I agree with every word of Erik's post, except for the sarcastic part
about kicking out pathological lying Chechen Republicans chased by foxes
with warped cores in their breeches. And he says /I/ have a strange
sense of humor...
This is basically the same idea as my Harmonious Editing Club, only
expressed with more eloquence ;-) -- all we have to do now is nominate
some more people; then figure out what they should do and how to request
their help.
Criteria for nomination should include anyone who has ever:
* Worded an article so eloqently/fairly/neutrally that an edit war
suddenly evaporated into thin air
* Successfully defused a tangle between contributors
** Like the hero who got Nico and Szopen to "kiss and make up" (was that
Viajero?)
To call in a mediator, just leave a note at their user talk page, or
more generally post in the ==Request for mediaton== section of
[[Wikipedia:Mediators]].
Uncle Ed
Maveric and Chris Mahan have both suggested formulas for blocking
signed-in users from editing, if abandon cooperative editing and engage
in excessive reversion.
I agree in principle, and I trust someone like mav or Eloquence or
Angelas or (oddly enough, even myself) to:
1. Determine that someone has violated the rules
2. Recommend a ban to Jimbo
I just don't think Jimbo is *ever* going to delegate hard-ban authority,
even for a week -- not any time soon, anyway. He's found a way of
maintaining community stability and he's not likely to give in to our
periodic demands for "more authority".
Sometimes I think he's just being stubborn, and sometimes I think he's
much wiser than I am about this - but /he/ is the one running a
successful company and sponsoring the world's largest Wiki community
(not little ol' me).
Uncle Ed
There's nothing wrong with single-sourcing. SecretLondon reads the
Guardian, I read the Washington Times. Go ahead and quote from the
Washington Post or New York Times if you want. Everybody posts info from
the sources they know.
Many people think the Post and the NY Times are editorially biased, but
does anyone think their *news* is untrustworthy? Okay, there was the
Jason Blair thing, and the guy whose Pulitzer from 60 years ago might be
revoked for whitewashing Stalin's Ukrainian genocide - but I mean aside
from minor things like that, does anyone really consider them
untrustworthy sources?
Same for the Washington Times: okay, their editorials and most of their
columnists are conservative; but does anyone think their *news" is
untrustworthy?
Uncle Ed
Okay, Alex. You're the lawyer, you formulate the policy.
I hope it includes a section on "how to communicate politely but firmly
with apparently accidental GFDL infringement".
Ed Poor, non-lawyer
Erik wrote:
>...
>A code of honor works well for small projects with
>like-minded people. Wikipedia is neither small nor
>like-minded. That's why it needs policies which are
>actually followed through, and not just a call for
>WikiLove every now and then. We don't need a
>WikiGestapo, but we need a certain amount of policy
>enforcement and clear rules, and that's just not
>happening. As a result, NPOV is mostly theoretical for
>many of the controversial articles on Wikipedia.
Sadly, I think you are right. Bureaucracy expansion.... Hm.
One possible idea:
Somebody mentioned a "3 revert" rule where anything more than 3 reverts in an
article content dispute by any party (not to be confused with reverting
simple vandalism), is grounds for a warning. If within a certain amount of
time, say a month, they go pass 3 reverts on the same article again, then
they get a final warning. Strike three in the same month and they are banned
from editing for a week. After that they can come back on probation (3 months
long maybe?). At that point: 1 probation violation gets an automatic 1 week
editing ban, second one gets 2 weeks and the third gets them a HardBan for at
least the duration of their probation period.
Hopefully this will encourage people to work together instead of automatically
reverting. But we also need a way to resolve disputes.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Erik wrote:
>I would support an official warning to the effect that:
>- POV language needs to be avoided -- will everyone
>agree with the summary?
>- Sources should be reasonably objective, e.g. Voice of
>America is a US government funded operation, and AP/
>Reuters are therefore preferable
>- "Current events" should concentrate on factual information,
>not mere statements of opinion
>- When available, summaries should contain facts/"opinions"
>from all relevant sides
I was about to write a reply to James' post saying pretty much the same thing.
