the stress and suffering caused to administrators doing their jobs is an important priority not to be crowded out by the thinking that we need to learn to deal with oppressive bureaucracy or a culture of mob justice. With that in mind, there is a diplomatic pitfall to the approach you suggest. In same cases, focusing on helping administrators learn to cope with the pressure inherent to the jobs they've volunteered to do is going to come off patronizing. I certainly heard it that way when people made this kind of suggestion in real-time, because it was another example of someone telling me what *I* needed to be doing differently. I didn't feel like the problem was that I needed to learn to accept that I was being treated badly; it may well have been better for my peace of mind if I had, but that is not a solution that is going to help the project. So from a strategic perspective (retaining human resources) it's perilous, but also it might lead you to develop blind spots to real and solvable problems. You don't want to get into a situation where any time a problem comes up you recall that Stressful situations are inevitable, we need to [take a break and cool down / come back later / apply whatever other therapeutic technique we've prescribed] because then you'll not do what you need to do to fix a serious cultural problem that necessarily gives rise to administrator flame out. My skin was already plenty thick. A lot of the people who have burned out or resigned as a result of this were experienced editors who knew what it was like to be under pressure for making a decision someone didn't like. You can't do everything right, but you can recognize problems and take steps toward addressing them. Helping people learn to cope with stress may be one prong of your attack, but it can't be the only one -- not here. - causa sui ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The other side of that coin is that when there are systemic problems that necessarily reduce in stress or even abusive treatment of administrators, you ought to be identifying and correcting that. Right now, you have exactly such a situation. Working toward identifying and correcting whatever cultural aspects of Wikipedia community compound rather than relieve the stress and suffering caused to administrators doing their jobs is an important priority not to be crowded out by the thinking that we need to learn to deal with oppressive bureaucracy or a culture of mob justice. With that in mind, there is a diplomatic pitfall to the approach you suggest. In same cases, focusing on helping administrators learn to cope with the pressure inherent to the jobs they've volunteered to do is going to come off patronizing. I certainly heard it that way when people made this kind of suggestion in real-time, because it was another example of someone telling me what *I* needed to be doing differently. I didn't feel like the problem was that I needed to learn to accept that I was being treated badly; it may well have been better for my peace of mind if I had, but that is not a solution that is going to help the project. So from a strategic perspective (retaining human resources) it's perilous, but also it might lead you to develop blind spots to real and solvable problems. You don't want to get into a situation where any time a problem comes up you recall that Stressful situations are inevitable, we need to [take a break and cool down / come back later / apply whatever other therapeutic technique we've prescribed] because then you'll not do what you need to do to fix a serious cultural problem that necessarily gives rise to administrator flame out. My skin was already plenty thick. A lot of the people who have burned out or resigned as a result of this were experienced editors who knew what it was like to be under pressure for making a decision someone didn't like. You can't do everything right, but you can recognize problems and take steps toward addressing them. Helping people learn to cope with stress may be one prong of your attack, but it can't be the only one -- not here. - causa sui Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help them cope with nightmares. Fred What do you propose? ___ 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?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help them cope with nightmares. Fred What do you propose? Personally, what I'm going to do is participate more on noticeboards. Adapting that to a general solution would involve experienced administrators paying more attention to the give and take on the noticeboards and jumping in more when something seems to be going wrong. Fred Good luck to you, then. I hope you can help turn it around. ___ 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?
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:48 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: snip I have had to walk away from recent changes repeatedly. Picking up on the walking away bit. There are, of course, those who find themselves *unable* to walk away. Either because they are deeply involved, or because they find themselves being drawn back time and time again. Or because they enjoy the drama. I've fallen into that trap a few times myself. I'm sure it is in some essay somewhere, but the ability to be able to walk away is an important one (though not allowing yourself to be *bullied* away of course). The other aspect is that different users exhibit different levels of maturity depending on their current state. Being able to ease past that without responding in kind or allowing your frustration to show, is one strategy (though calling people out for any immaturity is also important, you need to pick the right place and moment). Remonstrating with someone in the middle of a discussion about something else ends up being a distraction. I find it best to try and refocus people on the substance of what is being discussed, and then to take up the other issues later. Carcharoth I don't think this can be regarded as any kind of permanent solution. Walking away would have done nothing in my case because I was the one being hounded. - 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute For reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review On and off wiki I have mentioned before that we are really bad, as a project, at identifying people who have worked themselves into an angry corner and feel that they must blow up and leave, and then talking them down and defusing the situation. This is in my experience the typical (or at least, a major and common) exit mode of longtime highly involved contributors. Our existing policy and precedent really don't address this problem. We have had individual admins and experienced editors spot the pattern start and work to calm situations down on an individual basis, with mixed results. But typically the pattern is not really recognized until it's too late. Posed for consideration - This is a problem worth putting more time and effort into, and which the project will benefit significantly from getting right over the long term. The question is - what exactly do we do about it? