> From: "Erik Moeller" <eloquence(a)gmail.com>
>
> I think the discussion about pages like Eon8 has been hampered by the
> perception that a page, once kept, will reside in Wikipedia forever.
<snip>
> We need novel thinking, because we are dealing with novel problems.
> Internet subcultures would like their every fart to be documented for
> eternity. Are we going to do that? Of course not. But I don't see
> anything wrong in principle with including ephemeral information in an
> ephemeral manner.
Interesting but quixotic. No, I _really_ mean it _is_ interesting,
and I'm trying to let the idea soak in to figure out what it means or
ought to mean or implies... but the idea that a Wikipedia page is
forever is very deeply ingrained.
In the first AfD on Eon8, one user commented:
"Wait until the countdown reaches zero, then either Keep if it is not
a hoax, or Delete if it is. Will (message me!) 09:47, 30 June 2006
(UTC)"
But how did this user vote after the countdown reached zero and the
site was revealed to be a hoax?
*Keep Will (message me!) 09:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
**Any specific reason?--Andeh 09:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
P. S. Am I the only one bemused by the number of people who seemed to
think a teaser campaign was something novel?
One user commented "This website was a signifgant event of the
internet. It was the first of its kind: a website that absolutely no
one but the creator knew what it was."
No, I am NOT old enough to remember the ad campaign that began with
billboards saying "The camels are coming..." and eventually disclosed
that "Camel Cigarettes Are Here!"
And I am certainly not old enough to remember the business venture
floated in the early 1700s with the prospectus "A company for
carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know
what it is."
---- homey2005(a)sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > From: <poore5(a)adelphia.net>
>
> > Of course getting broad community input is good. But I wish that >you would participate in the proposed mediation.
>
> I'm considering it but I think the process really needs input from editors who do not have strong feelings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>From my way of thinking, the situation needs both. The core people involved in the conflict need to work out some aspects of the situation among themselves through mediation. AND, a broader segment of the community can weigh in on the issues.
Sydney Poore
Georgetown, KY
Of course getting broad community input is good. But I wish that you would participate in the proposed mediation. IMO, achieving consensus WITH other interested parties is key to solving the issues related to these articles.
My 2 cents worth.
Sydney Poore
Georgetown, KY
---- homey2005(a)sympatico.ca wrote:
> At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid a series of competing proposals have been made on how to deal with various articles on modern uses of the word "apartheid", namely [[Israeli apartheid]], [[gender apartheid]], [[sexual apartheid]], [[Crime of apartheid]] and [[global apartheid]] and also the articles [[Apartheid outside of South Africa]] and [[Apartheid (disambiguation)]]. The proposals vary from merging various articles (particularly Israeli apartheid) to leaving the articles in their current state. The debate and voting has been dominated by various interests - it would thus be best for the community if a broader cross section of people including disinterested and neutral parties, reviewed the proposals and had their say.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Puppy wrote:
> Same as always. Afd, userfy, welcome messages, and
> lots of links and explanations of and to WP:V, WP:NPOV,
> and WP:NOR. -kc-
Weeks of AFDs and sockspuppets/newbies, followed by
DRVs. full of socks/newbies, followed by idiot admins
undeleting the articles and putting them on DRV for
yet more weeks of socks/newbie infested discussions
and stupid editors who haven't read the policies etc etc
etc etc.
Yet... of course... vandalism doesn't work on a WIki
because it's as easy to fix as it was to vandalise in first
place... isn't it?
Wasn't that the Wikipedia war-cry once?
Erik wrote:
>The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a
>very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken
>about it. Whether you like it or not (and I don't), it does meet the
>WP:WEB criteria. This is part of a worrying and growing trend among
>admins to do whatever they feel like when they close an AfD.
>Overriding community opinion should only be done in exceptional
>circumstances and with clear documentation of one's reasoning, which
>can then be taken into policy discussions. Otherwise you end up with
>completely arbitrary enforcement, and an ever growing tension between
>admins and regular users.
Is every random spammer who hits 'edit' automatically a member of the
'community'?
Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet
demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of
the goals of the project?
Why do I ask?
Going down the VFD page it would appear that a large number, if not a
majority, of the 'keep' voters have less than 50 article edits. Some
have no article edits at all.
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a
clear consensus for delete. Even more importantly, the arguments on
the delete side are far more compelling in my view: for example,
Thatcher131's observation that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and
one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the
claims of the website itself". With that in mind, how can you claim
that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to
merely documenting already popular idea?
This is not the clear cut case of ignoring consensus that you make it out to be.
Erik wrote:
[snip]
>You need to stop worrying and learn to love the wiki.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment is extreme democracy.
