WikiEN-l January 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

176 participants
354 discussions

Consensus vs "groupthink"
by Ron Ritzman 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

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.

14 21

Re: [WikiEN-l] Freedom of Speech in WP
by Daniel R. Tobias 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

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/

2 2

False AfD Nominations
by Phil Sandifer 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

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

6 13

Wikipedia case study (GFDL!) from Harvard Business School
by Samuel Klein 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

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

3 2

A quiet revolution
by Guy Chapman aka JzG 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

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.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

9 13

Re: [WikiEN-l] Freedom of Speech in WP
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

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

5 4

[Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail]
by Jimmy Wales 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

-------- 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

5 4

Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD
by George Herbert 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

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

11 15

Re: [WikiEN-l] Consensus vs "groupthink"
by Daniel R. Tobias 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

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/

2 1

We really need to avoid the next Microsoft-Wikipedia bad publicity storm
by David Gerard 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

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.

5 5

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 January 2007