Ditto for what you wrote about the entertainment news problem. The release of
a major new film is news, however. It's already reported on the day and year
pages. More entries can be added to the month pages, so naturally less
significant events can be mentioned a bit more often than they would
otherwise be on a year or day page.
No need to be "hard news" zealots (although not nearly as much space should be
given to soft/entertainment news as hard news on [[current events]]).
I imagine that we will eventually need to have a [[current entertainment
news]] daughter article of the [[current events]] page. Their "archives"
would be [[{month} {year} in entertainment]]. The detail can go there, but
really significant entertainment news would also get a mention on the regular
[[current events]]/[[{month} {year}]] article. But I don't forsee us needing
such a page for a while (such a page could also degenerate into celebrity
gossip "news" a la the Enquirer in the US or The Sun in the UK - that would
be bad IMO).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Reddi had added many links to [[Current events]]. Most are OK but s/he has a
habit of adding highly questionable stuff -
i. adding in lines in the page that are generally seen as totally irrelevant
and completely Americocentrist, eg announcing the launch of US TV show
premieres and re-runs as if they were of internationally newsworthy, or
could remotely fall within the ambit of current affairs, eg.,
* [[Entertainment]] : "The Partridge Family" to take the psychedelic bus
for another spin, returning to television in an updated remake, according to
The Hollywood Reporter. [22]
* [[Entertainment]]: The "Star Wars: Clone Wars" episodes premieres. A new
episode of the Lucas-approved series airs each weeknight, repeating at
midnight. Another 10 will air next spring. [4] [5]
* [[Movies]]: Russell Crowe attended the London premiere of his movie Master
and Commander. [2]
** [[Nudity]]: Porn publisher Larry Flynt states he bought reported nude
photos of Iraq war heroine Jessica Lynch - to keep them from ever being
published. Jessica Lynch is frolicking topless with male soldiers in the
photos before she went off to war. [10] [11] [12]
ii. using highly POV language, eg.,
* [[Mass media]]: An example of European media coverage distorting the
Mideast conflict is publicized. [47]
* [[United Nations]]: The UN votes again and overwhelmingly for an end to
sanctions against Cuba; only the USA, Israel, and the Marshall Islands vote
against. [12] The US's United Nations ambassador John Negroponte avoided the
UN propaganda forum.
iii. uses as /single/ sources references that are not highly regarded as
NPOV, for example editorials and commentary columns and controversial
sources such as FOX News.
iv. Adding in names of countries, definitions and links at the start of
sentences that are at this stage OTT and in most cases wrongly defined
([[Scotland]], [[Nudity]], [[Entertainment]], etc, as if the page was a
tabloid TV news channel. Mav among others have constantly had to revert
these, for example:
# (cur) (last) . . M 20:39, 16 Nov 2003 . . Maveric149 (removed bastard
contextualizations; place is not context! Nor is subject! )
# (cur) (last) . . 01:27, 14 Nov 2003 . . Snoyes (removing POV on news
article (no place for debating on this page - it is meant to be short and to
the point - see talk))
# (cur) (last) . . 23:26, 13 Nov 2003 . . Snoyes (add link to judge-story;
rm official statement from other news story (official statements are
frequently useless, as they mostly don't add anything))
# (cur) (last) . . M 03:22, 12 Nov 2003 . . Jiang (rm pointless
contextualizations)
Snoyes wrote - Regarding my removal of, as you (user:Reddi) put it, the
"pentagon view": The Current Events page should not be some kind of forum
for posting points of view on News articles. It is about the News itself. I
don't think that it is a good idea to post responses by involved parties if
they don't contain significant relevant information that has not already
been said. . . If this continues we'll be writing entire news stories
pretty soon. Which I don't think Current Events is designed to do. --snoyes
01:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Jiang, Snoyes, Mav, Viajero and others have complained repeatedly about some
of these additions. I raised the point of the nonsensical listing of a
cartoon series. Reddi's response was to write a weird largely unreadable
reply which he signed "Not an irish drunk", an offensive characture link
mocking my Irishness which, if it was made against someone because of their
gender, race or jewish identity would rightly be criticised.
