I'm not sure Steve's representation of academics who work on the 'pedia
is fair or accurate. Contributions by what he called "deadwood" are
correctible - which is what lots of us do. What makes academics leave
is when it becomes clear that popular opinion often outweighs merit, and
that many people see a (false, IMO, but supported by many) dichotomy
between high standards and open content.
Cheers
Thanks to everybody who jumped on board and made manual changes from my
old user name to my abbreviated one (which is still not going to be used
- If I come back, it will be in a totally new incarnation). I jumped on
last night to do some housecleaning, and Hephaestos and KQ were already
there, doing an impressive job. That was wikilove in its highest form,
IMO - way beyond the call of duty. Oh - and if you think you see me in
another incarnation, it would not be unwelcome to have my sysop rights
transferred. ;-)
Julie
Anthere,
I am sad to see Anthere's unilateral declariation of an
edit war. I further saddened to see her unilateral demand
that we MUST refer to her favored mystical and political
views as "gaia theory", despite the fact that English
speakers DO NOT use her odd and unusual terminology. She
has now made clear that we English speakers can go fuck
ourselves, because she doesn't give a damn about truth or
about standard useage.
Her public declaration is tantamount to admitting
vandalism. You have now seen this for yourselves. Since no
here has commented, am I correct in assuming that you now
believe that her unilateral declarations of edit wars is
appropriate behaviour? No one here has objected!
I am saddened by the lack of honesty and professionalism I
am seeing on this list.
Robert (RK)
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
I had email problems, so this wasnt posted earlier -=
like around 9am PST -- but .here it is anyway
Danny wrote
>"Wikipedia is a project with a stated
objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its objective is
not to create an ideal >democratic >society a la
Martin's perception of one. Nor is it a dumping
ground, where anyone can put any crap they want in the
name of free speech. It is a place that works best by
consensus and compromise--not by making abrupt
decisions that this must be the policy, come hell or
high water. That is why I was opposed to making a
final decision on the date format and spelling
policies. ""
>""The end result of all this is that some of the
serious long term contributors have left--Zoe, for
one, was one of the most ?>prolific Wikipedians and a
real defender of the project against vandalism. While
Martin is certainly prolific on the Recent Changes, a
quick look at his past 500 changes show that his work
is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and
most of the rest on contentious pages, where it is
bound to flame the fires of dispute.""
How does having a democratic and responsive way of
dealing with issues conflict with making an
encyclopedia? -- Do not, Danny, fall victim to the
typical assumptions and presumptions of academics.
That said, your views on the usefulness of
formalization seem to be inline with mine -- in terms
of the nonsense details. In terms of process,
however, and conducting administrative affairs, it
seems the time is ripe to formalize under sunlight the
way things get voted on, etc.
>""What I would like to see are some solid
contributions--an article culled out of a Talk page
does not count---before >wasting our time with the
Vandal Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was
made a sysop whether it was to police it >over the
rest of us or to further the goal of creating an
encyclopedia.""
You are 'free to wonder, Danny, but not aloud.' Hehe.
Well... rather, if you make comments like the above,
the rest of us might be inclined to point out that
they are not in character for someone of your caliber,
and that they need not be addressed if they are made
as a slant, rather than as a formal complaint. In any
case, your worthy history entitles you to some
excusing.
As for Zoe (sob!) and others leaving, I might point
out that they by and large left under some stress.
The stress comes from the conflict that their personal
or institutionalized standards are not the absolute
measure here, rather it is consensus that is. If a
disagreement is met, it must be dealt with in ways
(like co-operation and respect) that some academics
seem to avoid learning. Aside from the fact that
academics need to find non-academic hobbies, anyone
who lets themselves get too stressed on the WP will
soon enough have to face a monster of their own
making, namely that same-said stress. This stress
comes via various factors: Severed attachment to areas
of concern, a negated sense of accomplishment when
something is changed, personality issues, and so on.
That academics eventually would call for higher
standards, to "cut out the deadwood," and "weed out
the weaklings," reflects only the fact that these
professionals failed to understand what was Wikipedias
founding spirit in the first place. Such people,
despite their vast areas of rote knowledge, tend to
have some fundamental inefficiencies that may make
them in the end, extinct. Its kind of like the
proverbial health-food junkie who dies if he eats bad
food. Compared to the beefy, eat-anything robustness
of a typically-poor diet, that health nut is an
accident waiting to happen. (In some situations).
The WP wont be obsolete, because it will be what it
is. If Jim decided, say, to rename the WP, "Nupedia"
-- saying "this henceforth a peer-reviewed thing," --
it will make no difference. It will still be the
stagnant and dying Nupedia, regardless of how many
articles it got via Wikipedic means.
Zoe, ironically, seemed to be non-academic enough to
qualify as being among the robust, but then she took
it upon herself to be the top-cop, the Ken Starr
chasing Clinton, and of course, like Starr, some of
the methods, words and tactics Zoe chose tended to
make some skeptical of her intent. And besides, how
do we know she's just not hanging out at the beach
more often? The WP is nice for stay at home dads and
IT dungeon keepers, but for others the appeal of a
topical argument stands short against the realization
that life in front of a screen is a bad habit at best.
So in short, I take issue with you, Danny, when you
confuse the issues you presented, with the altogether
different phenomenon of the changing guard.
Get well soon, all
-Steve
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Hi folks.
Firstly, I would like to thank Danny. Despite your annoyance at my actions, and your
concern for the wellbeing of Wikipedia, you were polite and calm in your criticism.
Criticism is often a bitter pill to swallow, but you were a perfect gentleman, and I
genuinely appreciate that.
Secondly, I have been informed that some may feel that I am accusing Jimbo
Wales, or Wikipedians generally, of hypocricy, regarding my comments on whether
these lists are "unmoderated". I did not mean to imply any such thing, and, for the
record I do not think that any of you are hypocritical. I *did* have a point behind my
post, but it is not important, so I am happy to completely retract it. I apologise for the
offence my careless choice of words has caused.
Thirdly, I should note that my sysop powers were the result of a fairly informal
decision by Ed Poor, rather than the general acclamation that has greeted recent
sysops. As such I feel somewhat lacking in democratic accountability! :) While I wish
to retain my deletion and undeletion powers solely for the purpose of merging page
histories or moving page titles, I would like to announce here that I will no longer
take any other sysop-restricted actions, until further notice. I hope you can all trust
me to keep my word on this matter.
Finally, I'm currently discussing this matter privately with Danny and other interested
parties. If you have any feedback, positive or negative (especially negative feedback
that is as polite and well-reasoned as Danny's), then I would be deleted to hear from
any of you. In particular, I would like to hear from Jtdirl, who I have much respect
for, despite our diametrically opposed views. My email adress is
wikipedia(a)myreddice.co.uk.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper