On Feb 24, 2007, at 10:26 PM, geni wrote:
Given that the outsiders is unlikely to have taken time to study them
I have no reason to think they do appear so. But then many things in
this world are incoherent to outsiders.
Yes, but the project is written for outsiders. If our logic doesn't
make sense to them, we did it wrong.
Noah didn't, we don't know what McCloud said
and Straub identified a
weakness in our system that has little to do with policy.
Noah showed that our sense of notability is absurd. I've given a
pretty good account of what McCloud said, and so I'm not sure why you
say you don't know. Straub identified more than a weakness - he
identified a complete failure of policy to meaningfully prevent
spurious deletions. Which has been clear to anyone who follows DRV
for a while.
No. It's not. It never has been, it never
will be, it never can be.
Reliable sourcing is fundamentally a more complex issue than a black
and white guideline could ever portray.
This is going to come as a serious shock to all those lecturers
teaching the subject
I doubt it. Nobody in a rhetcomp position I have ever talked to has
said that reliable sourcing is black and white. None of them ever
would. We teach whole courses on this subject. It's not something
that can be condensed into a usable single policy page. Otherwise
we'd be throwing out our textbooks and just assigning [[WP:RS]].
We're not.
For an impossible task it appears to have been done
an awful lot of
times. Anyone writing a review article will establish what is and is
not a reliable source.
Yes. But they don't do it in an absolute, black and white sense that
is proscriptive for all other review articles.
It generally fairly well known which journals can be
trusted and which
ones need to be used with caution that the reactions they describe may
only work one time in 10.
But [[WP:RS]] lacks a list of those. And no such list readily
presents itself in the humanities.
> You were the one objecting to stuff being done "inconsistently,
> arbitrarily, and in a manner that is not meaningfully predictable"
> Now you object to an attempt to create a
single unified rule set.
The previous system was more consistend and
predictable than the
current one. Hell, it solved the schools debate. It was an ugly,
torturous debate, but it eventually shook out to "Look, stop
nominating schools, because they clearly get kept." That's a heck of
a better system than the current one.
> Just because you don't agree with the rules and don't agree with
> people's actions it does not mean that one flows from the other.
Huh?
> Depends on the area you are looking at.
I'm seeing a lot more
> citations.
Citations != quality. And are, in fact, at times
antithetical to it.
The more citations to secondary sources [[Jacques Derrida]] has, the
worse of an article it will be. Guarantee it.
>> No. Policy does not reduce dross.
> G11
Strange. I remember deleting such articles on
sight before that
policy came into being. Nobody ever complained, so I have trouble
imagining that the policy is what caused that to be OK.
>> [[WP:AGF]]
> We are talking about stuff off wikipedia
here. AGF does not apply.
> Thus there is no reason to make assumptions of any type.
We're talking about well-intentioned
critiques of how Wikipedia is
working. The prerequisite for assuming good faith is not an account -
it's a contribution to the conversation. Noah, McCloud, and Straub
have all contributed to the conversation and deserve at least an
assumption of good faith.
> However after it has burned you know what the real problem is and can
> fix it. As a bonus you haven't spent time fixing it against attacks
> from giant geese.
Geni, I'm sorry, but this is stupid and a
blatant straw man that,
frankly, strains the limits of good faith. I am pointing to a
problem. I am pointing to evidence that the problem is causing
concrete, describable negative effects. This is not [[WP:BEANS]].
This is "Uh-oh, it smells like smoke."
I am not advocating going and implementing solutions randomly. I'm
advocating actually looking and seeing that we have a problem. You're
opposing with insulting pithiness even bringing the problem up. You
imply that I misrepresent what people said, you refuse to assume good
faith on the part of external critics of Wikipedia, you reject prima
faciae the idea that someone has looked at our deletion and
notability debates and gone "WTF."
I'm not calling for radical solutions to every problem that arises.
Anything but - I think that's how we broke the system. I'm calling
for actually thinking through whether we have a problem. I would
think this practice would be uncontroversial enough to be allowed to
go by without the unhelpful pithiness.
>> Aside from an admittedly polemical call
to nuke RS I've not demanded
>> total change right now.
> Aside from that Mr Lincoln how was the
play?
The post began "Consider this another entry
in that time-tested genre
of "obviously
futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,
but probably should anyway" posts." If that doesn't flag this as "not
an entirely serious suggestion" I don't know what to tell you.
>> In fact, total change right now is what got
>> us into this mess. (Oh no, we got panned in USA Today. We'd better
>> overhaul the system!) If anything, my position is more conservative
>> than yours.
> I never claimed to be conservative.
No, just to be opposed to changing things.
>
> No because that only works with the more incompetent POV pushers.
Strange - the block system has always seemed to me to work pretty
well no matter who you block. [[WP:AN]] sometimes doesn't work as
well, but that seems intimately related to the "fix it with policy"
approach.
-Phil