I wish that it were. Unfortunately, it is actually the case.

Todd

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:42 AM Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipe...@zog.org> wrote:

> This is sarcasm, right? Right?
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn
> Pokemon,
> > and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> > "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> > get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
> >
> > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> > "article".
> >
> > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> > show sourcing immediately.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> > werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> > editing
> > > environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> > > historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
> at
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
> > >
> > > On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
> we
> > > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the
> last
> > > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private
> information,
> > > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing
> arbs. I
> > > would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> > > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
> zzzz,
> > > zzzzz"
> > >
> > > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have
> argued
> > > for, among other things:
> > >
> > >
> > >    1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so
> quickly
> > >    to blocks.
> > >    2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> > >    creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> > find
> > >    them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> > >    3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> > edits.
> > >
> > >
> > > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> > example
> > > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
> conflict
> > > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> > where
> > > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit
> one
> > > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> > deletionists
> > > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> > >
> > > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> > people
> > > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> > versions
> > > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in
> their
> > > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> > other
> > > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> > might
> > > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> > being
> > > nuanced and diplomatic.
> > >
> > > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> > communicated
> > > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their
> problem
> > > was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> > > Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> > Wikipedia.
> > > But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> > what
> > > the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> > > support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> > > empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
> reason
> > > where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> > now
> > > an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> > > enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> > > trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic
> way.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
> > What I
> > > > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and
> > foremost
> > > > the
> > > > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable
> and
> > > > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection
> on
> > > > en.wp
> > > > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >      GerardM
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to