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com You most definitely do have this exact problem and I am one of many test cases. I find myself replying to these topics due to my still-passionate belief in the value of the project being balanced out by my equally convictional belief that Wikipedia culture is so thoroughly broken on this issue that it would be truly foolish for me to try to continue to help. As you might have already gathered from the tone of the previous paragraph, as well as another email I recently wrote to this mailing list about it, I'm still sufficiently sore about this that I might descend into ranting if I get on to the topic -- I have a lot of lingering resentment about this still, with all the attendant (and irrational) expectations of apology and reconciliation. Suffice to say that the process of AN/I is extremely ill-suited to handling allegations of administrator misconduct for reasons you and David Goodman insightfully and accurately diagnose. I want to make clear to some, including Charles Matthews (though he is not the only person to suggest this 'wikibreak' idea to me and others in similar situations) that I am most definitely not on a Wikibreak. This isn't an issue of me getting angry and needing to 'cool down' -- it's an issue of me coming into contact with first-hand knowledge that administrators doing difficult work on the worst parts of Wikipedia will absolutely not find themselves supported by the community for doing so -- to the contrary, they will often find themselves cut down. Only a fool would continue to do difficult administrative work in this environment, regardless of his or her mood at the time. Although I would very much like to see the situation improved, I have no intention whatsoever in editing in any administrative capacity until I see evidence of improvement. So, as I see it, the only road forward that is consistent with both my faith in Wikipedia as a concept and my unwillingness to edit in an administrative capacity is to make whatever small contributions I can to people like you who want to know what is going wrong, what could be handled differently or better, and what the experience is like for people in my situation. - 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
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia’s Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences
Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure interpretation of the anyone can edit part of your slogan. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1606233seqNum=4 ___ 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] declining numbers of EN wiki admins
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators means a _growth_ in bureaucracy? It would normally mean the opposite, either a loss of control, or that the ordinary members were taking the function upon themselves. What I see is a greater degree of control and uniformity, not driven by those in formal positions of authority. No, I don't think there is any direct correlation between number of administrators (which is quantifiable) and growth in 'bureaucracy' (which is not). I'm referring to a general cultural shift that has occurred in the past couple years in various places (I could go into detail). IAR and the philosophy behind it is most definitely losing ground on Wikipedia, almost completely gone, and to the great detriment of people who frankly want to get shit done. That can be enforced by admins and regular users alike: it makes no particular difference. If something I said implied otherwise, I was quite wrong to do so. On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 12:56 AM 6/1/2010, Durova wrote: Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship can be a serious liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit can include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone calls to one's home, and worse. The Wikimedia Foundation has never sent a cease and desist demand to the people who have made a years-long hobby of driving its administrators away. Durova's history is a classic example. She was hounded by a screaming mob when she made a mistake, even though she recognized the error and undid it within an hour. She might have been desysopped had she not resigned, but that would have been a miscarriage of wikijustice. She should have been defended, but was not. And why? I've never really studied that. While I've studied and have dealt with administrative abuse, the people who are most abused by the Wikipedia system are administrators, and that is probably a major source of abusive adminship. I've argued for clear and strong rules for admin recusal, but what's often been missed is that this *protects* administrators from becoming over-involved in the mudslinging contests. This is intensely problematic, and the current trend of strict (almost fanatical) adherence to the principle of administrator non-involvement is a serious barrier to the functioning of Wikipedia. We talk about how there is a lot of administrative work to be done, and I'll indicate to you that a reason there is so much work to be done is that administrators are regularly being prevented -- even punished! -- for doing it by these kinds of arbitrary rules. Smart administrators do not do the difficult work of wading into 'mudslinging contests' and trying to sort them out because the general community will *not* support them for their efforts, and as in my case, will actually consider them *responsible* for whatever further ugliness occurs after their involvement begins. Administrator non-involvement is supposed to be advisable as a means to avoid possible conflicts of interest. Arbcom ruled that administrators should not use their sysop tools to further *their own position* in a content dispute. This was in my opinion a very wise choice of words, as it specifies exactly *what* is wrong with administrators using their sysop tools improperly. But in fact, non-involvement is interpreted far more broadly by the community. Administrators are now applying the principle of non-involvement as a way of saving face -- and their necks, because even the appearance of impropriety can be fatal where the community in general tends to side against administrators and assumes that an actual conflict of interest is occurring whenever an administrator even appears to have one. The result is that the smart people don't get involved in the hard cases, which creates an atmosphere of peace, but causes article content to suffer dramatically -- and those admins who don't have that street sense, like me, run afoul of the rules and get disillusioned and quit. Witch-hunts that result out of conflict-of-interest complaints are only one of many issues where administrators have no support at all for what they are doing. This is a cultural problem that we really could change by coming to defense of administrators who are the subject of witch-hunts. I'm equally to blame for this, because I fell to first they came for the gypsies syndrome -- I should have spoken up when it was Durova and others, but I didn't, and then they came for me. But I can tell you, and I hope you all take this feedback seriously because most disillusioned admins who lost interest in doing this hard work won't bother to tell you why they quietly left, or quietly stopped doing the hard ugly work that nobody wants to do, that there is no reason at all for an administrator to do the ugly work of
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins
Pretty much. That's more or less why I quit the project. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: WereSpielChequers wrote: What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors? Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard expected of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years? KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ 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 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] Resolving conflicts and reaching consensus
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Peter Tesler vpt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone - This is a project presented at Wikipedia Day 2010 at NYU in New York last January..http://ideagra.ph We presented this as a way to discuss a few of the most complicated/controversial Wikimedia-related issues that haven't yet garnered a consensus. It was specifically designed to fix the current problems with Wikipedia's discuss pages (arguments get very long, complex, and messy). What makes a debate here different from one on a standard discuss page? Statements have a color (green/red) which represents their current state of consensus (something that's been refuted, for instance, is red). You can also re-use facts concluded in other debates by other people - thus allowing the work of debating/reasoning to be distributed among (potentially) billions of people. We've created a Wikipedia category for issues surrounding Wikipedia: http://ideagra.ph/1870 We need your feedback... -Peter Twitter: http://twitter.com/ideagraph Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ideagraph/319390481771 The software looks pretty cool. Here are some of my concerns about it. A common way to stifle discussion about nuance in any situation is to refer to old discussions on similar ideas and say we already discussed this and got consensus. Keeping an ancient history of all past debates could cause a single discussion to echo forward in time indefinitely. I don't think we should feel bound by previous arguments, and there is never a point where discussion cannot be re-opened. Also, keeping track of percentages in voting has a way of obscuring the actual arguments as not everyone's opinion is simply up or down on any issue. For example, this is why we don't simply count votes in an AFD (at least, we're not supposed to): We want to consider the weight of the arguments and get a more abstract 'feel' for what consensus is, rather than compiling a simple tally, because tallies aren't very informative. Finally, and most importantly, sometimes we need to go over topics again to address evolving editorial experience and new circumstances. It doesn't bother me if that means occasionally re-inventing the wheel, because every time we invent the wheel it might be a bit better or more well-suited to the situation than last time. It's good to archive past discussion for later reference (or to catch up new people who joined the conversation late), but not because we don't want people to have to think, use their reasoning, and engage in discussion on topics that someone else has discussed in the past; we want that because the process of discussion itself is enlightenment, even when the topic has been discussed in the past. - 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] Cuil launches CPedia.com, the robotically generated encyclopedia.
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Remember Cuil, the worst search engine of last decade? This is what they've done with the left over hardware: an automated encyclopedia. http://www.cpedia.com/ It's like Wikipedia read by Mark V. Shaney. - d. Lmao. ___ 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] Cuil launches CPedia.com, the robotically generated encyclopedia.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Remember Cuil, the worst search engine of last decade? This is what they've done with the left over hardware: an automated encyclopedia. http://www.cpedia.com/ It's like Wikipedia read by Mark V. Shaney. - d. Lmao. http://www.cpedia.com/search?q=cuil ___ 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: I would be uncomfortable with about blanking articles, if it couldnt do better in telling whether or not something is referenced than the last week or so of deletion nomination has done. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG I've read this five or six times and I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase please? - 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion. Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for any examples, anywhere, of wikis that use Pure Wiki Deletion. I don't think they came up with any at all. Are there any? (Is it possible that the biggest and most popular wiki in the world might not be the best place to make the very first one?) Not that I know of. Lomax made some interesting points though, and I want to carry that reasoning forward. I think there are two compelling reasons to adopt PWD: (1) we have substantial evidence that a wiki-style content editing process is a successful way to build an encyclopedia because every other content decision we make uses that basic format... and look at all the wild success we've had with it. (2) The current deletion system is a failure, as it creates intractable problems like this one. Because of the terrific success we've had with making all /other/ kinds of content edits subject to the Wiki model (and our almost religious faith in the dispute resolution process), I think the burden ought to be on everyone else to explain why pure wiki deletion /wouldn't/ work. It doesn't introduce any new problems that we don't already have extensive experience and process in place to solve, since deletion would be treated as any other kind of edit (and so edit wars over deletion could be treated like any other edit war) -- it increases transparency and makes it easier to restore content in cases like this one, so that we ALSO wouldn't feel so bad about temporarily deleting marginal BLPs until they can be improved (and by anyone, not just admins) -- and it massively simplifies deletion process in the case of 99% of deletions which are absolutely uncontroversial. The only software changes we would need would be that blanked pages should show up as redlinks and should not be indexed by search engines or show up when someone hits Random Page. That's pretty much it. The software changes are easy and minimal, but the cultural change would be massive. I appreciate everyone's trepidation over this, really-- big changes are scary. But I really wonder how many of these catastrophic snafu's we'll have to go through before people get fed up with the problems that inevitably result from this deletion system and look for some kind of major overhaul. That's not pie in the sky -- it's in order. We ought to get started now. - 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: You older Wikipedians run along now; you've had your day. The adults are talking now - I are serious editors, this are serious website. Funny how BLPs have been the most serious threat facing the project, so serious that mass mutiny is justified and the jettisoning of our old ways and practices - and have been since at least 2006. I guess when I look cynically upon the Chicken Little BLP warriors, it just reflects my own ignorance of how Wikipedia teeters on the brink every day, how countless suicides and ruined lives have been averted by their heroic daily efforts. -- gwern This is really not the attitude that we want to project toward anyone. I'm very disappointed by the tone of this email. - 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/01/2010, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: This is really not the attitude that we want to project toward anyone. I'm very disappointed by the tone of this email. Tone is one thing, but I'm more concerned about the complete lack of process here. Thanks for getting this back on track. Am I correct in thinking that a lone admin can technically delete *any* BLP article at all by: a) 'challenging' and removing any references b) instantly deleting the article for being unreferenced In theory, an administrator could do this. Technically. While that's a somewhat contrived scenario; I've seen admins do things a bit like that before, and they could probably argue that a) was what they truly believed (even if everyone else considers the references to have been good). The solution to that is to follow dispute resolution and clean up