One could say that deletionism is just as toxic, cutting off valuable off-springs at the root, based on the balance of different views present at the birth. Walking around with the intent to cut for a long time, has an effect on how one relates to the world.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Benjamin Ikuta <benjaminik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this. > > See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism > > > > On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, 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>
