WikiEN-l September 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

70 participants
113 discussions

Bot for generating articles on cities in Israel
by Adam Raizen 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see an example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments? --Adam Raizen

19 67

Re: WikiEN-l sigh, 142.177
by Anthere 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

> From: rednblack(a)alum.mit.edu > Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177 > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org >First of all, my opinions and RK's are wildly >divergent. Though they converge as for reverting :-) >As to the current Islamism article, it was a >replacement of RK's previous version, which stevert >was fighting with him over. I don't think steve has >stepped in since then much, maybe because he finds the >current version more satisfactory, or maybe because he >grew bored with the article. This is him to say. >My objection to 142 is not over content, but rather >this: >142 decided that "Islamism" was not a neutral term. I >don't know why he decided this, because he never >bothered to respond to my queries on that point. >Thereafter he hacked up the Islamism article and moved >chunks of text around unilaterally. My debate with him >over "militant Islam" notwithstanding, this is hardly >acceptable practice. Oh Graft, I must respectfully say that it is quite often done a practice, though it is here done in a bolder way that done usually. Everyone, one day or another, is bold to the point of what can be perceived as rudeness. Just today, I did some moving around on the french wikipedia, on this summer heat wave article, that was felt as too bold by one of the author. Us being in good relationship, he gently told me I disturbed him. You also were very bold with me once. I spent many hours writing a - imho - well researched, informative and attributed article. But I did not write everything that was to say on the topic ("always leave something obvious to add..."). You then explained to me on the talk page that while the article was obviously lacking some aspects, I should also *drastically* reduce what I wrote. You also added "I agree the trading issues might be very important for you europeans, and maybe even for us americans, but they are not, by far, the only important factor surrounding GM food." As you say, the trading issues are very important to us Europeans; I would even dare say essential. Kat confirmed it was very important in saying "The trade aspect is a major source of frustration for U.S. farmers who see export markets close to them whether the individual farmer should choose to grow GMO grain or not. A discussion of GM food would be incomplete without it." The fact it was only one factor, and apparently not very important, was only an opinion of *you*. And the fact some of the other factors were missing was not an argument to remove half of my article, but rather for someone to complete the parts missing. If I did it very in-depth, it was because I am aware of the depth of lack of understanding american people have over why europeans had a moratorium. This - imho - required precisions. But anyway, in short, we were two people supporting keeping the article as such. You were alone stating it should not, and saying I should drastically cut in what I wrote for it was not being very important. The next thing I knew, you had amputated the article, and moved the whole part that did not suit you, with no consideration of my own position, with no acknowledgment of who had written the whole bit, and with no fixing both articles properly to introduce the notions covered in the other article. basically, this is called a consensual agreement with the 33% winning the case. This is also "moving chunks of text around unilaterally." Notice, I don't hold bad feelings toward you for having done that, though I was unhappy of that, but again, respectfully, I must insist that boldness happens, and does not necessarily lead to an edit war or asking protection. >Understand that my dispute with 142 is not an >ideological one. My dispute is over the >style in which 142 operates. He took an existing >article, rewrote it willy-nilly with >little justification, got in two edit wars over it >(with myself and RK, who have little >ideological common ground), then listed us both on >[[Wikipedia:Problem users]] and >went ahead with other reorganizations and >article-creations without any discussion. It is very unfortunate you got in an edit war with hir. I would not hold getting in an edit war with RK as being very...err...well...never mind. As for being listed on problem users, I would not mind that too much if I were you. People who know you are confident you are ok. I hope it did not spoil your best day too much :-) Thought : Aoineko and I often list each other on problematic users on the fr :-) >I am unclear exactly in what ways the current >"Islamism" article is not neutral, and >I am uncertain how it could incorporate such inchoate >notions as "why?" people become >radicals of any stripe. I think the article does >attempt to give SOME answer as to how >people are pushed into increasingly radical directions >(although there's no discussion >of Algeria/France right now, which is a major flaw. But does it give these people point of view on how they perceive themselves, what they think as being said extremists ? Does it describe in which way, the so-said non extremists perceive them as extremists ? >Unfortunately I know little to nothing about it/them, >so maybe you can fill in the >gaps?) Thank you very much for your trust, but I am not currently willing to be called a vandal again :-) >I readily acknowledge that the current "Islamism" >article has profound failings and needs >a lot of work; I also acknowledge that I am not an >expert on Islamism, just a guy who has >read a few books on the subject. I have no problem >with more knowledgable people improving >the article. You already did a good work. The point is not necessarily "more knowledgable" people, but rather "other knowledgeable" people. Look, I never read any books on islamism, so you probably know more than I on some points. But did your father ever received a letter from one asking for your hand when you were 15 ? :-) >Anyway, I suppose it's time to retreat into the camp >of people who have been bitten by 24/142/Entmoots and >just have to learn to live with it. >Saurabh Live with it, yes. Retreat, perhaps not :-) Dunno. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

2 1

Text of proposed updated copyright notice
by Axel Boldt 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

Sorry that I am late to this debate. In Alex's proposal, I read "[...] you further affirm that such text is not defamatory or in violation of any law; [...]" I strongly object to this language. I do not feel a moral obligation to be bound by all laws, not even by all laws I happen to know about or that apply to me. Also, I am not capable to decide whether a given piece of text violates any law, not even those laws I happen to know about or that apply to me. I however do feel a moral obligation to be honest, which would therefore preclude me from affirming the above. Axel P.S. Minor point: presumably there are or have been laws against defamation somewhere, so it is not necessary to mention defamation specifically. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

3 2

sigh, 142.177
by Anthere 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:49:51 -0400 > From: rednblack(a)alum.mit.edu > Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177 > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Hi, > > I've been fighting for roughly the past half-day > with 142.177.*.* (formerly > 24.*.*.* and EntmootsOfTrolls) over [[Islamism]] and > [[militant Islam]]. I > must admit that I'm not really a very patient > person, especially when the other > party is not at all willing to engage, refuses to > respond to my points, and > is only interested in pushing his idiosyncratic > viewpoint. It's even more > irritating when the user has been hard-banned > several times, and writes totally > terrible, unfocused and irrelevant crap on top of > everything else. > > So, I'd like some advice on how to deal with this > situation. > > See [[Talk:Islamism]], [[Talk:Militant > Islam/Delete]], and [[Wikipedia:Problem > users]], where he listed myself and RK after I asked > to have [[Islamism]] > protected, for discussion. I'll admit my bias: I > wrote most of [[Islamism]], > and while it isn't perfect and needs a whole lot of > work, I feel that the > changes 142 is making are totally inappropriate. > > Saurabh (Graft) Your issue with 142 is - imho - a perfectly classical edit war, with two different sets of opinions, yours/RK versus 142. I can't help but take with a grain of salt the issue you raise above, with the fact you listed [[Militant Islam]] for deletion just after RK redirected it with justifications which were not convincing. I know little of the topic (though, as you may know about 10% of the french population is of muslim religion, and we have our share of religious extremism), so when you listed it on vfd, I just asked you whether the issue was that the term did not existed at all, or whether you thought the content was wrong. Your answer to my question was "The concept does not exist, as even the article admits, and so the article should be deleted. It's like having an article called militant Christianity?, and listing all the Christians who have ever been violent and employed Christian rhetoric to support themselves. We could do it, but what would be the point? The only common thread is that they're militant and Christian... why not start an article on Blond Presidents?? or Atheist Right-Fielders??" When I looked at the two terms, both existed (militant islamist has over 34200 hits on google). This was confirmed by Jt who said "It is certainly a real term, one I have heard widely used in academia, in the media and in politics, whereas Islamism is not a term I have used much outside the US and Israel. And yes there should be an article on Militant Christianity? as it too is a real term describing Christian fundamentalists who believe that they are fighting a 'war for Christ' and that violence is a necessary means in that war, in areas like abortion, homosexuality, anti-semitism, secularism, etc." For those interested, read http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Militant_Islam/Delete Obviously, though you share opinion with RK that the concept does not exist and think that the article should disappear, it seems that others have another opinion. And that not only does the concept exists, but that also it is relevant and informative for readers. I do think it is quite reasonable to think that on these types of matters, we cannot expect that everyone agrees. Hence, it is not a question of banning or idiosynchrasy, or such, it is just a matter of diversity of opinion and perception. Just the essence of Wikipedia, not a personal matter. Accepting that other people have different opinions, no matter how much total crap it appears to us. In this, the fact you loudly claimed the concept and the word did not exist, while obviously the word exist, and Jt opinion is that the concept exist and is important, should