steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>Half the time I click on "Save Page" the next screen is a "Preview" (and my
>edits are not yet saved). I have been careful about this, and am
>definitely clicking on "Save Page," not "Show Preview." And this is
>happening a lot.
>Is this happening to anyone else, or is it just me?
>Does anyone have any idea why it is happening?
Been happening to me too, on meta as well as en. (I've been adding to
[[m:Bash]].)
It's a known symptom of a very busy database - rather than committing
the change, it dumps you back to the preview screen.
- d.
geni wrote:
> Not all dissputes are over NPOV.
I know not all uses are for POV forks. But most of them are, and it's
a blatant encouragement to do so.
Some editors have a fondness for the idea of POV forking so as to
minimise editor conflict; but this makes a bad and non-NPOV article at
the expense of readers for the sake of problem editors. It's the
editors that are being problematic, not the article; whack their heads
together, don't make a bad article.
I mean, WTF. Voting on NPOV?
- d.
So how about scrapping afd/vfd and replacing with a system whereby an
editor may tag an article with a 'candidate for deletion' tag and provide
a rationale. Admins can patrol the resulting category, assess each case,
delete as necessary. If someone disagrees with the deletion, they can
either contact the admin who deleted to ask them to review their decision,
or if they want wider community input there's vfu (which could be renamed
afu?)
This seems to me to have the following advantages:
1. It would de-centralise the process if people mainly contact the
deleting admin to query deletions. This would avoid a giant page of bad
feeling.
2. An article on vfd might only attract 4-5 votes, which is not enough to
really determine community consensus and so much is kept that probably
should be deleted when things end with 'no consensus'. However, if things
were deleted more quickly and restorations requested on vfu, the vfu
decision would result in restoration if there was a clear consensus to
include. If an article does not attract sufficient community input to
determine consensus then it would remain deleted.
Any thoughts?
WT
1)So maybe we should allow a merges during AFD listing.
2)Pure wiki deletion is a nice idea, but if people start blanking you
can't see the difference between page blankers and people who are
actually interested in a discussion about the article's validity.
3) Decentralizing discussion will allow a lot of discussion to go
unnoticed by people interested in Wikipedia as a whole rather than the
article. Centralizing will give visibility to the most people and
therefore reflect much better the views of the community.
4) We should have more centralized discussion on groups of articles to
get a concensus. I've seen a lot of inclusionists, but barely any that
think of the WP:MUSIC guidelines as a bad idea.
5) Moving (again) or changing the deletion process won't fix what's
really wrong with it.
It's people's attitudes that need fixing rather than the process we
use to delete pages.
For example:
*People vote delete on sockpuppet supported articles without as much
as a word on the actual article itself.
*People vote keep or delete merely because an article is a school or a
road without looking at the content.
*People continuously criticize VFD/AFD but VFU rarely ever gets any
requests. To me that says there's barely any stuff that actually needs
to be undeleted.
--Mgm
Read this and work out how you would bridge this gap.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
If you have a quick formula that works, good. But how would you get
someone to think that formula is a good idea and *want* to apply it?
- d.
In a message dated 10/26/2005 8:08:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com writes:
Logic should be the basis for everyones education, and is a great deal
of fun, as I know full well,having studied and taught it for years. I
am currently feeding my favorite logic text to our 13yr old, who is
devouring it's simple truths with great joy and mirth.
Eee-uuuw!
That boring teacher was you? :p
dcv
In a message dated 10/26/2005 6:09:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
I sure as hell do believe that this list is full of messages that are poorly
edited.
Charles
I, of course, am writing from my own personal experience. It was the
appallingly inaccurate and often racist material in articles related to black
people that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. Another factor
contributing to crappy article quality is related to the heavily skewed demographics of
project participants in terms of youth and ethnicity.
But that's nothing new.
And no doubt, Charles -- but the editorial quality of traded messages here
is hardly cause for concern -- and is certainly not even a subject of
productive discussion.
dcv
P.S. Next time I promise to change the subject line so it keeps the thread
alive. (Sorry!) I get digest instead of one mail at a time.
Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Hi all,
As the Board have been rather slow with publicising the new privacy
policy, I have taken the step of adding a notice to the bottom of
[[MediaWiki:Copyrightstext]] on the English-language Wikipedia (the text
which is displayed when you click "Edit this page"), which mentions that
if you are editing anonymously, your IP address will be publically and
permanently associated with the edits, and if you're editing while
logged in, your IP address will be stored for around 2 weeks.
Someone has also added a link to the privacy policy on the bottom of
every page.
I urge admins on all the various projects to update their project with
this information - make it clear that editing will mean that some
personally-identifiable information is kept about the contributor.
Chris
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
>> > If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in the
>> > first place.
>> And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
> Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general
>agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority
>with consensus.
"Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or
none." Really. It is.
I'm seeing myself describe how it actually works on AFD/VFU at present
and people here seem incredulous. Go to AFD, participate in the
"discussions" and see for yourself if you don't believe what I'm
saying.
- d.
- d.