In practice any such implementations will lead to elitism. Trolls or no trolls, we look a contributions and not contributors, so everyone should be able to make their say count. A rule that allows only established bridge experts to vote on bridge deletions will be disastrous. The ideal process involves a large part of the community, not a small focused minority who are not statistically representative of the community.
Molu
On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:51:48 -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
""Wouldn't it be better in this case to say, you know what, we actually
have bridge experts, people who know about bridges, and these people
ought to be the ones deciding, not random people on AfD.
So how should this work in practice?"
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Some good questions here by Steve Bennett, which deserve good answers. I'll
try:
>> a) Most people will abandon "nn, delete" reasoning and seriously consider
good
>>arguments for inclusion if someone throws a strong argument into the debate.
>What if the keep argument is made at the end of the voting period?
>It's obviously the great weakness of AfD that discussion and voting
>happens simultaneously - votes can take place in ignorance of
>intelligent arguments subsequently made.
20 straight "nn delete" votes followed by 3 straight well argued "keep" votes
is something that I for one would take into consideration. If the admin
chooses to close as a "keep", I don't know if DRV would be able to muster the
required 75% majority to "overturn and delete", if it does the article *was*
maybe something which ought to be deleted after all, the experts' opinions
notwithstanding. A 50% majority to overturn will only produce a fresh
relisting, with the keep argument getting the attention it deserves, some
more discussion, and a more thought out result.
Alright, let's say the admin chooses to delete. Sometimes those who vote on
DRV will be sympathetic to the argument that the last three contributions to
the discussion were not adequately addressed because they came so late.
Perhaps especially if the last "voters" made some considerable improvements
to the article shortly before it was deleted.
Well, sometimes not, I do agree that "Keep deleted. Valid AFD debate. ~~~~"
can be a real pain to those who make a good effort to save an article which
arguably should not have been deleted. It is a problem, not one that pops up
very very often, but still annoying at times.
>> b) We have a number of inclusionists on AFD who more or less reject the
notion
>> of notability anyway and will vote to keep articles on all roads, streets,
>> schools and churches.
>I think it would be in the project's interest if we could define a set
>of exceptions to "notability" on the basis that comprehensiveness in
>certain areas is more valuable. Most people would probably agree that
>every university in the world should have an article. However by
>definition, once you include "every" anything, you include "non
>notable" examples.
>In other words, I don't think every subject should have to be notable,
>if it has another reason for being included.
In some cases we do have a consensus. We automatically include all articles on
any thorp, hamlet or village, even if there only live 5 people there. A few
AFD debates have pretty much determined that all railway stations and subway
stations are not subject to notability requirements. When the Hippopotamus
Defence article was kept, it pretty much determined that all chess openings
are worthy of articles, no matter how obscure they are (although I and some
others have boldly gone ahead with some merging the subvariations of various
openings).
On many other things, we will probably never form a consensus but all is not
lost since we can learn by trial and experience. We don't have a consensus to
keep all verifiable schools, but most have acknowledged the futility of
trying to delete them.
>> c) Most people are loathe to delete well-written articles, even if the
>> notability is dubious.
>That's a major problem. Perhaps if we change the emphasis from
>"deleting it", with its connotations of purging it from the surface of
>the earth, to "moving it out of Wikipedia"?
Not really a major problem. Well written articles on borderline notable
subjects don't really do much harm to the project. At best such articles
illustrate the depth and vastness of information which lies in Wikipedia, and
as long as they are verifiable, neutral and tertiary, they don't really do
much harm.
"Moving out of Wikipedia" is a term I would reserve for transwikis.