It is not the only place on wikipedia that Reddi has acted in a POV manner,
but while thankfully s/he doesn't engage in edit wars, they keep adding in
links, adding in categories at the start of lines, creating ever growing
right wing Americocentrist lines and using controversial sources as single
sources, rather than, as requested, offer other sources alongside with their
beloved FOX News and the Washington Times. And so far appeals from everyone
else to stop fall on deaf ears. Have people any suggestions, before what is
right now just a constant irritant on the Current events page requiring
frequent culling of irrelevant stuff, as so happens grows into something
worse and provokes major rows on the page?
JT
_________________________________________________________________
>From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, youll find a
range of helpful holiday info here.
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx
Erik made an eloquent and keen observation:
:-) Until there is a firm policy that is strictly enforced (e.g.
:-) you can revert only once, if that doesn't work, you will have
:-) to take it to the talk page), edit wars will be a reality on
:-) Wikipedia, and the side that is willing to invest the most
:-) time in their "POV" will get it through by sheer force.
This is precisely the problem which vexes me. This is what
makes me want to leave Wikipedia permanently, as I have been
'threatening' to do all this week. This is what has driven
away countless superb contributors. Some have complained about
this problem loudly and repeatedly before making a public
departure, but many have just quietly vanished like Lewis
Carroll's snark.
Thus I would like to propose the formation of a sort of club
or SIG within Wikipedia - sort of on the lines of the old semi-
humorous Wikipedia 'militia' - a group of contributors who will
join to intervene in edit wars and work together to create a
stable and neutral article, one which all parties to the edit
war would agree is correct and good and satisfying.
These club members would show by example how to contribute in
a harmonious, useful fashion. These members would bind THEMSELVES
to the rule of "you can only revert once". They would propose
options on the talk page BEFORE making edits to the article.
They might even wait an hour or a day for assent from others
before making a change.
These club members would politely remind others not to make
abusive remarks on talk pages. They would refactor talk when
it got too long or tangled.
I don't have to be the club president, we might not even need
a president or a formal roster.
What does everyone think about this plan?
Ed Poor
Ed Poor wrote:
> Thus I would like to propose the formation of a sort of club
> or SIG within Wikipedia - sort of on the lines of the old semi-
> humorous Wikipedia 'militia' - a group of contributors who will
> join to intervene in edit wars and work together to create a
> stable and neutral article, one which all parties to the edit
> war would agree is correct and good and satisfying.
Sounds good, but you assume, that people are willing to accept the
intervention of this "militia". I don't oppose this proposal, but we
have to think ahead: What will we do with those who refuse to abandon
their behaviour?
My thoughts:
1. The rejection of edit wars should become Wikipedia policy (and not
just a voluntary guideline).
2. If an edit war is emerging, the parties involved are forced either
to discuss the issue on the talk page or to leave the article forever.
3. If a participant refuses to discuss, but continues reverting in
spite of active discussion on the talk page, (s)he should face
consequences: first warning, second warning, ban (something like
that).
Currently we have especially one edit warrior on Wikipedia, who
actually announced, that he would revert the articles in question
after their unprotection, regardless of the outcome of the discussions
ongoing on the corresponding talk pages.
And he did more than once. We won't change his behaviour with Ed's
proposed intervention group.
Mirko.
P.S.: I am really happy, that this is actually discussed now.
Arvind,
Thank you for taking the time to write such a courteous letter to the
Chess & Beyond website. As predicted, the response was courteous and
promised cooperation within quite a reasonable amount of time.
This sort of courteous exchange is an excellent example of promoting the
"free text" concept -- and it's much better than an abrupt takedown
demand. We're not WWF wrestlers, we're public-spirited artists.
Ed Poor