the mess. We don't add rules to cover every possible eventuality. We have common sense for that. So is it right that there's a rule, but no process for these kinds of deletions? Pretty much. What you're describing, if it is happening, does sound like a problem deserving of attention. But I wouldn't jump to creating a new bureaucracy to handle this problem any more than I would another. - 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Chicken Little is a fairly good comparison. I see in this group of BLPs only the possibility of potential problems. I am waiting for evidence that any of those deleted without checking so far has done harm by being there. You probably won't be getting that evidence, since the way the policy is in place, the burden of proof isn't on the person removing the content-- it's on the person adding it. That's not just how BLP works, but the verifiability policy as well, and that's a Good Thing(tm). If people want to add content to Wikipedia, they ought to be providing sources for it. We're somewhat lax about enforcing that when it's inanimate objects, but we aren't lax about it when we're talking about real people. That seems to me to be the right balance. - 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that either before or now -- indeed, any possible rule, an admin is more likely to succeed with an unchecked deletion if the articles actually turn out to be unsourceable, than if they turn out to be notable and sourceable. But it is reckless to delete without checking first unless immediate harm is apparent, and arb com actually used commend to describe the act of doing just that sort of single-handed thoughtless deletion. I mention an earlier proposal that single handed deletion is only possible for G10 G11 and truly routine administration. At least then there will be a second admin involved. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but there's some value in seeing this from the perspective of your opponent. I would label myself as an inclusionist if I would label myself as anything, but I think the inclusionist defense against deleting bad articles (You should be improving it, not deleting it!) is really not where we want to go, because this is a charge that could be made in either direction. For instance, in this case, some of these unsourced BLPs have been sitting there unsourced for months! (or longer). So then, maybe one way for you to put a stop to this is to go into the unsourced BLPs and find some sources for them? If you can't do that, or won't because the sources are too hard to find, then that's a nagging source of doubt that the sources will never be forthcoming and therefore that the articles really should be deleted. But this is an argument that inclusionists always make to anyone who tries to delete an article that is missing something crucial -- they put the burden on other people, rather than themselves. So as an admin who is looking out on a sea of unsourced BLPs, most of them harmless but some of them maybe very, very harmful -- it might not be very persuasive to hear from someone that, You can't delete these articles, you can only improve them painstakingly one at a time-- it's YOUR responsibility to fix them, not the person who originally uploaded the content. But I won't help you of course, though I will accuse you of deletionism if you try to fix this. Surely, there's a way we can cooperate about this-- and that has to be adding the sources ourselves. - 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: snip And what benefit was there *really*? I see a lot of mindless fetishism of sourcing here, but suppose Cunctator resurrected an article and stuck in a random newspaper article for the claim 'Foo was married in 1967.' Nobody disputed that before; nobody disputed that after; no new information was added. How *exactly* is the article better? Is it better because some hypothetical viewer might one day go, hm, I wonder if he really was married in 1967, and will look at the cite and be relieved? snip This sounds a bit like the other stuff exists argument. That is, we might argue that there are BLPs out there that have one inconsequential citation whereas the rest of the biography (that may contain lions, tigers, and bears) is uncited. That's true, but in this case we are picking low-hanging fruit first. This is not an argument that we shouldn't delete totally unsourced BLPs. - 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed with David G. on this point. The general sentiment to keep up with BLPs is ok, I think; but most of the time sources can be found for most bios. (And yes, I do make an occasional hobby of sourcing random BLPs -- it's hard work and takes at least a good hour or two per bio to do properly, and that's with access to a full university library). Running a mass deletion does have the unfortunate effect that there's no time for anyone to scramble for sources, which folks will do at least some of the time if given a chance. On the other hand, if *all* unsourced bios are deleted, at least no one can claim theirs was singled out for deletion! And hey, it gives a clean slate to start with (she says, somewhat tongue in cheek). You're right that these are all very bad problems. Pure Wiki Deletion would be an elegant solution to this, and many other similar snafus. Just sayin'. - 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote: Remember also that The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff Cool Hand Luke Which people don't have the chance to when people randomly delete them compared to going though either speedy and prod and they have time to work on it, and discuss the matter at hand. -Peachey Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion. Pure Wiki Deletion. - 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] How friendly are we to Newbies? Create an article as a newbie challenge now paused
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote: It seems that, under the guise of this project, some people are intentionally writing very low quality articles and then rules-lawyering over the specific speedy deletion category names: I'd argue that tagging something for speedy deletion when it doesn't actually fit the criteria is itself a form of rules lawyering. Actually, it's the other way around. Deliberately writing a bad article that should be deleted, but doesn't technically fit the CSD due to some loophole, sounds like the definition of disruption to make a point. I'd have to see a test case to say that for sure. - causa sui - 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] How friendly are we to Newbies? Create an article as a newbie challenge now paused
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Ryan Delaney wrote: Actually, it's the other way around. Deliberately writing a bad article that should be deleted, but doesn't technically fit the CSD due to some loophole, sounds like the definition of disruption to make a point. I'd have to see a test case to say that for sure. But CSD *isn't for deleting everything that should be deleted*. So the fact that the article doesn't fit CSD but should be deleted anyway isn't a loophole. Plenty of things which should be deleted don't fit CSD. No argument there. What's important about this case is that (as it has been explained to me, anyway) someone was deliberately writing a bad article with the express intention of being a pain in the ass. That's gaming the system in a disruptive way to make some kind of political point, and we generally frown on that for obvious reasons. - 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] How friendly are we to Newbies? Create an article as a newbie challenge now paused
