On 7 Jun 2006 at 11:29, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> One can work towards this, but any enforcement is a bit like passing a
> law that requires everybody to think logically.
...which they really ought to pass. Summarily execute all illogical
people, for the general improvement of the world, I say!
--
== 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/
On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
> When we choose to publish facts on private people
> versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how
> "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many
> private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from
> e.g. phone books.
Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source. It's
pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book. Also I'd say
there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely
identify a person anyway.
I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as
Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a
public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or
"non-notable".
Anthony
Platonides wrote:
> How about a new Magic Word like __TAGS_COMPLETED_ON_PARENT__
No, absolutely not. A magic word that breaks parsing is absolutely insane. It
needs to work consistently in one way or the other.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
And if so, in which sense?
I've just put [[List of groups referred to as cults]] on
AfD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_groups…
(For the 3rd time by me alone, so I expect some eye-rolling and name-calling)
My main concern is about NOR, and I suspect some other lists having the same problem. Whereas each individual entry has its source (that's just the idea of the list, that you google for some source calling Wikipedia, Randism, Shia and whatsnot a "cult"), but the list as such, even cum grano salis, has never been published, hopefully because no one has considered it to make much sense, to link such a diverse set of "groups".
As WP:NOR was invented to relieve us from difficult decisions (Is "X theory of hairy strings" a valid Theory of Everything? -- We don't bother to check the formulas, it's not published in peer-reviewed journals), shouldn't this axe also prune more creative lists?
Regards,
Peter Jacobi
[[User:Pjacobi]]
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> What about high-use templates like [[Template:Multi-listen start]] and
> [[Template:Multi-video start]]? These templates open <ul> tags but don't
> close them (or vice-versa).
That would likely break too, yes.
> Would it be possible to transclude
> {{int:Open list}}, where [[MediaWiki:Open list]] has code similar to
> [[MediaWiki:Cite references prefix]]?
{{int:Foo}} should behave the same as {{MediaWiki:Foo}} so far as I know. If it
doesn't, that's probably a bug, so please let me know.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:48:40 +0200
>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> > After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
> > admin-user relations - below) the link to the
updated
> > version of another proposal
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> > under my old user page is deleted for ''the good
of
> > Wikipedia''. I thought I should provide the ones
who
> > would like to see that proposal with the correct
link.
> > Earlier version can be found at
> > [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as
'rejected'
> > but the truth is, I could never find an
opportunity to
> > put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the
> > updated version below this message for the sake of
> > completeness and for your convenience.
>
>Fortunately I've made a backup of your last version
here
>[[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]]
>though I am not sure whether some administrator will
censor
>this too.
>
>--
>Raphael
>
Dear Raphael,
That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for it.
It will be a humble contribution of mine to the Wiki
community if it has a chance to be discussed fairly in
the future.
On the other hand you take a high risk by posting
that proposal to your user page. A lynch chorus may
start 'ringing the bells' for you. I am pretty sure
you know that, by doing so, you will also be a target
of 'The' Troublemaker [[User:TT]] (It may be read as
The Troll, but not a problem, both apply to the case).
Since he will continuously be trying to create a
negative atmosphere around you by any means possible,
you should be really careful about his actions. My
suggestions would be just ignore him and do not let
him force you to into a negative, unfruitful cycle
which is hard to escape from. You already seem to be
smart enough (more than enough :) maybe) to be able to
see what is happening though.
I would appreciate if you could let me know what
you think about the proposals [[WP:OURS]] (and
[[WP:Wikiethics]] about which you made some
suggestions before) if possible. Realizing that there
is a problem and identifying it is one thing, trying
to find a reasonable solution to the problem is
another thing. I think only talking about the problem
does not lead the project to a better place and will
not do any good other than increase frustration.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:50:46 +0200
>
>Scott Stevenson wrote:
> > George Willaim Herbert,
> >
> > While I understand your concerns about
"thougthcrime" the only precedent
> > that might exist here is that a page created by a
banned user through proxy
> > was deleted. Pages created by banned users can be
speedy deleted under
> > [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] general criteria #5.
Discussion about a proposal
> > isn't verboten (and in fact on one of the the
original threads started by
> > Resid Gulerdem there is indeed a very lively
ongoing discussion).
> > Hope that helps you to better understand this.
>
>It is very unfortunate, that you reject my good faith
gesture and
>continue to call me a proxy.
>
>[[WP:OUR]] has not been a cut&paste copy of Resids
email.
>Instead I've tried to incorporate the whole
discussion,
>which has taken place here on this mailing list.
>
>--
>Raphael
>
Dear Raphael,
I am so sorry that The Troublemaker is using my name
to attack you personally. As a very kind and
thoughtful person and a gentleman, it should be hard
for you to deal with the people at the very opposite
end.
As I said before, I used to ignore him and do not
answer him, not because I can not, just because I
chose not: I do not want to waste my time. I would not
write even this message if he would not use my
name to attack someone else, a person who deserve
nothing but respect like you, and as a matter of fact
any other person. His baseless accusations about my
edits in both Turkish and English Wikipedia,
allegations, lies, agitations, and provocations are
worthless to mention and worthless to answer. I am
just expecting that the community will see his
behavior which will in return show them what kind of
people I have dealt with and what was the main reason
behind my blocks.
