WikiEN-l November 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

150 participants
286 discussions

RE: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...
by Poor, Edmund W 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

> Thanks for the feedback. One interesting point with my little > test seems to be that the average quality of our content has > not much improved since March (or since 2003, as far as I can > remember). > > A thought experiment: if we were the editorial committee of > an encyclopedia to be written from scratch and were given > Wikipedia's current content as a basis (but not the user > base), what would we do? I guess we would put our energy into > improving the material, i.e. rewriting/deleting/merging most > of it. But we would not try to acquire more articles of that > quality. (Ah wait, we ARE the editorial committee of an > encyclopedia to be written from > scratch...) > > Kosebamse I'm on the editorial committee of just such a project: the Unification movement's "[[Encyclopedia Project]]" (see the WP article). And what are we doing? We are putting our energy into improving a small subset of Wikipedia articles + commissioning an even smaller number of brand-new articles. Gosh, I wish I could give a few selected Wikipedians a tour of the "work in progress". Maybe I'll show a few pages at the Boston Wikimania meeting next year, if I get some stage/screen time. Ed Poor

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...
by Poor, Edmund W 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

> >If we mark articles as bad or stub, we could keep them > somewhat hidden > >from > >the public. > > Ah, the insidious plausibility of the worst ideas! > > The default must be that we keep the stubs in view, unless > people somehow > opt otherwise. How else are we going to get the encyclopedia > written? I > thought there was anyway consensus that the content took > priority over all > else, including impressing people with excessively tidy minds. > > Charles Fine, make "stub-hiding" an optional feature. Users who want to conceal stubs or other sub-standard articles can set a "user preferences" option to do so. And let's tell magazines that review our project to judge us by our "good" articles, once Magnus's feature has had a chance to get going. Ed Poor

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] CheckUser questions
by Chris Jenkinson 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote: > Although I have not been following this discussion, I was asked this evening > to grant 5 arbitrators on the English Wikipedia CheckUser powers. > > While the request was made, I think it is sage for us to let it sit there > for some time to see if there are any valid protests to giving it to these > individuals. Usually, steward requests can remain for several days until someone > acts upon them, and I don't see why this should be any different. > > I also wonder whether they should be given the power on a permanent or a > need-to-know basis. That is, should they always have this ability, or should > they only be given it when a case requires invesigation, and then have it > removed? Personally, I favor the latter option. I do not think anybody needs to be > able to do this in all instances. > > I welcome comments. > > Danny I'm CCing this to the English language Wikipedia list as I think we should get some feedback from the actual community where it is occurring! I oppose granting it at the moment. I suggest waiting for the Arbitration Committee elections (or appointments) in December, and granting it to people who become arbitrators. Two of the people mentioned above (Kelly and Jayjg) have only temporary positions (as they were appointed by Jimbo Wales), out of process with how the other arbitrators were chosen. I think the English language Wikipedia can survive until the new Arbitration Committee members take their seats. Chris

1 0

Look
by Tony Sidaway 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

We're going to lose a perfectly good potential bureaucrat to a pusilanimous beauty contest if you don't get down and at least consider whether Kelly Martin deserves your vote.

5 4

Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting is evil (was CheckUser policy)
by Fl Celloguy 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

