On 12 Aug 2009 at 14:59, Emily Monroe wrote:
> > It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
>
> Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
> confusion.
>
> Emily
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>:
> >
> >> Try evasive.
> >
> >
> > It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Why the doublequote? I notice that all of your messages quote the
message you're replying to twice, once in a trimmed manner above your
reply in the standard interleaved format, but then again in a
fullquote that your reply is top-posted above. You're too wishy-
washy to pick top or bottom posting, apparently.
--
== 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 Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax<abd(a)lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
> respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
> expertise and we want them to advise us.
Nothing says "we respect your expertise" like a short-term block :o)
At 05:33 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
>Lomax<abd(a)lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
>
> > we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
> > respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
> > expertise and we want them to advise us.
>
>Nothing says "we respect your expertise" like a short-term block :o)
The short block is down the line from warnings for incivility. I'm
claiming we should expect POV-pushing from experts. So, unless it's
not controversial, experts shouldn't edit articles! As long as the
expert behaves, no problem. And experts sometimes have a lot to say.
No harassment for writing too much. Ahem. But talk page refactoring,
organization, lots of stuff to do....
In a message dated 4/16/2009 9:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
> He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even
> in
> the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of
> proclamations
> by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention
> to.>>
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else.
I don't see anything to tell me that Larry was complaining about anything
or anyone except something Jimmy said.
Will
**************
Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at
$479
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=htt…)
In a message dated 8/13/2009 5:27:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dan(a)tobias.name writes:
> Why the doublequote? I notice that all of your messages quote the
> message you're replying to twice, once in a trimmed manner above your
> reply in the standard interleaved format, but then again in a
> fullquote that your reply is top-posted above. You're too wishy-
> washy to pick top or bottom posting, apparently.>>
------------------------------
There is still a spot Dan left on the [[Welcome Wagon From Hell]] ;)
No! but seriously...
This double-quoting to which you refer is a new "feature" of some mail
readers.
Cute isn't it? Not.
It's hard for me to learn how to use it without pissing off sensitive types
;)
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/13/2009 7:32:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com writes:
> Depends upon your definition of "fixable articles", doesn't it. I think
> though, you've really just outlined user space.>>
------------
I really like the idea of Draft space over user space. User space seems so
*personal* that often if I find something there, I'm shy to edit it more.
Draft space seems communal. There are cases in AfD where an the results are
close to keep, and perhaps those could also move to Draft space for that
reason. "If the community seems split, but leaning toward delete, consider
moving it to Draft instead of [the optional] User space."
Will Johnson
I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same
yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary
Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly
governs the professional lives of millions of players.
But why am I talking about sports disciplinary codes? Just go to another
country and tell them that you are a foreigner and you'd probably deserve to
be exempted from following their code of law!
The idea that we are diverse and think differently has little basis when
being uncivil.
Fayssal F.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:03:47 +0100
> From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <206791b10908111803v343ac124ua59baa28d0eff836(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> How about...
>
> "The Wikipedia community is too large and diverse for any single
> standard of civility to be effective. Careful application of broad
> standards of civility need to be adapted to individual situations,
> while not compromising core values."
>
> Is that accurate or not?
>
> Carcharoth
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax<abd(a)lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> There are people who are skilled at facilitating consensus, given the
> opportunity. Dispute resolution process suggests bringing in a
> neutral party to mediate, but we don't insist on that process.
> Instead, we have editors who, when they oppose what another editor is
> trying to do, go to a noticeboard to request that the other editor be
> coerced into stopping. And the noticeboards are full of
> result-oriented editors who are impatient with process.
When I mentioned on a project list recently, possibly this one, that I
had more time to spare on Wikipedia and asked where I should devote
that time, and stated I'm "interested in conflict resolution" someone
replied "the last thing we need is another person getting involved in
arguments."
:o/
In a message dated 8/12/2009 7:25:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
> Maybe so. There is also a reason or two why appeasement is considered
> short-sighted by people who have seen it tried.>>
There is a middle ground.
W.J.
At 08:18 PM 8/11/2009, you wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/8/11 Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>:
>
> > As someone commented on his blog, one of the problems is that the
> > experts in an area are likely to have been very heavily involved in
> > it.
>
>Also biased by that involvement towards a particular mindset,
>especially when it comes to speculative or cutting edge or
>controversial work.
