On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Simon Kissane wrote:
I don't really think the idea of moving commentary
out
of Wikipedia will work. The problem is that no hard
line can be drawn between "policy discussion" and
"discussion about the articles".
I think such a line already has been drawn: when people write essays or
make proposals on new pages (subpages of [[Wikipedia commentary]] or their
own pages), that's the stuff that would go in the commentary wiki. The
discussion of policy issues on /Talk pages (or, in the future, in the
"Talk:" namespace) can be considered applications of more general
principles, at least for convenience's sake. In the future, general
policy discussion on a talk page could be transferred, profitably, to the
metawiki. The distinction is clear enough to make the move quite useful,
I think.
Again, if you propose to keep "official policy
pages"
in Wikipedia, then people will want to comment on them
-- suggest additions or clarifications, or disagree
with the policies themselves. The most natural place
for them to do so would be [[Wikipedia
policy/Talk]]...
Well, so far, this hasn't happened too much. If something were still a
matter of considerable debate, then it wouldn't belong on the official
pages. Or, alternatively, the disagreement should be noted on the
pages--noted, but not *engaged*. This is a matter of some
self-discipline, and it really hasn't been a problem so far. Most of the
disagreement about policy (whether new or old) has taken place off the
policy pages. (The NPOV page is an exception!)
And you wouldn't want to get rid of
[[Wikipedia policy/Talk]], because what if they are
only asking questions like "can anyone think of a way
of making the third paragraph clearer... i have
trouble understanding it", which really do belong in
[[Wikipedia policy/Talk]], not on "metawikipedia"...
OK, so we have a bit of overlap. That's a lot better than having a lot of
incendiary debate cluttering up the Recent Changes page.
With all due respect, I think Larry is overeacting to
some recent disputes.
This is not just my proposal; many people are behind it.
Simon, it would be helpful if you would simply refrain from offensive
attempts to characterize the appropriateness of my reactions. In case you
didn't know, that is *not* respectful. Stick to the arguments, please.
Cutting all commentary out of
Wikipedia is IMHO too radical a response.
I don't think it's radical at all. It just involves moving the commentary
away from the main wiki. What's radical about that? Commentary is not
what Wikipedia is about. We are not here to talk about writing an
encyclopedia; we're here to write one. (Well, *I* am actually *paid* to
talk about writing an encyclopedai
I think the
solution here isn't structural change to Wikipedia,
its trying to resolve the disputes at issue. (Which I
don't think any of those involved, myself included,
have done good enough a job of trying to resolve.)
The reason I disagree with this, again, is that more and more such
incendiary disputes are bound to arise, as Wikipedia grows. This is a way
to make the metadiscussion more scalable.
Larry