Charles Matthews wrote: > The question is > more whether lurkers should be stakeholders. Traditionally what is > respected is showing the better way, rather than compiling a wishlist. > The best way to solve whether lurkers should be stakeholders is to ask them. Showing the better way would be fine. Have we agreed on a better way yet? > Why? You would be better advised to draft in userspace rather than just > type straight into the box, but I don't understand why you think it > doesn't still work in principle. > I can't do now what I did then. IP's cannot create new articles, and you have to wait four days after creating an account to create a new article. You just lost me. It doesn't still work either in principle or in practise. >> The point I >> was making was that we were not the high-ground; we don't exist to >> publish academic research. >> > No, we exist to regurgitate it. > Hmm. Not sure I agree, but I think we'd head into a primary versus secondary sourcing argument. I'd certainly argue our mission would be to contextualise and explain the research through recourse to secondary sources, rather than to simply regurgitate it. I think there's a viable argument that regurgitating it would fall foul of NOT NEWS. > > The closure was a compromise, rather than a consensus emerging. > ([[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 11#Deans of > Lincoln]], for mavens.) While "Dean" and "Lincoln" were both deemed > individually ambiguous, one side only was disambiguated. But not for a > specific clash. So in a sense I lost the argument, it seems. But it > could have been worse. > > Hmm. Yes, interesting debate. That's one of the reasons I avoid CFD these days. I think a major point that got missed is that no-one asked the question of at what point would context not do the disambiguating. Only then would there be a need for disambiguating. There's been a lot of thought about CFD over the years, and how to address the shortcomings, but nothing has ever gotten nailed down. There's a conflict between consensus can change and speedy deletion criteria as currently installed at the moment, and there's also a lot of confusion as to what categories actually are and how they work. I think a lot of the issues with categories are down to the fact that we never nailed down what they were for when they were implemented, and now everyone has a different view on how to categorise. I still can't work out how, if you are looking at an article in Category:Deans of Lincoln, it won't be clear what Lincoln it is. But I've had this argument a number of times: people seem to like standards just to have standards. If a parent category says Lincoln, Lincolnshire, so must all sub-cats. Otherwise, it looks untidy.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