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:00 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: so far from being disruptive, the project is an attempt to demonstrate the ongoing disruption being routinely carried out by people deleting improvable articles. sometimes a few test cases are the clearest way to show that, and the project seems to have made done that very successfully. We now need to consider how to improve what we do so the discouragement of new authors decreases. I remind everyone that what admins do is open and can and should be audited. Though that was not the purpose of the project, it is perfectly in order to check the deletions of individual admins. We should expect at least the same knowledge of basic rules we look for at an RfA. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG You might be misunderstanding what the objection is here. Nobody needs to be reminded that use of sysop tools is subject to peer review. -- 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] How friendly are we to Newbies? Create an article as a newbie challenge now paused
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: You might be misunderstanding what the objection is here. Nobody needs to be reminded that use of sysop tools is subject to peer review. True (though I don't think David is misunderstanding anything). The issue is not reviewing how sysops use their tools. It is about correcting the misconceptions upon which sysops base a substantially destructive usage of those tools. I think that's a noble goal, and the idea behind this project seems like a good one. Incidentally, I'm probably in the running for most rabid inclusionist here. I think we all ought to be able to understand, though, that it goes too far when the experiment itself becomes a source of disruption. I don't know all the details, but I'm guessing that's why WSC asked to put it on hold. -- 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] Wikipedia fundraising slogans from identi.ca and Twitter
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:26 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: People are doing some interesting work with auto-optimized ad runs that we could look at adapting for next year. Given our massive amounts of traffic, we could accept a pretty broad range of slogans, and let the system sort out which are the most effective combinations. Money aside, there's something appealing about maximizing community involvement everywhere we can. Ew. Is that really what advertising and marketing have been reduced to? Spew out whatever random text as long as it gets the $$$? Please let us have some self-respect. Steve I think self-respect is a luxury for us folks who don't have to worry about meeting fundraising goals. All those servers and all that bandwidth isn't free. These ads were bad, but they're improving. I think we ought to be willing to accept some fundraising once a year if we can keep it in mind that these fundraising drives keep corporate advertizing off Wikipedia. That alone ought to put this in perspective. - 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] WIKIPEDIA FOREVER
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov oleg.alexand...@gmail.com wrote: I find the current WIKIPEDIA FOREVER banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations. I agree, it seemed rather odd to me. The wrong tone. The ads are rather horrendous. It didn't even register with me that it might be a donation solicitation until I clicked on the banner to figure out what the heck it was. - 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Ian Woollard wrote: Yes, but some of those really bad articles will become good articles if you spend enough time on them. Deletion short-circuits that. In a perfect world, with perfect AFDs it wouldn't matter. In the real world, with real world AFDs it does. Yes, but (I say) the solution to that is not to keep all deleted material forever on the site. There are clearly people who feel that this _is_ the solution, but I'm not one of them. It may be a weakness of AfD that deletions do occur, not because the topic is unsuitable for the encyclopedia (which, let us not forget, remains the main reason for deleting an article), but because the article is not in great shape. But the way to fix up that weakness is not permanent public storage of stuff that really is mostly junk. I agree that keeping bad content on the site is not a good idea. Thankfully, PWD doesn't require that. PWD doesn't mean don't ever delete anything. (If anything, it makes it easier to delete things that unambiguously need to go away.) What it does do is: (A) Makes deleted content available to non-admins, which is good because it gives us more eyes reviewing the propriety of deleted articles; (B) Removes the necessity to panic about being perfect at AFD and CSD because erroneous deletions are easily subjected to peer review and reversed, which should go a long way to reduce the instruction creep and policy wonkery at both of the aforementioned pages (which is already well beyond intolerable levels) ; (C) a bunch of other stuff you can read about on the PWD proposal page. The fundamental question that must be answered by critics of PWD is why deletion should be treated as a special category of editorial decision making. (I don't believe this question was ever answered when VFD was formed, but I'd love to do a historical study of how deletion process developed.) Consider that we don't require that an ad-hoc committee meet every time we make another unambiguous edit to an article-- we rely on discussion, consensus building, and dispute resolution. Nobody objects to this when it comes to every other kind of edit on Wikipedia, but for some mysterious reason, when it comes to deletion some people think the Wiki model is inappropriate. We disagree. Just like we purge bad, poorly written, poorly sourced content from articles by editing them, we can purge bad articles from the Wiki in exactly the same way. That's why we call it Pure Wiki deletion -- we believe the wiki model that has served us so well for content creation can serve us just as well for content removal and cleanup. That shouldn't be controversial or counter-intuitive: the massive success of the Wiki model in every other area should give us good reason to expect it to work here, too. - 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: I wasn't saying we shouldn't discuss deletion process: I think in fact we should probably look at why PROD is underused. I think that having the deleted articles off the site (unless you're an admin) does make people not spend time looking at deleted material that has an intriguing title but isn't worth reading, an activity that would probably involve a great deal of duplicated effort. I simply disagree with (b) - it seems like a proponent's view, and the history of the relevant project page seems to indicate that most people lost interest in 2006 (when BLP began to loom). Well, now you've given me another guess: The problem with PWD is that it's wrong to have deleted material available for people to look at because that would encourage them to look at deleted content rather than undeleted material? You're right that the original proposal failed to achieve it's goals, but given that it is a good idea, that's no reason to abandon it. The issue here should be whether it's a good idea or not and why. - 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] fictional categories
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
Fiction is a very broad term. fictions can be used for rhetorical
purposes in serious discourse--fictional examples are a mainstay of
philosophical argument, dating back to Plato's cave, if not earlier.