be proof enough that we sometimes are wrong. Nothing to be ashamed for, if we knew everything, we would not need wikipedia. You also openly admit your own bias and the fact you wrote alone most of the Islamism article. Perhaps then, would it be good to imagine that *one* person cannot know everything on a topic and that it would make sense that such a wide topic be worked on by more people than just a couple Whatever the effort you will put to be at your best in terms of neutrality and completude, do you think you would ever be able to "think" and see things like a "fou de Dieu" is (You certainly have a term for these people, those seeing God as a mean and an end, and revolving every matter in their life around Him)?. I understand very well you may think 142 is writing inappropriate things. This is what we think each time we have an edit war with someone. Each time we disagree and get hot over it. The only thing I can think of to help you here, is to remind you that we are all different, and ever will be, and each day I read the english wikipedia, I see that and am amazed. Also, to focus on the content, and not to divert your thinking in the dear hope to see someone you disagree with be banned, because if an opinion is serious and relevant, it will come back by the back door. Hence, I would say to face this issue rather than trying to avoid it. And if need there is, to choose a neutral party to help you (given that RK who will certainly be in the discussion, is not a neutral party :-)) And...yes...just to give you my opinion on the islamism article. It is good and informative. But biased. When I read the below paragraph "Much Islamist activity since has been directed against governments in Muslim societies, which Islamists oppose because they are governments according to human law, not divine law. However, a considerable effort has been made to fight Western targets, especially the United States. The United States in particular is a subject of Islamist ire because of its support of Israel, its presence on sacred Saudi soil, what Islamists regard as its aggression against Muslims in Iraq, and its support of the regimes Islamists oppose. In addition some Islamists have concentrated their activity against Israel, and nearly all Islamists view Israel with hostility. Osama bin Laden, at least, believes that this is of necessity due to historical conflict between Muslims and Jews, and considers there to be a Jewish/American alliance against Islam. " I cannot help repressing a sad smile, and think of all the difficulties my country has in integrating muslim population, some of it being islamist, of how much infrastructure was destroyed in the past years by attacks, how many people died in my country during these religious battles, of how many euros were spent in rebuilding, of all the discussions over the FIS in Algeria, of the islamists in Marocco, Egypt, Jordan trying to have their voice heard through legal means. The current article is informative, but it does not answer my questions, and does not help me to understand why from time to time women and children die when in Paris subway, or when they go shopping for presents around Christmas. It does not help me to understand why, from time to time, I can't park my car in front of my children school because the terrorist alert is on again. It does not help me to understand why recently a teenager has burned alive a young girl refusing to cover her head in one of our cities. Or why some people get wild at the though of their wife head naked on identity pictures. It does not help me to understand why some french people refuse islamic religious cult building in their town. It does not help me to understand just why some people are so extremists when muslim people may be so delightful. And if anyone read french here, I invite them to read this speech given by Nicolas Sarkozy over french muslims http://www.religioscope.info/article_143.shtml I dunno where you are from, Graft (America I suppose) and I dunno what your relationship with islam and muslims is, I can just say the current article needs work and other perspectives than yours and RK. Because right now, if I look at the article history, I see that you two are basically the authors of this article. Steve was censored right ? I suspect an article on islamism, reflecting all points of view (per Wikipedia goal) should not be restricted to a "two head american authorship". If you want the world to read this article with the feeling it is fair and deeply informative, or if you want american people to better understand why they have suffered such a terrible loss, please do not cling to that article. Rather try to understand and acknowledge other views. Please Graft. Anthere __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