Wiki is a wonderful tool, but it's just that... A tool. Not an end
goal. That we are a Wiki does not excuse us from conventional
obligations like quality.
I'd like to push the notion of "keeping and relisting" pages on AfD as
- an appropriate means of closing controversial AfDs with a high level
of outside participation
- a good alternative "vote" to express on such AfDs (e.g. "'''Keep and
relist''' on AfD in 4 weeks").
I think the discussion about pages like Eon8 has been hampered by the
perception that a page, once kept, will reside in Wikipedia forever.
To me, this is an example of old-fashioned encyclopedic thinking. But
we are not living in an old-fashioned culture, and Wikipedia is not a
traditional, "patient" medium. We update existing articles with
information about events the moment they happen, whether it's someone
dying or a football score. We often remove or summarize information
that has been added during a particular event once it has phased into
our cultural memory.
However, in the area of judging the existence of articles, I think we
are currently dominated by a "Keep vs. Delete" attitude, the idea that
an article is either "utter rubbish" or "eternal wisdom." We are split
ideologically into factions of "deletionists" or "inclusionists". I
think this is wrong.
We need novel thinking, because we are dealing with novel problems.
Internet subcultures would like their every fart to be documented for
eternity. Are we going to do that? Of course not. But I don't see
anything wrong in principle with including ephemeral information in an
ephemeral manner.
Of course, there can be no compromise on verifiability or WP:NOR --
Wikipedia is not a soap box or a place to explore novel theories. Nor
am I proposing that spammers should be given room to promote their
products for a "limited time only" (pardon the pun). What I am saying
is that there are ephemeral phenomena that generate a lot of noise in
ephemeral media like blogs, and in many cases there's nothing wrong
with documenting them -- ephemerally.
Erik
From: "Sam Korn" <smoddy(a)gmail.com>
> This along with unreasoned "speedy" votes. "Speedy"
> does not mean
> "because I really really think so". There are
> circumstances where it
> is appropriate, but they are rigidly defined.
> People with half a
> degree of sense should know not to vote like this.
Sam's right, but as Mark has pointed out, complaining
here is pointless.
The changes that can be produced by policing AfD
against this sort of thing are startling. I've found
that spending a few minutes a day on AfD saying "this
isn't a vote, please state a reason for your opinion"
and "this isn't a speedy criterion, please argue for a
slow keep or find a reason what fits the current
speedy criteria" and even "AfD isn't a vote. Your
"vote" will be discounted by the closing admin. Plase
give your opinion instead" causes a great change in
those who are contributing.
Well, at the very least it causes them to watch their
language and actually provide reasoning rather than
just votes.
Also, it causes those with a POV or an ulterior motive
to reveal themselves. Both kneejerk inclusionists and
kneejerk deletionists will invariably contact the AfD
patroller and reveal a specious reason why a vote was
appropriate in a particular case. And thus you know
for future reference that they can be discounted. Or
they will contact you and explain in tortured detail
how their vote without reasoning was something other
than a vote without reasoning... and you know to
discount them in future.
What we need is an "AfD Patrol" to join RC and CV.
Members can be deletionists or inclusionists (and will
be accused by both sides of being the other). Their
personal views are worthless, as their job will be to
simply patrol AfD and refute "voters" whenever they
appear. Given three months, these patrollers will have
restored AfD to a faulty-but-mostly-working status,
rather than the current
faulty-but-often-glaringly-broken status it now has.
There is nothing else available to replace AfD.
Therefore we must make AfD work.
Anyone want to be [[WP:BOLD]] and sent up
[[Wikipedia:AfD_Patrol]]? Or do we prefer to sit here
and bitch?
And I know that the ultimate result is
[[Wikipedia:RfA_Patrol]] but one disaster at a time,
hey?
-> REDVERS
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 5 Jul 2006 at 10:13, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> To bottom post in gmail:
>
> 1. Press reply.
> 2. Delete the space above the words "On xxx, yyy wrote:"
> 3. Press ctrl+end.
> 4. Type your message.
It's better to move through the original message trimming out parts
that aren't relevant, and then inserting your replies inline, rather
than just jumping to the end and bottom-posting under a fullquote.
To this end, starting the cursor at the top is actually the sensible
thing, though it shouldn't be done with a space left at the top as
Gmail does it.
> But, really, be strong, be brave, resist the temptation. Stand up to
> the bullies. There's actually nothing objectively wrong with
> top-posting except that the "old-timers" don't like it.
Personally, I think top-posters should be executed by lethal
injection (or perhaps an alternate means such as a firing squad), but
unfortunately the laws of some countries block this sensible
proposal.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/