Bingo. I've started recommending a new approach to experts. Most
experts, especially professionals (which includes academics), have a
conflict of interest, and when they don't, their expertise still
represents some kind of commitment to a field. In fringe fields,
experts on one side may have a bias toward rejection of the entire
field, they may even have an emotional reaction to it, and on the
other side, experts are almost certainly a bit attached. In my
current field of interest, Cold fusion, experts on the state of the
research, who know the literature, have put many, many hours, many
years, often, into it, with the interest being almost suicidal,
professionally. You don't do that because you think it is all a
stupid mistake. (Very many of the expert researchers have been
"graybeards," past retirement, with no more concern about tenure, etc.)
Simple: anyone who claims expertise, automatically consider COI,
which means that they don't edit articles controversially. It's
great, fantastic, even, if they write an article, or helpfully
correct it, but not if they own it.
*However,* we need and should want the *advice* of these people, on
all sides. If we welcome experts from a majority POV in a field, and
exclude experts from a minority POV, we will create a bias in the
arguments and sources being presented and discussed and almost
certainly in the article. While there are experts who will point us
to toward sources that appear to contradict their own POV, these are
pretty unusual. (For an example with Cold fusion, there would be Nate
Hoffman, A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects, 1995;
unfortunately, 1995 is ancient history with Cold fusion, but he's
very, very good about what was known then, and rigorously fair. He,
quite correctly, presents the whole thing as an unsolved puzzle, with
contradictory evidence, even though he is certainly skeptical, as one
should be by default about something like cold fusion.)
Experts will often be uncivil toward people who ignorantly question
them. If allowed to edit the article, they easily imagine that they
OWN it, and they will revert "nonsense." But nonsense -- if added in
good faith -- represents a lack of understanding of the topic, and if
the article were ideally written, the reader would likely understand
the topic! Significant objections to what the article says would
largely be covered, instead of what happens too often, suppressed as
"undue weight." In talk, *less significant objections* would be
covered in a FAQ. We have asserted and have sometimes enforced the
idea that we don't discuss the *topic* in Talk, but that perpetuates
the problem. I agree we should not discuss the topic on a Talk page
for an article, but we should either set up a place to do that (I'm
sure that if there are editors and experts working on a standard
encyclopedia article, traditionally, there is some discussion of the
topic!, or we should point to a good discussion forum, and, if there
is controversy in a field, to the best forums on all sides. Some
articles do this; in others, minority POV forums have been excluded
as "fringe." But they could be covered in a FAQ as a place to get
more information and to learn about the topic. If an editor does not
understand the topic, they become only slaves to the experts, when,
in fact, the editors stand for the public and should insist that the
topic is explained to *them* so that they can understand it from the
article itself, and not from being berated by an expert or another
editor who dislikes seeing an expert challenged!
So: if an editor claims expertise -- and that should be encouraged!
where it exists-- the editor would, on the one hand, be more strictly
excluded from controversial edits to the article, but would, on the
other, be protected to a degree from severe sanctions for
"POV-pushing" -- don't we expect that from COI editors? -- or
incivility. That doesn't mean that we allow them, for example, to be
uncivil, no, we might short-block them quickly, if they do not
respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
expertise and we want them to advise us. Civilly, please, and thanks.
Now, that it's quieted down, and you have perhaps apologized for
calling that editor a moron, and you will try to refrain from this in
the future, I'm unblocking you. Remember, morons are people too, and
our job is to educate the ignorant, not insult them. If you need
help, here is how to get it ....
I have become, in the last six months, from having a decent
background in physics, buying the books (skeptical and accepting of
its reality) -- which I never did before to research a Wikipedia
article -- come to have a certain level of what I'd call "amateur
expertise." Therefore I should be considered COI and should not edit
the article in a controversial way. However, I ''should'' participate
in Talk, because I can serve as an interface between true experts --
we are lucky to get them, and at least two in this field have been
banned -- and editors with less familiarity. My job is to help the
neutral editors understand the sources, and I should not pretend to
be neutral. Real experts are rarely neutral, they have strong
opinions which they believe to be Truth -- at least many of them --
but if we come to see our job as facilitating an *informed
consensus*, we will serve the goals of the encyclopedia even if we do
"push" a POV.
If my Talk page participation is a problem, the problem should be
directly addressed. There are ways, simple ones. I know, because I
successfully advise and mediate between other editors with articles
where I have no involvement.