2 1

sigh, 142.177
by rednblack＠alum.mit.edu 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Hi, I've been fighting for roughly the past half-day with 142.177.*.* (formerly 24.*.*.* and EntmootsOfTrolls) over [[Islamism]] and [[militant Islam]]. I must admit that I'm not really a very patient person, especially when the other party is not at all willing to engage, refuses to respond to my points, and is only interested in pushing his idiosyncratic viewpoint. It's even more irritating when the user has been hard-banned several times, and writes totally terrible, unfocused and irrelevant crap on top of everything else. So, I'd like some advice on how to deal with this situation. See [[Talk:Islamism]], [[Talk:Militant Islam/Delete]], and [[Wikipedia:Problem users]], where he listed myself and RK after I asked to have [[Islamism]] protected, for discussion. I'll admit my bias: I wrote most of [[Islamism]], and while it isn't perfect and needs a whole lot of work, I feel that the changes 142 is making are totally inappropriate. Saurabh (Graft) ------ [T]he system isn't great leaders, great machinating people controlling it all. It's each person performing their job as one little cog in this thing.. -- Terry Gilliam, on 'Brazil'

2 1

Re: BuddhaInside
by Björn Lindqvist 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

>>75% is not a consensus, > > > Actually it is. A consensus is generally interpretated as meaning a clear > and unambiguous majority. In democratic systems, a consensus is generally > defined as two-thirds plus one. Three quarters is described as an > 'overwhelming consensus'. Lynch and Jones, ''Political Decision Making in Two-thirds majority is, if my dictionary is correct, called absolute or relative majority. Two-thirds plus one is called super majority. I have never heard a definition of consensus where 75% majority constitutes a "consensus". Generally when consensus is used with "exceptions" it is called consensus minus one, minus two, minus 1% etc. Regardless, it is to misuse the term of consensus to call a decision approved by 75% of the voters and disapproved by 25% of the voters a consensus decision. Consensus decisions are aimed to take into account everyone's opinion and to take a decision everyone is satisfied with. If 25% of the voters are unhappy that has not happened. Btw, I think consensus is a very stupid form of "democracy" that leads to a techno-cracy or a shout-o-cracy or a post-on-the-mailing-list-o-cracy. It would be good if Wikipedia had a better way to make decisions. > Divided Societies'' pp.214-215. Whyte and Reynard, ''Consociational > Democracy and Consensus Building: From the Lebanon to Belgium: Case Studies > in Democractic Consensus'' p. 190. > > Most deletions on wiki occur because of votes by a small number. Very few > votes attract nearly 30 voters and those with large numbers rarely produce > 75% agreement. > > >>I can understand a user getting angry if it is a page s/he has spent a lot >>of time on. This user seems to rather be in a deep disagreement with the >>majority of Wikipedia users/sysops rather than a genuine troll. In general >>I agree. > > > The people he has fallen out with are people who that he show the community > the respect of following agreed conventions and methodologies, rather than I thought the whole controversy started with his pet page getting deleted? Besides, the evidence for his wrongdoings presented for the mailinglist jury hasn't been to compelling imho. Besides, "agreed conventions and methodologies" are they really so generally agreed if rule-breakers always have to be referred to them? > act like a spoiled child who throws tantrums because he cannot get things > his way. Many of the people he has fallen out with are sysops. Many are not. Why did you divide the people he has "fallen out with" in sysops and non-sysops? I don't know who I think is the spoiled kid who throws tantrums... :-) Many times it seems like it is the Wikipedia sysops themselves that are the least willing to compromise. What we are talking about is a few hundred bytes of text, likely smaller than this message I'm sending to you. It is really so important to get pages like that one deleted that it is worth all the effort, anger and fuss it costs? Couldn't a more sensible solution have been reached if Budda's stupid heterosexual page had remained? It is not the end of time we are talking about! > Some agree with his opinions. Some don't. But all find his behaviour well > beyonds the bounds of respect for the community. Isn't it just as much yours and mine, and everyone else who considers themselves Wikipedia veterans responsibility as the new users responsiblity to make them behave within the bounds of respect for the community? BL

1 0

Consensus
by Anthere 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> > From: "Mike" <Mike(a)cybermaus.com> > > > He then tried to edit the [[Consensus]] page to > > redefine what a consensus > > > is, forcing the comment Angela, > > > > > > Changing the definition on the [[consensus]] page > > won't help Buddha . . . > > > [[User:Angela|Angela]] 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC) > > > > In spite of all the irritation he has caused, I > > would still have been > > inclined to give him the benefit of doubt, but the > > above cited act brands > > him as a troll in my opinion. > > > > Mike AKA CyberMaus > > Have you look at the page in question ([[consensus]]), > its history, and the talk page ? > > Anthere > >Yes. I've just gone through it again and I hold to my >opinion. What he wrote on the [[consensus]] page is >not wrong. What bothers me is that he did it to >justify his previous actions in spite of what is >written in the rest of the article. See the second >paragraph in the "consensus as collective thought" >section, in particular the last sentence. So, you mean that in spite the fact he is not wrong, in spite the fact Angela has agreed he was not wrong, "the above cited act brands him as a troll" anyway. And you further justify it by the fact what he put down (not wrong) is perhaps not consistant with other things written down in the article. Do you mean he should also have edited what was below to make it more fit ? >As I said, what he wrote is not wrong, but in my >experience I have never heard or seen the word >consensus used to mean unanimous. In Meriam-Webster, >it is also mentioned that this usage is "slightly >older". In my opinion, it is obsolete. I did. Several times. Such as "C'est un processus dans lequel aucune d�cision ne peut �tre prise tant que tous les participants ne l'acceptent." Which means "it is a processus in which no decision may be taken as long as all participants do not agree" Or " Lors d'une d�cision consensuelle, il peut y avoir diff�rents degr�s d'accord et de nombreuses nuances au regard des engagements que les diff�rents membres assument par rapport � une d�cision d�termin�e, cependant le tout a lieu de fa�on explicite et globalement accept�. " Which means "When there is consensus, there may be different degree of agreement, and many nuances as regards acceptance of a decision by the different participants. However, the whole must be globally accepted" But right, this is an ideal, and agreement by all is hard to achieve. We seek the ideal. >Here's another possible meaning: A minority holds an >opinion to which the majority have no objection or >differing opinion, thus the minority opinion >is presented as consensus. Of course, since it is globally accepted Anthere __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

1 0

Pronunciations and IPA/SAMPA
by David Friedland 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