Sigvat
---- Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Bacchante Maenad <bacchante(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Both times I've tried to register with a name I was reading wikipedia and
> > wanted to make a small addition/correction. Inspired by some of the other
> > funny user names I've seen on wikipedia, I wanted to make one. But this
>
> Ok, but seriously - we'd love to have your corrections and
> improvements, and you don't need a funny user name to do that. Hell, I
> don't. And David Gerard certainly doesn't (no offence, David) :)
>
> > whole process has left me with a bad taste about what wikipedia is. Rather
> > than 'assume good faith' and not resorting to ad hominem attacks like I've
> > seen recommended in so many wikipedia pages, I've seen a lot of nastiness,
> > on this list (which I don't read often, but just glancing at some of the
> > side conversations and other conversations, it's hard to find one devoid of
> > insults) and on wikipedia. I guess this list isn't held to the same
> > standards as wikipedia, so I suppose maybe why the concentration of nasty
> > people here is because this is where angry wikipedians go? I don't know.
> > I'm sure someone will just insult me for being earnest. Have at it.
>
> This list is where some of Wikipedia's most passionate editors hang
> out. It's not surprising that emotions can run high. Seriously,
> though, if you just want to make good contributions to Wikipedia, you
> don't need the list, and there are thousands of pages that need your
> help where you won't hit any nastiness at all. We tend to discuss some
> of the worst corners of Wikipedia here, but they're pretty rare.
>
> Steve
> _
Hello Steve,
I'll have to consider that now after the full head on attack I received last night. Is this your guys' way of testing someone to find out if they have enough proxy to be on your team of editors? Because if your team of editors work together every night accusing each other of being on crack or being insane, then I don't want anthing to do with it. There is a whole world wide web out there that can appreciate my intelligence and time more than you all did last night. Yet if you want to be my friend, and you will respect me for what I can help you with, then tell me where to go and maybe I'll see you there in a couple of days. God Bless
-Julie______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Could an administrator please take a look at this. I shouldn't be blocked for 100 days due to a mistake. Thanks
brian <bs_politic(a)yahoo.ca> wrote: Hi, I was just blocked for 100 days --it is an obvious mistake, hopefully someone can check it out. (apperently I have been making poor, pov edits. --However, I have only made one article edit in the past week, and it was removal of a pov, albiet popular one). I have had a bit of an issue with sockpuppets in the past, although nothing serious. I have also had a username change, as my last one had a personal attachment. See my userpage at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myciconia
Thanks in advance,
Brian
---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail
---------------------------------
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.
---- Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Philip Welch wrote:
> >
> > On May 5, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
> >> It's not
> >> as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would
> >> otherwise be
> >> available for your own pet subject.
> > Undue weight. It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more
> > coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.
> >
> {{sofixit}}: rather than bitching that there are too many articles about
> something you don't like, try writing more articles about something you do.
>
> In the meantime, who's going to want to write new articles in an environment
> which is at times actively poisonous towards newbies?
>
> If you can get jumped with an AfD notice before you're finished writing a
> simple Pokemon article, who will want to invest the effort writing a complex
> article which will have "nn, delete" and "yah, boo, you're expertize meanz
> nothing to us, you elitist pig!!11!!" plastered over it before the virtual
> ink has dried?
>
> We need to move towards an environment which will nurture the current
> generation of Pokemon writers and help them mature into
> 19th-century-literature writers at their own pace, rather than drive them
> away to their own little Pokepedia and lose them forever.
> --
> Phil
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/We-need-a-policy-against-vote-stacking-t1553689.html#…
> Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are kidding aren't you? You are using Pokemon as a metaphor right? Please tell me that Pokemon is not a subject in Wikipedia. No Phil, you're just being a jerk and screwing with my head again. Knock it off. And if Pokemon really is in there, then it's your idiocy.
-Boobs
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---- Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly
> under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP
> A PROCESS FOR THAT.
>
> How about:
> IF Process.Growth > 10%
> THEN EXECUTE(Process.Rebuild)
> ELSE EXECUTE(Process.Grow(.1 - Process.Growth.Current)
> ~~~~Pro-Lick
>
> It's not that hard to figure out guy's. You act as if you are trying to explain something as intricate as world security when in reality it is as simple as picking your nose. These are computer systems, keyboards and mouses. Don't get your panties in an uproar.
