I've been thinking about it and reading and researching about it and
talking incessantly on IRC about it and writing on the lists about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0
This sets out a concise action plan for a paper Wikipedia 1.0, letting
the wiki do the work. It sets out milestones and what is needed for
them.
The main prerequisite is a rating system, the consensus for which,
over the past year, seems to have approached: rate article versions on
four or five parameters, with either a yes/no, a scale of 0-4 or a
scale of 0-10.
The key points:
* Let the wiki do the work. Harness dilettantism.
* Every action must benefit the live web version.
Please be merciless.
(btw: should this be discussed on wikien-l or wikipedia-l? I've sent
this to both places.)
- d.
Anthony mentioned the idea of "a certain user [being] the accepted
dictator of a page" and I'd like to comment.
No one may assume ownership of an ordinary article, even if they have
acknowledged expertise in the field to which it pertains: science,
history, etc. I have just as much right to edit math articles as
Axelboldt does, for example.
But apparently we've given the job of choosing the "featured article" to
one particular user. I sure don't want the job, and I think he's been
pretty good at making his picks, so I have given my, er, "tacit
consent". So have a lot of other people, so there has apparently been a
"consensus" that he's in charge of that selection.
If Anthony wants to have a turn occasionally, why not? I think it was
poor form to TAKE a turn without prior discussion and to FORCE the issue
with multiple reverts. But that doesn't mean he should be forever barred
from making a Featured Article Choice.
Perhaps it's time to consider allowing other people to submit
recommendations, or even to take a turn (say, a week or a month at a
time) in the role of Chooser, eh?
Ed Poor
Bureaucrat
I subscribe to the daily combined letter list, and this is the first time I have tried to post. The subject was mentioned yesterday as a question about what to do about the [[childlove]] and associated pages that were being interpreted as providing a possible platform for justification of pedophiles attempting to change public perception of pedophilia. User Erich alerted me today and suggested I help edit on this issue. He provided a link to a recent JAMA article that represents the mainstream medical viewpoint on this issue as well as that of our small band of wikidocs.
I am writing to point out an additional risk to this that has not to my knowledge been mentioned publicly. I am a pediatrician and cannot afford for all the obvious reasons to be participating in a project that could be construed as providing a forum for justification or for separating some kinds of pedophilia as "not so bad" or of allowing separate articles for support and for criticism. Please do not think that I imagine that WP revolves around me, but I may not be the only professional person who is unwilling to risk association in the name of "free speech" or "allowing all sides to have their say."
I am supporting someone's excellent idea that we maintain a single article on this topic. Within that article we can provide the detached observation that "some groups advocate recognizing different forms of pedophilic behavior, or argue that some forms do warrant the social opprobrium... etc etc" so that the fringe point of view is represented within an article that clearly presents the overwhelming consensus of western society. Allow no other detached articles where uncriticized "milder" or "harmless" forms can be advocated. Think of it as a social smallpox containment unit.
In my opinion this is a defensible compromise (however "unfair") and I hope you would rather lose those offended because "childlove" is presented as a face of "pedophilia" rather than gamble as to how many other contributors will be lost if WP attracts any public attention as a platform for this type of taboo opinion. I won't even argue at the article.
Thanks for considering.
David Langdon, MD
...Wikipedia RC seems to be zipping by quite fast
lately. (Its already impossible to just scan RC as a
way to catch up; Im actually using my watchlist for
the first time...) But it seems that with the
controversial set, its time for a rethinking of the
protected page policy, and Ive written some basic
stuff here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page/Draft]]
Basically, my idea calls for sort of dance steps to
how to deal with contested articles. Essentially,
allowing certain sysops to act according to formal
roles with respect to each contested article, and to
have those articles be protected in degrees, based on
what the situation calls for. Protection is
degree-less, but sysops can and should act responsibly
to continue developing articles in accordance with the
concerns of the partisans. Because any disputes about
who can act in each role are an abstract issue from
the article, they can be dealt with judiciously as a
separate dispute by moderates not interested in
getting mud thrown at them. With templates and
categories, this can be more quickly done.
Of course, this would mean that sysopdom does have
some responsibility and privelige for which they would
be more accountable, but this is weighed against the
need to have controversial articles not be such black
holes on Wikipedia.
>From out of nowhere's left field,
SV
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
Maybe it is just a glitch in my e-mail, but have we seen a
repeat of a dozen or so messages sent out on the Wiki-En
list today?
Robert
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> Anthony, when you learn to disagree with policies through techniques
> other than edit wars, then maybe people will listen to you if you ever
> talk about being FORCED into them.
The only policy I disagreed with was the one against edit wars itself (the
same one you broke, although you also broke a number of others). There is
and never was a policy making Raul dictator of template:feature.
> Anthony, you are acting incredibly childishly. If you hadn't reverted
> Danny seconds after he reverted (before he could protect) then he
> wouldn't have *had* to ask me.
I didn't realize disagreeing with whether or not a certain user was the
accepted dictator of a page *forced* two people to break pretty much every
rule about reversion (reverting without explanation, using the rollback
button on non-vandalism, protecting a page in which one is involved in a
dispute, favoring one version of a protected page over another, etc).
> > Let's talk about why the violations of some users are ignored,
> > such as Blankfaze during the exact same edit war that got me banned.
> For the record, during that edit war, I reverted exactly 4 times.
> Orginally, only 3, but [[User:Danny]] told me to revert a 4th time and
> he would protect the page. Ask him... I was rather hesistant to break
> the 3 revert rule.
So not only did you break the 3-revert guideline without any repercussions,
you were actually *encouraged* to do so by another admin. In my opinion
that only raises more questions.
> It's meant for vandalism of any kind, anonymous or no. And yes, I agree
> that according to our policies, this situation should not be handled
> with the rollback button, which is why I brought up the point in the
> first place.
I was basing my statement on [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] which says that
the revert button "expedites the reversion of edits by anonymous vandals."
I'm not sure where there's an actual guideline as to how it should be used,
though.