For this hypothetical animal, I do not think there will be any
difficulty finding a citation that says that it is a fiction.
The point I am making is more that this is a dangerous path we are on.
I would have no difficulty providing a source that Santa Claus or God
etc are a fiction. However, given that Schrödinger's cat is categorised
in Category:Thought experiments, what does Category:Fictional cats add
to the article, and should string theory or string (physics) therefore
be categorised in Category:Fictional science? I think we need to be
very careful what we categorise when it comes to fiction, and what we
are mixing up in our categories which categorise things which are
fictive and things which are theoretical. Schrödinger's cat does not
exist in a work of fiction, it exists, as you say, in a theroetical
argument, which is different from a work of fiction. Another good
example is Higgs bosun, or whatever it is that big collider can't find.
Mind you, I notice The Lady, or the Tiger? is in Category:Fictional
tigers, although not in Category:Fictional females, which implies there
are even more flaws in the system.Especially when The Monkey and the
Hunter avoids both Category:Fictional monkeys and Category:Fictional
hunters. Hope I've better outlined the issue as I see it.
I think you make a persuasive argument that Schroedinger's Cat should not be
in Category:Fictional cats. Therefore, I advise you to remove that category
from the article.
There isn't much else to say about this besides {{sofixit}}.
- 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Ryan Delaney wrote: On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting any article save to protect private information in the history. You can pure wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly unnecessary. I haven't found any persuasive argument against it. Usually the objection is but then there would be edit wars over deletion! The main argument is rationalisation: if you ever thought that it was a valid idea to rationalise the scope of the project at any point, you'd probably start with the thought that with hundreds of thousands of articles deleted every year and most of that material being at best thoroughly marginal to what we are trying to do, then (you might argue that) having it all around is on balance not really helpful. So against that you can argue that WP doesn't need rationalisation of any kind: it can just go on growing how it likes given the resources. People seem to draw their own conclusions on this debate. Mine are based largely on the kind of focus or lack of it you see in people who want to search through those millions of deleted words, rather than anything else they could be trawling through. Charles I'm having trouble following your meaning, I think because I'm not familiar with how you are using rationalisation. Can you explain a bit more please? - 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Ryan Delaney wrote: I'm having trouble following your meaning, I think because I'm not familiar with how you are using rationalisation. Can you explain a bit more please? Wiktionary meaning (3) for rationalization is A reorganization of a company or organization in order to improve its efficiency. Which of course is sometimes euphemistic. More detail in [[rationalization (economics)]], which seems to me also to be more tendentious in what it is saying. I was mainly thinking of the kind of discussion where you try to draw the line between bells and whistles and core activities. Charles This is coming into focus a bit, but how, specifically, do you think this relates to pure wiki deletion? - 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting any article save to protect private information in the history. You can pure wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly unnecessary. I haven't found any persuasive argument against it. Usually the objection is but then there would be edit wars over deletion! - 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] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the create an article as a newbie challenge
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: David Gerard wrote: Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change, after all. So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the deleting admin? Charles Maybe I'm late to the party here, but isn't it uncontroversial that contacting the deleting admin is Step 1 whenever we want to peer review an admin's use of sysop tools? - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: to the end. Rather than saying I am invoking IAR and I did this because X, just say I did this because X. Disagree. The response to I did this because X is, But there's rule Y, which you should have followed. Explicitly evoking IAR makes it clear that you know about Y, and have a reason for ignoring it. It would be context-dependent, but it would not be an response to say You should have followed rule Y without a reason to follow the rule. The fact that the policy implies that it is a rule is not in itself any reason to follow it. - 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] Contextual text in Wikipedia
Great! Daniel Brandt will love it :D - causa sui On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote: G'day folks, Google has announced that it has developed a custom search skin for Wikipedia. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/contextual-search-within-wikipedia.html We are excited to announce that we've built a Custom Search Wikipedia skinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Csewiki that makes it easier for you to complete your research on Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows users to register and personalize their Wikipedia environment via the configuration of options and the use of styles or skins. Just log in to Wikipedia, enable the Custom Search skinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Csewiki and you'll have quick access to relevant Google Custom Search results from Wikipedia. With the Custom Search skin, your search results are conveniently placed inline on the page. After you've reviewed the results, you can dismiss them and return to the current article of interest without having to switch to a different tab on your browser; you can access the relevant Wikipedia articles right within the Wikipedia interface. The Custom Search skin also features contextual search — searching across different sets of pages as you navigate Wikipedia. For Wikipedia pages with a lot of information and links, contextual search lets you limit your search to only those Wikipedia pages that are linked from the current article, focusing the results on the topic of the article. So, in addition to getting all matching Wikipedia articles, you can quickly drill down to contextually relevant results using the Linked Wikipedia Pages tab. For example, searching for [sequence] from a Wikipedia page on DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA provides a list of relevant results about DNA sequences and DNA sequence alignment, instead of the many pages about sequenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_%28disambiguation%29 (in mathematics, poetry, music, games, etc.) that aren't relevant. Similarly, searching within the DNA page for [bonds] gives you results in chemistry and biochemistry, instead of other information about financial instruments and social sciences. This will help you perform more directed research, often with shorter queries, and get to relevant Wikipedia articles faster. More in story -- Keith Old 62050121 (w) 62825360 (h) 0429478376 (m) ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Come join the talk at deletion review if you think its so easy to restore articles. People cant even se ethem to work on without asking an administrator. (though there are some, including myself, who will always userify for a good faith editor). I think it's more likely that of the 20, not 1, but 10 could be rescued--and some have already been, in some cases by merging. Of the contested afds, I think that's probably the proportion. since we keep fewer than half of the contested ones, we are losing the potential for 50 articles a day, 18,000 a year. I do not consider that trivial. The deletion of improvable articles because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the interest in Wikipedia. Who after all actually wants to come to articles for deletion, but those who want to delete articles. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG I agree. Pure Wiki Deletion is the only permanent solution. - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: Ryan Delaney wrote: [...] Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added by saying I am invoking IAR. The only defense is I did this because X where X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well skip to the end. Rather than saying I am invoking IAR and I did this because X, just say I did this because X. Are folks here familiar with the shu ha ri model? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuhari http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ShuHaRi.html You can think of it as roughly equivalent to apprentice, journeyman, and master. This division has been useful to me in my work, helping people adopting software development methods. In particular, I end up explaining things differently. People at the shu level are very focused on rules and rituals. People at the ri level have transcended them. In that framework, IAR is an explicit shu-level indicator that there are other levels to work at, and that rule-followers should honor that. Given that, I think shu-level participants can sometimes use an explicit mention that IAR is being invoked, even if it is almost insultingly obvious to the ri-level participants. In other contexts, IAR is unnecessary; power structures lets masters do what they want anyhow. But as in so many other ways, Wikipedia is different. William This is definitely an interesting way of looking at it. I'd heard of this before but didn't think to apply it to this situation. I'll give it more thought, and definitely consider appealing to it in the inevitable future IAR debates. Thanks. - 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] New way to discourage newcomers invented
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Ryan Delaney wrote: That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the reality is that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I think that's a bad thing, you think it's a good thing, but that's beside the point) then we should stop kidding ourselves and get rid of WP:BURO. No, I do not think it is a good thing - where did I say that? I think it is important not to be confused between discussions of what is really going on, within Wikipedia as it actually operates, and discussions at an idealised level (normally only backed up with some anecdotal if slight evidence). The other point I would like to make is that the problem really comes with people who think you make a bureaucracy work by being bureaucratic, when the opposite is true. WP:BURO is basically prescriptive, not descriptive (I'm against people who weasel by saying policy is basically descriptive not prescriptive whenever that suits them), and it tells us not to do that bureaucratic thing of using sensible procedural features in an obstructive fashion. Charles It sounds to me like you're both making a similar point: that is, there's no reason to deny the reality that Wikipedia does have some bureaucratic elements. In the worst case, this leads to a rather Kafkaesque situation where people who are actually obstructed by bureaucracy being told by a bureaucrat that Well, as you can see from our policies, this is not a bureaucracy. In this case it helps to have 20/20 vision about the fact that Wikipedia is, in fact, bureaucratic, because recognizing the problem is half of solving it. If this is your view, then you probably would agree with a less polemical version of what I took the OP to be saying: Wikipedia *is* bureaucratic, and we ought to be honest about that. - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Indeed. There is a bot that can help index talk page archives. I'll give details below. Well, while I see the value in raising indexing as a process, I still have to point out that we aren't talking about talk pages and organizing them topically for later ease of reference (ie. WP:OBT) , but the refactoring of actual vote discussions wherein we have to make collective qualitative discernments about the merit of individual arguments. In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution, I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing deletion discussions? - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later? -Stevertigo It's hard for me to even answer this question, since it assumes a perspective to editing Wikipedia that I don't subscribe to, and don't want to. Why on earth would you even approach editing on Wikipedia in terms of making the losers capitulate to us so that we don't get screwed? I really would encourage you to rethink this, because you seem to think that policy ought to be written to accommodate this paranoid attitude that other people here don't share. - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: If there's confusion about IAR, I think it helps a lot to think of it as Ignore All Procedures. IAR doesn't get you off the hook for a non-NPOV article; it does mean that you can ignore whatever crazy procedures there are to fix this problem if they are unhelpful to you. (But if they are helpful, or you're not sure what to do, then by all means use them). My problem with arguments critical of IAR is that they usually follow this formula: 1. Implicitly assume on the basis of a few one-off cases where IAR was invoked abusively that IAR is in any sense a get out of jail free card for abusive behavior, or that it's a free pass for anyone to do whatever he or she wants without having to explain why that was better for the encyclopedia or to ignore mounting consensus that what he or she did was in fact a Bad Idea(tm) 2. Reiterate the blindingly obvious and never contested fact that people need to make editorial decisions on the basis of good reasons instead of willy nilly 3. Conclude on the above basis that IAR should itself be ignored and that the only solution to the pressing problem of human autonomy and the inevitability of mistakes and disagreements is not discussion and dispute resolution, but instead a rigid formalized approach to policy that emphasizes firm rules that are to be followed at all times on pain of Death. Anybody who thinks that IAR is going to get them off the hook for abusive editing is a fool. We all know that. If there is someone out there who thinks they can invoke IAR to ignore social feedback from peers who are telling them that they should stop doing what they are doing, I'll be there to repudiate that. But what I can't grok is why this obvious fact is so often the basis for criticisms of an interpretation of IAR that is totally out of alignment with its fundamental message, and why we therefore lose sight of that message. The real message of IAR is fundamental to this project as it's covered in the fifth pillar: mistakes will be made, but they're mostly easy to fix; contributing to Wikipedia should be easy and fun; and so we don't need a rule to cover every possible eventuality. - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be invoked, as its not a rule; IAR should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give props for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over. - causa sui On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colorado_balloon_incident Cheers to Bigtimepeace for this one. Read the detailed explanation. - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com: I like this. Ideally IAR should never be invoked, as its not a rule; IAR should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give props for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over. I disagree. Following rules should be the default. We should only ignore them if we have a good reason to do so. Otherwise, there is no point having rules at all. This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added by saying I am invoking IAR. The only defense is I did this because X where X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well skip to the end. Rather than saying I am invoking IAR and I did this because X, just say I did this because X. - 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] New way to discourage newcomers invented
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Ryan Delaney wrote: On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Apoc 2400 wrote: Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for deletion? Bureaucracy is a fairly helpful description of how Wikipedia actually functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are taken according to practice that has been codified to some extent (in some areas, to a large extent). If you want to get something done, knowing where to go and how to apply is at least half the battle. But my reading of WP:BURO would make the comment A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post central to its intention. I say we don't delete that. Charles Wikipedia has no management style because there are no managers. We should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word. That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that We are a bureaucracy, but if you cut some corners we'll look the other way. That's not what it says at all. It says We are NOT a bureaucracy and so Knowing where to go should be much, MUCH less than half the battle of contributing to Wikipedia. - causa sui I'm sure that styles without central managers feature in management books, though. In fact I know they do. The question is whether it is more helpful to insist that the reality is a purist wiki/collaborative style of work with everything freeform, or to look the actuality in the face every now and again. The way we operate is a hybrid of pure wiki editing with other stuff. And being in denial about the scale issue seems head-in-the-sand to me. A wiki with 10,000 pages is a big wiki. And we have 1000 times that, one way and another. Charles That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the reality is that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I think that's a bad thing, you think it's a good thing, but that's beside the point) then we should stop kidding ourselves and get rid of WP:BURO. I want WP:BURO to stay because I want to have strong resistance to instruction creep and any complications of the editing process that make content contribution more and not less difficult for new users. - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com: This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added by saying I am invoking IAR. The only defense is I did this because X where X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well skip to the end. Rather than saying I am invoking IAR and I did this because X, just say I did this because X. It's not a misunderstanding, it is an understanding of how things actually work in the real world. X will need to include an explanation of why the usual rules don't apply (that may be obvious from just explanation why what you did was a good idea), so it makes sense to acknowledge from the beginning that you aren't following the usual rules. Do you think a reason X that persuaded you that A was the right thing to do despite rule R that seems to forbid A would cause you to believe that the rules didn't apply, or would you need to be specifically reminded of that fact every time? - 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added by saying I am invoking IAR. The only defense is I did this because X where X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well skip to the end. Rather than saying I am invoking IAR and I did this because X, just say I did this because X. And WP:IAR has said as much at various times; but such explanation tends to be unstable because it eventually leads to people attempting to codify rules regulating when it is permissible to IAR. O_o That said, sometimes after you've said I did this because it was the right thing to do caused no harm, and because failing to do this would cause harm and rules X,Y,Z were created without any consideration of this case, and ... several times only be to be rebutted by some person who, without refuting any aspect of your position, keeps pointing out your flagrant violation of the strict letter of rule 27B/6 ... well, about the only thing to do is to cite back WP:IAR as a rule. At that moment the rule-pushers head will either explode, or he'll go burn himself out trying to edit war on WP:IAR, either way your problem is solved. (or so you hope!) This is an important point. A proper application of IAR should go unnoticed -- at least, by everyone except the rules are rules folks who memorize the laws and are ready to deliver citations for all your transgressions whenever you step a quarter inch out of line. If what you did was a good idea and everyone agrees it was a good idea, nobody should even notice that it was against the rules or that IAR was necessary. Explicitly announcing that you are invoking IAR rarely accomplishes more than triggering rules are rules responses and starting up another round of the perennial IAR interpretation debates. (See what has happened in this very thread?) -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] Google Wave
I hope that we at least get Waves instead of talk pages. Being able to play back the discussion would be invaluable. Ryan On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwave.google.com%2Ffeature=player_embedded Could we please have all of this? This is several orders of magnitude better than MediaWiki's collaborative editing features. The whole system looks fantastic. And it will be open source, so hopefully we'll be able to add some of these features to MediaWiki. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ 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] Attn: RFC about reforming criteria for speedy deletion policy
There is currently an RFC in progress regarding proposed reforms to the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]] policy. The discussion is about reforming the prescriptive language of the policy to bring it into line with fundamental Wikipedia principles and policies such as [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY]] and [[WP:POLICY]]. All editors are welcome to add statements and participate in the discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Simplify_policy_RfC]]. Cheers, Ryan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