-Julie
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
julieharding1(a)charter.net stated for the record:
> Sean, you arrogant pig! I probably have more intelligence in my pinky finger than you have in your entire brain. Feminine intelligence is intimidating you guys. Well, I think I'll stick around for a while longer now because of what Sean said and see if I can put some more pressure on your testes. Maybe if I prove you up long enough I can get one of you guys to puke.
- -Julie
It's far more likely that we'll rupture something from laughing too hard.
- --
Sean Barrett | You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot
sean(a)epoptic.org | like women. You just have to read the manual
| and press the right button. --Homer Simpson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEW7yXMAt1wyd9d+URAkNyAJ48uX89hsukUxlmc2CGtQN/rppdgACfayYf
f353ACLhBDBRh+vQsYFzr1Q=
=fx7d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---- Pete Bartlett <pcb21(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Wikitravel and Wikipedia have incompatible licenses?
>
> I am no expert but I believe the GFDL with clauses as used by Wikipedia
> and the CC-sharealike-attribution licence used by Wikitravel are only
> "morally compatible" i.e. they have basically the same intent (viral, free reuse,
> including making derivatives, is allowed, even commercially, if original is
> attributed). But they are not legally compatibles for various reasons (I believe).
>
> Thus there has been talk of future versions of each licence being written in such a way
> to move towards compatibility.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Has Wikipedia ever claimed that Wikitravel is a licensed brance of Wikipedia? As long as they are both safe, is it an absolute necessity? What are the clauses?
-Julie
--------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:22:16 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >> All users are entitled to respect and to cooperation in participating
> >> productively in the project. These "rights" are not enforceable in
> >> any court, but are a part of our common culture. They are enforced.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, of course. But Tony's fundamental point was being ignored: there
> > is no right to advocacy. I would have said that advocacy is the
> > precise opposite of what Wikipedia is for.
> >
> > Perhaps I need a nice cup of tea and a sit down.
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
>
> There is a bit of talking by one another here. Reasoned polite
> advocacy of policy positions is welcomed. Tendentious biased editing
> (especially when you are working in a group) is not. However, there
> are numerous situations where which is occurring is not immediately
> clear. Often the touchstone is that the nasty behavior goes on and on
> and on and on and on and at some point you realize you are engaging
> in deliberate behavior calculated to subvert neutral point of view
> (or in some other way create some tendency which simply doesn't
> belong in a reference work.
>
> Fred
--------------------------------------------------
>
> Absolutely Fred!
_How come noone is trying to pinpoint the nasty behavior, (especially if it is repetative,) and rid of it in your 'reference work?' This nasty behavior adverts the mind and draws newcomers into thier cat-calling and insulting. Thier actions are absolutely premeditated. It's obvious, because they have to think of what they are writing before they write it down. They go after people who they think may be of a threat to them. I believe that everyone deserves a chance to at least try to be a part of Wikipedia. But if they don't respect it, or if they take advantage of it, then they don't belong here. They will only cause you headache. -Julie
______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Amen.
>
> Process is important. However, the fallacy is to assume any of the following:
>
> 1. Process is not less important than product.
> 2. Process is good, so more process is better. <-- this is a bad one
> 3. Process is good, so we should not proceed without making process
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they mean, the existing fundemental process is good, so we should not proceed without making more progress.
Vocabulary can play tricks with anyone's head, even the smartest of geniuses. If they've been at it all night, who knows what's going to pop out of them.
-Julie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> along the way.
> 4. If a process exists, it must be followed because it's a process.
>
> The fallacious elements of these are:
>
> 1. Process is important, but the product is more important. "We're
> here to write an encyclopedia."
> 2. Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like
> bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is
> important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].
> 3. Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You
> can't Taylorise clue.
> 4. Processes are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic.
> This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
>
> Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly
> under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP
> A PROCESS FOR THAT.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l