There's a notable lack of RFA candidates ... and so the talk page is
full of suggestions for how to raise the bar.
I've commented on [[WT:RFA]]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_admin…
Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", as pretty much all admin
actions are reversible; the idea is that if you're not going to go
batshit with the tools, there's no reason for you not to have them.
(I've actually lowered my personal bar for adminship after a couple of
cases where people I had severe qualms about got their admin bit and
proceeded to do okay with a bit of peer pressure the collegial advice
of others.) The social and technical skills required are about those
of a message board moderator, and whereas there are adults you'd never
want to have that job, the skills are easily acquired by e.g. a
sensible teenager.
And particularly this year, the ArbCom has had no compunction in
removing the admin bit from those who need it removed. Removal is a
big deal, but the AC is there for the social decisions that are big
deals.
So the ever-expanding lists of requirements don't make sense. The
lists above appear to be marks of the ideal admin, who is a bit like
the ideal editor with added technical powers (and similarly doesn't
exist). And this stuff really doesn't have a lot of bearing on whether
they are likely to go batshit with the admin tools. They make
adminship into a much bigger deal than it should be.
I personally think most people need three months' experience to get a
feel for the place. But beyond that, in an ideal world every Wikipedia
editor who's been around enough to get a feel for the place would have
admin powers.
Please enlighten me as to why it is good for adminship to be a
big-deal artificially scarce commodity.
- d.
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
> Only British people have a "sense of humour"... us Americans have to
> make do with a mere "sense of humor".
<irony>
Quite right. What do the Irish know about wit? Where are the Australian comedians? Canadians ... eh, maybe you do have a point.
</irony>
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 12 Oct 2006 at 23:18, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
>
> >I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
> >also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
> >
> The only problem with that solution is the paradox that when you tag it
> it's no longer what it's tagged to be.
So we need a <paradox> tag too?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
"George Herbert" wrote
> There are
> around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia
> WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat
> loosened up? Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5
> million total articles? Is mere listing on a major stock exchange
> enough notability?
Good question.
I wouldn't say we need every NASDAQ listing.
It is a bit odd for companies not to be able to qualify at all by capital value. Of course if there really were _no_ sources, for a secretive private corporation, the article could reduce to 'secretive private corporation'.
People who come to Wikipedia in a search for information on what equities to buy - what can one say? Cheapskates, and foolish investors, almost by definition.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
> I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
> also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
I remember a UseNet discussion about an emoticon for deadpan humour.
It would be better of course to have a header for emails, reminding people to boot up their sense of humour.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
I've been following this thread & there's, um, something about this
proposal that I don't understand, but I'm sure someone will explain it to
a literal-minded person like me.
Let's say the rule is put to a vote, & it passes, but afterwards we
discover that people voted for it sarcastically (e.g., "Yes -- this is
obviously the most brilliant idea ever proposed on Wikipedia"), shouldn't
their votes have been counted as noes? I mean, we could have countless
hours of fun debating whether or not this thing actually passed or
failed, & whether one person casting a sarcastic ballot invalidates the
entire vote? Or even better, if casting a "no" vote was actually a
sarcastic "yes" vote. I can't think of an, um, example of what a
sarcastic "No" vote would look like, but there are a lot of bright people
on Wikipedia, so literal-minded people -- who have ideas like this --
would suspect that some of those smart people who voted "No" were being
sarcastic.
Am I the only one who envisions the possibility that most of the people
who voted for this rule could be banned for various lengths of time for
sarcasm? And what would then prevent all of the people who voted no -- &
who were, um, careful not to be sarcastic during this period -- from
holding another vote & repealing this rule?
I guess no one wants to raise this question because it might appear to be
trolling. I hope not, because it raises some issues that I feel are just
as important as many of the arguments in favor of this prohibition. But
if someone figures out a really good answer for how a literal-minded
person can tell when someone else is being sarcastic, could they email it
to me? I'd like to participate more in this discussion, but I must get
back to working on articles.
Geoff
On 12 Oct 2006 at 18:50, Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)rdrop.com> wrote:
> I guess no one wants to raise this question because it might appear to be
> trolling. I hope not, because it raises some issues that I feel are just
> as important as many of the arguments in favor of this prohibition. But
> if someone figures out a really good answer for how a literal-minded
> person can tell when someone else is being sarcastic, could they email it
> to me? I'd like to participate more in this discussion, but I must get
> back to working on articles.
I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and
previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal
that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new
content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
The policy in a nutshell would be that "All material published by
Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
The introduction makes it plain that not all material must actually be
attributed. It must simply be capable of being atttributed. That is,
it must not be original research.
I think this would get rid of a lot of the confusion that surrounds
what "verifiability" means, and what the relationship is between V and
NOR. I've also proposed that we rename RS to "How to find reliable
sources" and that it become a page of advice about where to look for
good sources (not a guideline or policy).
The proposal is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution
David and Phil, and others who have expressed concern about RS, I hope
you'll take a look at it and explain where it might cause problems,
because I'm pretty certain any concerns could be ironed out.
Sarah
Here's a question which has been (to my mind, at least) raised by the
recent Fleshlight debate...
...should Wikipedia keep articles which the community is unwilling to maintain?
I haven't checked that article's history, so I don't know if it was in
that class or not, but examples certainly exist. There's plenty of
articles which are festering cesspits, one or two pathological editors
warring over them, and no-one trying (or caring) to "make it good".
Many of these, if taken to AFD, will survive with a "notable topic,
keep, cleanup", and the situation will return to the status-quo, with
the vague possibility that One Day a good and hard-working editor will
come along and adopt it.
Is this sort of thing a net gain or a net loss for the encyclopedia?
Thoughts appreciated.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
The newly-named pages [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] and [[Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest]] have now been proposed for a merge. See discussion at the Talk page of the latter.
I don't really like the idea of the minatory tone of the latter page being at all softened. I would like it to be quite clear how little interest there is on our side, in having people think that editing with a major conflict of interest is somehow negotiable. In the cases that really matter (commercial promotion and spin-doctoring, not pathetic vanity) negotiation is not what we want or need.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information