>From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting is evil (was CheckUser policy) >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> >Message-ID: > <bd4c411e0511080908o221dd0c3pf49dc8752a348315(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On 11/8/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Mediation is intermittent at best, and (from what I can tell) almost >never > > achieves a positive outcome, but that's nothing compared to RfC. > >Mediation is more successful than you may realize, in part because >successful mediations often occur in relative obscurity. A problem >that once existed went away, without an RfC or RfAr being filed; as a >result, only the editors involved in the dispute know about the >mediation or the resolution, and they often don't talk much about it. I would have to agree with that. In addition, how can you judge the "success" of a mediation? Two users who are in dispute are unlikely to become best of friends quickly. I consider any mediation successful if any one of the involved parties gains even an iota more respect or understanding of the other person, or if we have progressed, even if a tiny bit, on the article matter. There are so many complex issues in mediation that it is extremely difficult to achieve "total success". Even in the rare occasion that they do occur, they are not well-publicized. It is human nature to focus on the things that need fixing; thus, we all hear about failed mediations, but we rarely hear about successful ones. (Analogy - look at the news today. It's filled with "bad" news. However, there's plenty of "good" news out there; it's just not as newsworthy.) > >Note that I'm specifically not referring to mediation under the >auspices of the Mediation Committee, which has, indeed, been >notoriously unreliable. I'm referring more to informal mediations >conducted by a variety of informal mediators who get involved via talk >pages, IRC, IM, email, and any number of other methods to settle >disagreements between editors amicably. I've done at least a dozen >such mediations (only one since being appointed to ArbCom, though) and >most of them have been at least moderately successful. The more >public ones are the ones that have failed, usually because by the time >the dispute is loud enough to be noticeable generally, the parties are >too pissed at one another to ever settle their dispute. Many >mediations merely consist of discovering an edit war and, instead of >doling out punitive blocks (as so many admins on Wikipedia are wont to >do), diagnosing the problem, talking to the users in question, and >resolving the dispute. Often it's not hard to do this, but most of >our admins never try. It's so much easier just to go "3RR, block >block block". True, the MedCom has gained a rather unfair reputation of being unreliable. I would note, though, that under our new chair, Redwolf24, we have progressed greatly. In addition, if you drop by the MedCom first, we will often provide you advice regarding your dispute - i.e. Redwolf24, acting on behalf of the MedCom, has both rejected cases and referred them to the ArbCom. This can often provide an opinion on your dispute - whether or not the dispute can be handled under the dispute resolution process or not, whether it should jump directly to the ArbCom or not, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, Arbitrators, but you all are more likely to accept cases that have gone through Mediation or at least attempted mediation. In addition, if a mediation recommends a case to the ArbCom, policy suggests that Arbitrators accept it. Thus, the MedCom can do more than mediation - we can be the starting stone of the dispute resolution process (besides RfCs) and can also offer a perspective on your dispute. Finally, as I stated above, even if the two parties gain an inch more of respect or understanding, I consider the mediation to be worthwhile and successful to an extent. > > > Article RfCs are numerous, and rarely attract the attention of more than >one > > or two outside editors. Frequently they attract no outside interest at >all. > >Indeed. I've only rarely seen article RfCs attract significant >attention. Shameful, since articles are what Wikipedia is supposed to >be all about. There are too many people who are part of Wikipedia for >the community, instead of for the encyclopedia. The problem with article RfCs is that people probably find it boring to particpate in a subject area that they are not familiar with. Under the current system, there's little to be gained by participating, and lots to lose. This must be changed. > > > User RfCs are a mess - in theory they are a platform for addressing and > > solving community issues. In practice, they are often venues for >warring > > camps to air grievances, and for certain notorious individuals (who feel > > they don't get enough attention) to use as soapboxes for their own > > speechifying (i.e. yet another "outside view"). Obvious trolling is >rarely > > addressed - the complainants outline their case, and a dozen or so >regular > > editors vote in support. The troll provides a lengthy response, and >three > > or four troll buddies/generall trolls/people with grievances against the > > complainant line up and vote in support of him, or add another "outside > > view" that has little to do with the case at hand, and is mostly about >their > > own issues with the complainants. Nothing changes, and everyone goes >away > > bitter. > >This definitely describes several of the RfC's I've been involved in >in some way lately. I agree that this serves no purpose. I'm also >tired of hearing editors state "In my RfC my opinion got more >endorsements than yours did, therefore I won and you must shut up." >(Yes, I've heard things like this said. It's stupid.) RfC is >emphatically not supposed to be a popularity contest, although I must >admit it has turned into one. True - we must remember that Wikipedia is *not* a democracy. The masses are often wrong, and RfCs often turn into a slinging battle of words, pitting one group of users against another, when both already loathe the other side before the RfC. In addition, it is extremely rare for a RfC to resolve a dispute - someone who has a RfC filed against him/her is highly unlikely to listen to the outcome of the RfC. After all, nothing's binding, and the "outcome" (i.e. "voting") is often disregarded. Thus, user RfCs are extremely ineffective. >Of course, the same can be said of >RfA/RfB. Again, true - several RfAs (not all of them or even a majority, but a significant minority of them) have recently turned into slugfests, complete with sockpuppets, POV warriors, and whatnot. And I sympatize with you on your RfB- I'm sure that such a process can be very stressful. > >Kelly It is clear that reform must be made in the dispute resolution process. It's better to do it now, rather than later. SV recently set up a page, [[WP:Dispute Resolution Reform]] ([[WP:DRR]]) - should we start consolidating discussion on one page regarding the entire dispute resolution process? Thanks. Flcelloguy >From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