There was some talk a while back about deciding on a standard method of indicating pronunciations on Wikipedia. Of course some people said pronunciations belong on Wiktionary, but that's beside the point: there are many articles where a discussion of the pronunciation of certain words is necessary, and there ought to be a standard way of notating that. In fact, there is. The International Phonetic Alphabet is ideally suited to marking pronunciations of words, and is flexible enough to describe broad transcriptions that represent how a word is pronounced in multiple dialects to minute phonetic details. This wisdom, of course, has been lost on the makers of most American dictionaries, who each insist upon using their own ad-hoc pronunciation scheme (one of my personal pet peeves). The _Cambridge Dictionary of American English_ is a notable, if perhaps not well-known, exception. The foremost dictionary of (mostly) British English, the _Oxford English Dictionary_ uses IPA, as does the major Australian English dictionary, _The Macquarie Dictionary_. But I digress. There are several pages on the Wikipedia that deal specifically with pronunciations, for example [[List of words of disputed pronunciation]]. And the way that the pronunciations are listed on that page is the worst possible mix of ad-hoc pronunciation schemes. In fact, some of the ad-hac pronunciations given I couldn't even figure what they meant. (does AHSK rhyme with American _task_ or _mosque_?). Clearly some kind of standard scheme is needed. I spent several hours today revamping that page, using IPA transcriptions and doing some serious research about which pronunciations are listed in what dictionaries. I put that page on [[List of words of disputed pronunciation/IPA]]. However, I later discovered to my tremendous dismay that the IPA letters simply do not display in IE. The scheme for encoding IPA in ASCII, called SAMPA, is capable of encoding anything in IPA, but it is not particularly readable (although some might argue the same about IPA). It was designed to be machine-readable, and it doesn't really seem like an adequate solution. It uses lots of non-alphabetic characters to represent sounds (the 'a' in _cat_ is '{' in SAMPA), and as a result SAMPA-ized pronunciations are frankly ugly. Anyhow, it seems that just using the HTML entities for the Unicode IPA extensions is not an acceptable solution because it leaves IE users with lovely but useless rectangles where there ought to be IPA characters. There is a LaTeX extension called TIPA that allows the complete set of IPA characters and diacritics. If this were installed into the TeX math extensions, then a similar syntax could be used to generate images of the IPA from LaTeX input. I see the following possible solutions (in the order that I think is good): 1.) Auto-detect the browser and send IPA Unicode to browsers that support it and TIPA LaTeX images to those that don't. (Pros: attractive display of IPA for all users. Cons: lots of programming) 2.) Just send TIPA LaTeX images (Pros: attractive display of IPA. Cons: Uses images in text when for some users embedded IPA Unicode would look better) 3.) Store the IPA in a special format or in a special tag, auto-detect the browser and send IPA Unicode to browsers that support it and SAMPA to the rest. (Pros: doesn't require inserting images or using TeX. Cons: SAMPA is ugly and hard to read) 4.) Render IPA into GIFs or PNGs and just insert them as images. (Pros: compatible with everything. Cons: time-consuming, and difficult to change) 5.) Devise a Wikipedia-specific pronunciation scheme and just use that (blech!) (Pros: no coding required. Cons: YAAHPS (Yet Another Ad Hoc Pronunciation Scheme)) 6.) Do nothing and continue to allow people to use ad-hoc pronunciation schemes (BLECH!!) (Pros: no action required. Cons: maintains status quo harms as described above) Of course, no. 1 requires doing some coding and testing for what may end up being a feature used on just a few pages. On the other hand, such code could possibly be extremely useful for the Wiktionary. In the meantime, I'm going to leave [[List of words of disputed pronunciation/IPA]] as it is, and wait for suggestions. Now of course there will be opponents of the IPA, because it's too technical or whatever reason. To those people I say the IPA for the purposes of representing English is really no more complicated than the pronunciation schemes used in American dictionaries, like the _Merriam-Webster Dictionary_, and the _Cambridge Dictionary of American English_, which is designed for learners of English, seems to do just fine with it. - David [[User:Nohat]] * <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_of_disputed_pronunciation/IPA>*

10 17

Re: [WikiEN-l] BuddhaInside's behaviour
by Anthere 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:36:58 +0200 > From: "Mike" <Mike(a)cybermaus.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BuddhaInside's behaviour > To: "Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia" > <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> > Message-ID: <007801c37b86$0f081d50$2101a8c0@maus1> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > He then tried to edit the [[Consensus]] page to > redefine what a consensus > > is, forcing the comment Angela, > > > > Changing the definition on the [[consensus]] page > won't help Buddha . . . > > [[User:Angela|Angela]] 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC) > > In spite of all the irritation he has caused, I > would still have been > inclined to give him the benefit of doubt, but the > above cited act brands > him as a troll in my opinion. > > Mike AKA CyberMaus Have you look at the page in question ([[consensus]]), its history, and the talk page ? Anthere __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 26
by james duffy 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

>75% is not a consensus, Actually it is. A consensus is generally interpretated as meaning a clear and unambiguous majority. In democratic systems, a consensus is generally defined as two-thirds plus one. Three quarters is described as an 'overwhelming consensus'. Lynch and Jones, ''Political Decision Making in Divided Societies'' pp.214-215. Whyte and Reynard, ''Consociational Democracy and Consensus Building: From the Lebanon to Belgium: Case Studies in Democractic Consensus'' p. 190. Most deletions on wiki occur because of votes by a small number. Very few votes attract nearly 30 voters and those with large numbers rarely produce 75% agreement. >I can understand a user getting angry if it is a page s/he has spent a lot >of time on. This user seems to rather be in a deep disagreement with the >majority of Wikipedia users/sysops rather than a genuine troll. In general >I agree. The people he has fallen out with are people who that he show the community the respect of following agreed conventions and methodologies, rather than act like a spoiled child who throws tantrums because he cannot get things his way. Many of the people he has fallen out with are sysops. Many are not. Some agree with his opinions. Some don't. But all find his behaviour well beyonds the bounds of respect for the community. JT _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

1 0

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l September 2003