geni wrote:
On 11/14/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
That's absolutely and incredibly not true. They write a verifiable article about something they know, get abusive comments on AFD (for some reason, civility and assume good faith don't work there ... the reason AFD is so damn poisonous to the community is that it blatantly encourages participants to assume *bad* faith) and *leave*.
That would be unusal. More likely they will simply be ignored. Most stuff that lands on afd is not implicetly verifiable.
Case where this happened really badly: webcomics. We now have a project fork, Comixpedia, entirely caused by AFD. You may recall extensive discussion surrounding this on this list a few weeks ago.
- d.
On 11/14/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Case where this happened really badly: webcomics. We now have a project fork, Comixpedia, entirely caused by AFD. You may recall extensive discussion surrounding this on this list a few weeks ago.
- d.
You relise I don't view the existance of Comixpedia (other than their choice to use CC) as a bad thing. Wikipedia needs these subject specific spinoffs. I hope to see more of them.
-- geni
On 11/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Case where this happened really badly: webcomics. We now have a project fork, Comixpedia, entirely caused by AFD. You may recall extensive discussion surrounding this on this list a few weeks ago.
- d.
You relise I don't view the existance of Comixpedia (other than their choice to use CC) as a bad thing. Wikipedia needs these subject specific spinoffs. I hope to see more of them.
Why does Wikipedia need subject-specific spinoffs?
G'day Tony,
On 11/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Case where this happened really badly: webcomics. We now have a project fork, Comixpedia, entirely caused by AFD. You may recall extensive discussion surrounding this on this list a few weeks ago.
You relise I don't view the existance of Comixpedia (other than their choice to use CC) as a bad thing. Wikipedia needs these subject specific spinoffs. I hope to see more of them.
Why does Wikipedia need subject-specific spinoffs?
Worl, it's my view that Wikipedia needs articles on [[Elf Only Inn]]. It does *not* need articles on minor characters from EOI fanfic (if there is such a thing).
Notable webcomics belong in Wikipedia. Unconscionable fanwank belongs in Comixpedia. Fortunately, with compatible licencing, we can share the best/worst of both. That's why I (and I assume geni) don't think of Comixpedia as a Bad Thing: it's a filter. Obviously, Comixpedia isn't a dumping ground for Wikipedia, but if they're willing to take what we don't want, and if we can import the stuff we do want but didn't realise, then that's good, surely?
Compare ABP and AFP.
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia need subject-specific spinoffs?
Because certian people will be able to work better if they don't keep running into people who don't know anything about the subject. Secondly they are in a much better position to detect hoaxes.
-- geni
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia need subject-specific spinoffs?
Because certian people will be able to work better if they don't keep running into people who don't know anything about the subject. Secondly they are in a much better position to detect hoaxes.
This doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. I'm always bumping into people who know nothing about lisp except that they don't like the language's ubiquitous brackets and they consider this to be such a grave failing in a programming language that it renders lisp almost useless, and that lisp is an interpretive language that must always be slow in execution. Should the articles about programming languages then be exiled to a specialist wiki?
It is certainly true that a specialist is better able to detect hoaxes, but I don't see how this can be used as an argument for moving all articles about programming languages, web comics, pokemon or whatever to a specialist wiki, which would almost inevitably have fewer editors competent in the subject than the much larger and more popular English language Wikipedia. It is also the case that I'm competent in rather more subjects than programming languages, so it would be very inconvenient to deal with a number of fragmented wikis. Hoaxes aren't common enough to justify splitting the wikipedia, nor is the presence of the odd blithering ignoramus a problem.
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
This doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. I'm always bumping into people who know nothing about lisp except that they don't like the language's ubiquitous brackets and they consider this to be such a grave failing in a programming language that it renders lisp almost useless, and that lisp is an interpretive language that must always be slow in execution. Should the articles about programming languages then be exiled to a specialist wiki?
That is not myy point. I'm sure you can hadle these people. Others perhaps cannot. Forks also allow the coverage of unencyopedic topics until they become encyopedic
It is certainly true that a specialist is better able to detect hoaxes, but I don't see how this can be used as an argument for moving all articles about programming languages, web comics, pokemon or whatever to a specialist wiki, which would almost inevitably have fewer editors competent in the subject than the much larger and more popular English language Wikipedia. It is also the case that I'm competent in rather more subjects than programming languages, so it would be very inconvenient to deal with a number of fragmented wikis. Hoaxes aren't common enough to justify splitting the wikipedia, nor is the presence of the odd blithering ignoramus a problem.
Where did I suggest splitting the wiki?
There are a number of wikimedia projects. If other groups want to carry out projects who are we to stop them?
-- geni
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
[rhetorical point on prejudice against lisp motivating a fork for programming languages]
That is not myy point. I'm sure you can hadle these people. Others perhaps cannot. Forks also allow the coverage of unencyopedic topics until they become encyopedic
Ah, so it's not about fostering a good working environment at all, but about your belief that some topics are unencyclopedic and this may be rectified by forking "until they become encyopedic"? Could you explain this reasoning a bit more?
Where did I suggest splitting the wiki?
Well if webcomic experts depart to form a new community, this is in effect a split in the community. One that you appear to think was a good thing.
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
[rhetorical point on prejudice against lisp motivating a fork for programming languages]
That is not myy point. I'm sure you can hadle these people. Others perhaps cannot. Forks also allow the coverage of unencyopedic topics until they become encyopedic
Ah, so it's not about fostering a good working environment at all, but about your belief that some topics are unencyclopedic and this may be rectified by forking "until they become encyopedic"? Could you explain this reasoning a bit more?
I currently have a picture of the structure of an organic molicule in front of me. It has never been made and nothing has been published on it. I could probably bash something together based on assumed properties but it would not be encyopedic. In time though the molicule probably will be made and if it becomes significant it may become encyopedic. At that point we could have an article ready to add to wikipedia.
Well if webcomic experts depart to form a new community, this is in effect a split in the community. One that you appear to think was a good thing.
The community is not the wiki.
-- geni