2 1

Citation categories?
by SPUI 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

A while ago I was reading an article about something in Texas and came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Handbook_of_Texas_citations on the bottom. That category is added by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Handbookoftexas , a useful external link template. But the category seems like simple clutter in the list of categories on the article. So I listed it for deletion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_Sep… ). Due at least in part to someone spamming the talk pages of Texas Wikipedians, the category was kept. I honestly don't understand any of the arguments for keep. Some are plain erroneous (one person likens it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1911_Britannica , which is for articles that *contain* text from the 1911 EB) and others don't make sense. Basically I'm asking for a reason why this category should exist, and why I shouldn't be bold and remove it from the template.

2 1

Voting is evil (was CheckUser policy)
by David Gerard 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

geni wrote: >Of course. However AFD structure limits it to a degree since the >person is at most your oponent for 5 days. Hence the observable lack of a concerted effort to get rid of Tony Sidaway. Oh, wait ... - d.

7 12

[Wikipedia-l] CheckUser policy (was Status of Wikimedia)
by David Gerard 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

>But right now, we do NOT have this log. And people are ASKING for the >check user status to go live ! I would really like to know who thought voting for checkuser was a good idea and why. - d.

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Try out the rating scheme
by David Gerard 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

Bryan Derksen wrote: >Well, I guess just having a vote cascade on the mailing list isn't going >to work. Hrmph. Anyone know who specifically is "in charge" of deciding >what Wikimedia configuration to use? Or is the problem perhaps that >there _isn't_ anyone specifically in charge? :) Brion is and he doesn't like the current implementation, so it doesn't go in. This is as it should be (there's a top-50 - sorry, TOP-40 - website to worry about that barely stays up as it is), but it's understandably frustrating to those of us who REALLY REALLY WANT IT IN. - d.

2 1

RE: Totally unscientific investigation...
by Brown, Darin 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

> Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 06:38:36 -0800 > From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> > Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation... > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> > I have formatted your user subpage into a table, for easier viewing and > consolidated your results: > > 7 bad: > 2 fancruft, > 1 not of encyclopedic standard, > 1 list of marginal interest, > 1 needs work, > 2 non-articles > > 8 stubs: > 3 salvageable, > 4 average / acceptable, > 1 decent > > 5 good: > 3 decent or fine, > 2 acceptable / "short but informative" > > Based on this, I give Wikipedia a score of 25% - a failing grade. > > But all is not lost. If we mark articles as bad or stub, we could keep > them somewhat hidden from the public. > > Volunteer contributors could see them, of course, by "opting in". Everyone > else (call them "general readers") would be told that we don't have an > article on the subject yet BUT that we are working on it. > > "And would you like to see the work in progress?" > > Ed Poor > Quality Maven Are you being facetious?? If that were put into practice, nothing would improve! The reason articles improve is *because* people see mediocre, "failing" articles. "Shielding" them would only shield them from improvement. Besides, last time I checked my math, 25% of 800,000 was 200,000. That's more *total* articles than we had less than 2 years ago. So, another way to look at it is, in less than 2 years, *every* article has been improved to "good". *100%*. darin

2 1

← Newer
1
...
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
...
29
Older →

Jump to page:

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 November 2005