Please accept my apology for that someone is
shamelessly blaming on you using my name. I
congratulate you with your high caliber personality
and character.
Sincerely,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200
>
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >> The admins are only part of the community now
and
> >> will stay like that in the future, as far as I
can
> >> see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
> >> believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
> >> see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this
list
> >> recently. I think it can be useful and can be
> >> developed further. I tried to outline some
important
> >> points which may reduce the conflicts between the
> >> admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
> >> is feasible?
> >
> > I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment. Can
> > you send it to me?
> >
>
>I've just created the proposed policy on
[[Wikipedia:OURS]].
>
>--
>Raphael
>
Mr. Wales,
I was wondering if you could review the proposal
[[WP:OURS]] and [[WP:ETH]]?
I would like to know also if you are aware of the
discussion and weird admin actions going around this
proposals recently:
Right after I posted the proposal [[WP:OURS]] to this
mailing list (it includes a link to the updated
version of the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] on my
old user page [[User:Rgulerdem\Wikiethics]]) someone
deleted that page immediately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#User:Rgulerdem.2FWikiethics
An editor [[User:Raphael]] decided to have a copy of
the updated version of [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] from
my old user page to improve it further. It is also
deleted right away. Lots of wikilawyering and
insincerity going around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#User:Raphael1.2FWikiethics
He further formulated his version of the proposal
[[WP:OURS]] after modifications, rewording, and some
improvements on the main space. It is deleted too
right after created without a single word on its
talk page. I cannot provide a link for this because
even the 'deletion discussion page' is deleted.
I hope now it is clear what may 'admin-driven death of
Wikipedia' mean. With this structure and functioning
it is not possible to have a health product in my
opinion. As Wikipedia gets bigger one may expect this
admin problem become more apparent and frustrating.
Please note that on purely technical issues the
problems are smaller than the ones on the
controversial issues. Many (not all) of the
admins as far as I can see are some college kids
mostly sitting around a computer. As a result
Wikipedia is evolving very fast towards an online
forum or clubhouse with an heavy ideologic bigotry
and a tone on social issues determined by the
instincts of some computer operators and programmers
playing encyclopedist. This does not make the
Wikipedia a reliable source of information. Lynching
editors according to their background that their names
may imply does not bring any honor to Wikipedia.
I would appreciate if you could give some feedback
about these concerns. Please again consider those as
friendly and sincere concerns from a user who likes
the Wikipedia be successful. I am just pointing out
the danger which will get Wikipedia down tomorrow
if not today. I have some further ideas similar to
[[WP:Wikiethics]] and [[WP:OURS]] towards constructing
a better structure but an administrative will is
necessary to be able to implement that. Your
comments will result in either continuation or end of
my Wiki experience.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>From time to time, I come across complaints about the "admin subculture" at
Wikipedia, and there are times when I've been struck by the fact that while
som/most admins make a sincere effort at applying policy, guidelines and
their judgment consistently, others seem to have absolutely no difficulty
abandoning any semblance of fairness if other considerations are more
weighty.
People who raise the issue in this forum are typically frustrated - they are
told that either being an admin is "no big deal," or that "the system works
pretty well," or "stop being a malcontent," all in so many words.
At the same time, there is an ongoing debate about the various trends
(userboxes, lawsuits, editors with inferior intellects) that threaten the
existence of Wikipedia.
I have my own opinion about what threatens Wikipedia most (a decay of
intellectual integrity for the sake of conventional wisdom, SPOV, and
appeals to authority that in turn breed slovenly thinking), but I really do
want to weigh in on an appeal that the admin community - whether it is a
subculture or not - give some serious thought to how the reinforce
accountability around the WP core standards.
Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins
have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside
from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions
on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity
against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that
anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or
troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are
softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
I think that the open source philosophy should be preserved, so I'm
reluctant to add more rules and processes than absolutely necessary.
However, I do think that some principles should apply, whether they are
instituted formally or not:
* Admins should be able to defend their actions in light of Wikipedia
policy, guidelines, or accepted practice. In other words, if an editor
protests a decision made by an admin, it should be incumbent upon (and easy
for) the admin to point to a clear precedence for his/her decision. And
these precedents should be developed by some level of consensus that at
least meets the standard applied for everything else.
* Admins should strive to be role models in their roles as editors. There
will be people who are better suited as admins than editors, and we all have
content issues we're passionate about; but I believe there is plenty of room
within policy and guidelines to expresss passion without being uncivil,
dishonest, flip, or offensive.
* Admins should strive for transparency in their workings. Backchannel
communications should be an exception limited to very specific problems.
I could think of more, but this is plenty for now.
Leif
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:00:13 -0500
>
>This is why there is a perception that at times there
have been
>conflicts between "admins" and "the community". In
the past, there was
>no question at all that "the community" and "the
admins" were just about
>exactly the same people.
>
>--Jimbo
The admins are only part of the community now and
will stay like that in the future, as far as I can
see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I
believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could
see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list
recently. I think it can be useful and can be
developed further. I tried to outline some important
points which may reduce the conflicts between the
admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it
is feasible?
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com