Seeing how a few detractors here have been throwing around the term
"groupthink" I have to ask, is there any real difference between the
two or does it depend on which side of a "consensus" decision you are
on? That is, if an article you wrote/are involved with survives AFD,
then it's "consensus", if it gets deleted, it's "groupthink". Of
course it's the other way around if it's an article you don't like.
Same with an edit to an active article. If the edit stands, it's
"consensus" if it's constantly reverted and your persistence gets you
banned by a "rogue admin (tm)", it's "groupthink".
Therefore, I have to wonder if "groupthink", as long as it doesn't
lead to an [[Abilene paradox]] might not just be another way of saying
"consensus" which can either be good or bad. Good if the "consensus"
decision squares with previously established policies, bad if it
doesn't.
On 30 Jan 2007 at 20:56, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
wrote:
> If you?re restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.
You still have some character set problems with your mail program, as
seen whenever you try to use an apostrophe and it comes out as a
question mark in the digest version.
--
== 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/
We really need a good policy on speedy closing AfD nominations where
the nomination contains obviously false claims and whacking votes
that are just plain idiotic. Case in point, http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyrus_Farivar_%284th_nomination%
29 where the nominator proclaimed that the article was kept because
of the journalist's involvement in an Internet hoax. In fact, it was
kept because this is a freelance journalist who has written for
Wired, The Economist, and the New York Times. As anyone actually
looking at the previous deletion debates would quickly notice.
Equally fun is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenlighting_hoax_%282nd_nomination%
29, where we have people citing a disputed guideline as policy, and
people declaring an article that's sourced to Slate (a publication
owned by the Washington Post) as having no sources.
I'm only mildly invested in the second as an article to keep around
(although I think deleting the first would be appalling), but this
kind of sloppy voting and sloppy nominating needs to stop. It's far
too clear that people are voting without even looking at what they're
voting on, and that despite our pretending that AfD is not a vote, it
is far too often treated as one. (And don't even get me started on
the latest and greatest bit of deletion DoubleSpeak, the ever-
wonderful Categories for Discussion.)
Personally, I'd support a speedy-close policy on any AfD with false
information in the nomination, and a standard "comment removed due to
obvious inaccuracy" template to put into place on the "discussions"
for when people cite policies that don't exist, claim lack of sources
where sources exist, or otherwise flagrantly decline to engage with
reality.
-Phil
http://courseware.hbs.edu/public/cases/wikipedia/
The Harvard Business School is famous for its case studies. Two of its
professors put out a case study on Wikipedia, and the history of the
Enterprise 2.0 article (a new term championed by one of the case study
authors; the article was written by others who use the term).
I have a cameo as the admin who recommends starting a new AfD discussion.
The whole study is released under the GFDL, though it will be available
for sale via CD as per usual with new case studies.
Don't forget the check out the exhibits, which are fascinating.
--SJ
It has been discovered that the new system of cascading protection
(which protects any element transcluded in a page protected with the
cascade bit turned on) allows us to transclude and thus protect a
non-existent article.
Thus, we can effectively protect a deleted article without using the
horrible {{deletedarticle}} template. Users get a reasonably helpful
message telling them why it's not there, and it does not appear on
Random, does not appear in mirrors, does not show up at the top of the
Google hits (which will please the foiled vanity spammers as well as
allowing us to be kind to them). I can't think of a downside offhand.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Marc Riddell wrote
> Terrific! I much prefer the term "Don't be a dick" to "incivility"; can we
> make the change :-).
Well, no. Why replace a good dictionary word with a profanity? Are you assuming that everyone who edits the English Wikipedia is a native speaker of English, who shares your likes and dislikes? You'd be very wrong about that. In fact the very acceptance of WP:DICK shows a basic level of crassness, if you ask me.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:01:41 GMT
From: Pieism <james(a)northover1964.fsnet.co.uk>
To: Jimbo Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
Please bring back the pieism page, It was the best source of infomation
about pieism yet. No where existed a united article about pieism. from JoJo
I think this discussion is over; please put Michael on moderation or
drop him from the list.
-george
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Smith <runechozo(a)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2007 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD
To: George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
Bullshit you fucking liar.
On 1/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/07, Michael Smith <runechozo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was abused, stalked, hounded, and the one who did it got off with nothing
> > happening to him because you like beating up on people.And why? BECAUSE I
> > WAS TRYING TO MAKE AN ARTICLE BETTER.
>
> No, you've been blocked, and may well be banned now, because you can't
> respond politely and in an adult and civil manner to complaints.
>
> Until you understand that you entirely did this to yourself, I don't
> see how you can continue participating in Wikipedia.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert(a)gmail.com
>
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
On 30 Jan 2007 at 23:15, SonOfYoungwood(a){gag,vomit,retch}aol.com
wrote:
> Exactly; I get this all the time when I go into a group and try to beat the
> heck out of their nostalgic groupthink masturbation. I'm also guilty of
> groupthink in some instances, though. I guess it's human nature.
When you enter a new group with the intent of trying to beat the heck
out of the regulars there, it exhibits an attitude problem on your
own part, doesn't it?
--
== 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/
I got a call yesterday from a press officer for a major UK bank. My
number was one of the few contact numbers they could find.
They spent lots of time yesterday morning adding stuff to the bank's
article from their websites and having it reverted as a copyright
violation. They couldn't work out what she was doing wrong, so they
called me. They hadn't heard about the Microsoft mess at all. Oh dear.
I explained that editing the article about yourself is a conflict of
interest, and pointed them at the talk page and said this was the
right place to put stuff - that they should introduce themselves, etc.
And that people might argue, but that happens on the Internet. I also
said I'd have a look myself.
Well, that's one more innocent disaster averted ...
But we really need something to handle this sort of thing and make it
widely known. Something as n00b-friendly as possible - just type on a
page (or in a form) or send an email.
Which will mean another firehose of crap to find volunteers to deal
with. This is the tricky bit. Compare to OTRS, which has the twin
problems of (1) a firehose of crap with a few important things in it
and (2) too few volunteers, who then get (understandably) tetchy and
close to burnout, and not great success at recruiting more.
So:
0. I submit that we really do need this.
1. Most n00b-friendly interface possible. This is not a big problem.
2. How to get volunteers interested in wanting to look at this? This
is the tricky one.
Ideas please!
(I'm tempted to submit this to Ask Slashdot for ideas ... any objections?)
Another bad publicity storm such as happened last week to Microsoft is
absolutely not in Wikipedia or Wikimedia's interests. We don't want to
make organisations fearful of coming near us.
- d.