I would like to nominate [[User:I B Wright]]'s current endeavour on
[[Pentagrid converter]] for [[WP:LAME]]. He keeps re-inserting a piece
of text that is completely nonsensical. He claims that it's a "literary
device" and insists that "all the vacuum-tube-savvy editors are happy
with it". Four different people have already removed it (myself
included) and he keeps reinserting it.
Timwi
On 28 Jan 2007 at 01:40, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or
> whatever we want to call it). This would allow anyone who is directly
> affected by the article a place to defend his point of view. This could
> probably be done in a template that is linked from the page in
> question. The person or company affected would have the exclusive right
> to make substantive edits to that template. The result would be a
> section that is the person's view on the issue; if they want to make a
> radical departure from the truth that would be their right within that
> context. If the subject tries to put the same information in the main
> body of the article that would be subject to the usual meat-grinder rules.
This strikes me as a really bad idea, going completely against the
core NPOV policy, as well as the principle that nobody owns any part
of any article. Why should any part of main article space (or
templates included in it) be controlled by outside people and used to
present their (perhaps distorted) view of reality? That's what the
subjects' own (personal, organizational, and corporate) web space is
for. Web hosting is really cheap these days, and when you've got
your own site you can use it to promote your own POV as much as you
want. Then, if you're the subject of a Wikipedia article, it's
reasonable for that article to have an external link to your site
(including its anti-Wikipedia rants, if that's part of the site's
content). This works out reasonably well for everybody; the subject's
POV is easily available in exactly the form the subject wants it to
be, but it's also clearly at arm's-length from Wikipedia itself,
which remains in an NPOV style.
--
== 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'm just getting ready for C4 to pick me up, take me to their office
and interview me for tonight's news re: the Microsoft-Wikipedia issue.
If someone could record it and throw us an MPEG afterwards, that would
be most helpful!
Now to get tarted up for the camera ...
- d.
Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously
futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,
but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being
Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)
We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working. They
have never worked. It is not a feasible project to go and add sources
to everything, and new contributors who are editing casually are
never going to be willing to do the extra work of having sources. The
result is a rule where we are always going to be playing catch-up.
Nor do the pages prevent incidents like Siegenthaler, which was a
problem with exactly one cause, which is that nobody had ever
actually looked at that page after it was created. No policy in the
world will fix a page that nobody is editing.
Yes, we need to ensure that people do not add crap information. This
can be covered easily with "Information that people doubt the
validity of should be sourced." And we can then leave the community
to deal with issues on a case by case basis with the direction that
they should be careful to make sure that information is accurate. And
we should shoot people who continue to add dubious information over
the objections of other editors. Which is basically how we wrote an
encyclopedia that has proven pretty trustworthy, and, more to the
point, is how we actually operate now on the vast majority of our
articles, since [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are not actually useful pages.
But to have a pair of policies that cannot be honestly implemented
serves only one purpose: causing debates among editors that waste
time and good faith.
Nuke them.
-Phil
If we're going to preload an "article skeleton" for new articles, what else
are we going to include? Sections? See also and External links? Sample
images? Templates? Categories? Infoboxes?
On 1/23/07, Mets501 wrote:
>
> It already is included in the text above the edit box, but it's not
> enough.
> New users don't know how to add references, and therefore just ignore the
> whole thing.
Sounds like a problem with the referencing system...
On 25 Jan 2007 at 10:41, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a
> free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single
> person on the planet in their own language.
Do married persons get to use it 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/
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
On 25 Jan 2007 at 15:51, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> And as for the foundation dictating such a policy, I think you
> misunderstand what the foundation exists for...
To bring about a Second Galactic Empire, of course. Creating an
encyclopedia is merely a pretext. <ref>Asimov, Isaac, [[The
Foundation Trilogy]], 1951</ref>
--
== 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 a message dated 1/27/2007 1:59:57 PM Central Standard Time,
bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca writes:
> At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
> 1) Create a time limited deletion warning permitting
> deletion upon expiration without reliable sources.
> 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the
> article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not
> regarded as accurate.
I've got no problem with the banner approach, though I think "highly"
might be overstating the issue.
I agree with the banner approach.