In a message dated 2/6/2008 4:55:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
Rolling stubs together into one list makes no sense. ..... And what is the
benefit?>>>
------------------
To stop AfD's ?
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
In a message dated 2/8/2008 9:21:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
I cannot be kind about this, these people are engaging in, or
recommending OR, and are trying to hide behind the cloak of consensus.
We don't want or need consensus in the Wikipedia, we want *informed*
consensus.>>
---------------------------
When experts are "called in" to give opinions in contentious issues, the
warriors cite Canvassing and Meatpuppetry.
How do we address that?
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
Those of you who have been following the strange life of "notability"
on Wikipedia as it evolved from a series of debates on VfD about
deletion philosophy to an ill-defined word used to bite newbies, and
then to a series of ill-defined guidelines used to bite newbies will
be saddened to know that the last firewall on this issue has now been
breached, and notability has been enshrined at the level of policy
instead of guideline.
Despite a number of objections, consensus seems to be forming on WP:V
to include the line "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found
for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." in
the policy. This line may be familiar in its more-cited form, "A topic
is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are independent of the subject," from WP:N.
So there you go. The process that is most often used to generate bad
press, hurt feelings, and upset newbie contributors is now enshrined
as policy.
Go us?
-Phil
In a message dated 2/8/2008 10:10:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
How would that help anything? The bots and action-pages are serving a
useful purpose. Just because only a handful of people are interest in
doing the busy work doesn't means they control it - anyone can come
along and help out, they just don't.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
I just don't see it that way.
We are a project based on consensus. That is how we've always operated.
It's one of our greatest strengths.
One of our greatest weaknesses is when the media claims that things are run
by a cabal.
When decisions that affect the entire project can be made by a single
person, and are, that's not a helpful situation. It's not true that anyone can
help. Some action pages require admin action only. Regular editors who chose
not to be admins, regardless of their project input, are sometimes and
frequently ignored.
I've been in the project for over four years. I have almost 12 thousand
edits. I sometimes feel like I'm fighting an uphill battle against entrenched
"that's the way we've been doing things" even though those things are, imho,
in violation of the project's core principles of being open, accessible, and
consensus-driven.
I can easily see how some in the media get the perception. Ignoring it,
won't make it go away.
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
In a message dated 2/8/2008 9:53:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
With an official policy on how to utilise experts. I'm not sure what
it should say, but I think it is something we need. At the moment,
experts are treated just like any other editor, which is great from an
ideological point of view, but isn't actually very useful.>>
-------------------
We've had the debate on credentials.
In fact there is a user actively writing up an essay on evidence that we
have no credential policy.
Sounds odd to me personally. It's like saying "we have no cumquats", its
sort of a null statement.
Personally, as a professional researcher, I think we "should" have a method
by which credential claims can be verified. But of course I'm biased like
that.
I also think we should roll back about 90 percent of the bots and the
low-response action-pages like blacklist, whitelist, etc. where one or two people
control the entire apparatus.
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
In a message dated 2/8/2008 6:08:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
Even more amazingly, requiring
notice has been rejected repeatedly by the long-term experienced
users: "they should be using their watchlists" ; "if people had to
notify them, AfD deletions would go slower--they might protest more
often".>>
----------------------------
Nominators don't want notification. But we don't always have to agree with
that position.
Just as their is no requirement to notify, there is no requirement not to
notify.
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
In a message dated 2/8/2008 2:10:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
How to depersonalise the process of deletion nomination?>>
--------------------------------------
Ban deletions.
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
In a message dated 2/8/2008 1:38:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
Alright, I think it's right to go block you. Blocking policy be damned.>>
-------------------------------
And damn it, there just isn't enough drama on-wiki already.
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
In a message dated 2/4/2008 10:46:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com writes:
In the end, what's wrong with an article that contains the sum total
of human knowledge on a subject, even if it's short, as long as it's
verifiable and on a subject matter suitable for an encyclopaedia?>>
---------------------------
Shouldn't similar stubs be rolled together into one list?
So instead of Galaxy XG-123AB or whatever we'd just have an article on
"Galaxy's called XG something"...
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
Anyone have a figure for the median size of enWP article, by words (preferably), or bytes?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam