In a message dated 6/21/2008 2:19:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
You might like to consider the relationship between our BLP handling and
NYB's departure, for a moment of silence.>>
-------------
Sure. Give us the details.
So far no one seems to want to do that.
I'd be interested in the rank and sordid or mundane details.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
Um... well there's a "NOT" missing from my last message.
That's what I get for speeding through and then facing the irony of
espousing the opposite camp's view.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/22/2008 8:56:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ansell.peter(a)gmail.com writes:
Wikipedia is multi-cultural so it is probably
natural that it goes for a white-list approach instead of a black-list
approach for content. Truth is an anomaly of the matrix anyway. In
reality it should never occur.
-----------------
Truth misses the boat. Wikipedia is not and never has been about truth.
Neither is it, or has it, ever been about morals or the lack thereof.
It's about neutral point of view, citing reliable third-party sources and
writing coherent text.
The only advantage Brittanica has over us, is that they hire experienced
writers who already know this. We have to grow them. Sometimes they grow up
demented :)
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
False dichotomy.
The choice is not between "we have to", and "we cannot".
The choice is between "we choose to because it's the normal situation to so
do" and
"we choose not to because there are compelling reasons not to".
If we cannot stick to the true choices then we cannot discuss the problem
accurately.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
I said "false dichotomy". But that's not actually the fallacy.
The fallacy is probably "straw man" or something like that.
I admit I'm not up on my logical fallacies list.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/22/2008 4:47:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ritzman(a)gmail.com writes:
However, with the BLP policy, the side with the admin
bit automatically "wins">>
--------------------------------------------
One reason I've always advocated a clear demarkation between admins and
writers/editors.
That is, if you want to be an admin, you must stop being a writer/editor and
vice versa.
That I believe, is the fundamental, core flaw in the current environment.
Admins get involved in articles because they helped write them. They have a
stake in the outcome.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
... Because not everyone here reads the village pump:
There is a current proposal on meta to grant commons admins the
ability to view deleted image/image talk pages on all projects,
including English Wikipedia.
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub#Global_deleted_image_review)
This proposal is important because there are hundreds of thousands of
images on commons which began their Wiki-life on other projects and
were later transferred to commons with incomplete or inaccurate
history information and were then deleted. There are also instances
of images on commons being falsely claimed as sourced from another
wiki. Without the ability to completely review these images they may
be handled incorrectly. Today commons admins are forced to
coordinate with other projects via IRC, email, etc, to evaluate these
cases ... most of whom turn out just fine. This converts a couple of
seconds clicking into minutes of nagging and conversation. In practice
most commons admins just don't bother with it and the images remain
unchecked.
The initial proposal achieved aggressive and universal support from
commons admins. The consensus is that we need this permission in order
to serve the projects. It was initially proposed that we grant the
ability to view all deleted pages, but discussion with users from
other projects resulted in a limiting of scope to just
image/image_talk.
Your input is requested at the poll. It wouldn't be right to push
through a wide impacting proposal on meta without input from the
projects at large.
Thanks.
In a message dated 6/22/2008 11:54:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
This is a somewhat anomalous situation, because it's really a single
fact that seems to be neither negative nor positive being omitted, and
the interpretation that it's non-neutral because others include this
fact is a bit of a stretch.>>>
By your own above its "...neither negative nor positive..." so what *is* it?
Neutral?
The interpretation is not that "because others include" it that makes it
non-neutral. I believe the posted is stating that because other reliable
third-party sources include it, that makes it NOR. So the burden should be on
those who wish to suppress it, to make explicit why they do so. Just one example
of where the false nutshell "do not harm" harms the work of the project. A
better nutshell would be "do no additional harm (beyond what's already been
done), but go ahead and state the harm that's already been done."
We are not the first submitters of harm, that does not mean we bury our
heads in the sand to that harm.
In a message dated 6/22/2008 11:54:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
There are much more direct and worrying examples, mainly the omission of
widely-reported, well-sourced negative information which tends to make
the resulting articles non-neutral in that they're more positive than
the consensus view we're supposed to be summarizing.>>
The problem is, that on some articles you get a small vocal and strident
group, including involved admins, who see nothing wrong with bending policy to
support their view, and using their tools against those who would read
policy-as-writen. And then you get the majority who are like ".... whatever, its
not worth fighting about."
So the project is harmed because we do not report negative or personal
points that really would go into a biography of a living person.
Unfortunately, having been involved in this issue for a while, I don't see
any solution. And now ArbCom does the project no good and probably a great
harm by giving even more power to those who wish to squelch the evidence instead
of reporting it fairly and evenly. There is a reason why we have wheel
wars. Giving such a large degree of freedom to the first admin who happens to
jump in and hampering others who might have a more unbiased view, is not the
way to address the issue. Typically the first admin is involved already.
Rather, this procedure seems like a way to drive even more contributors away
from the project.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)