In a message dated 9/10/2009 3:36:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com writes:
> Didn't they link
> to the situation and its resolution? How would that not be a consensus?>>
>
I have no idea how linking creates a consensus.
So I can't really address this.
Will
We already have {{oldprodfull}}, which many add when they remove a PROD tag
already. If AWB, Twinkle, and the like don't already, it might be worth
having them automagically add it to the talk page when PRODing articles,
just to make sure. Cheers.
lifebaka
From: Surreptitiousness <surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of unreferenced living person
> biographies
>
> In theory every article that has been subject to AFD or Prod has a
> template on the talk page, so an awb list comparison might help winnow
> out some articles. From there, yes, there will be process wonkery
> issues, but maybe some sort of wiki page might work out the best
> practises. Since prods can be undeleted by any admin without any
> kerfuffle, I can't see the harm in allowing a second bite at prod. Have
> we discussed amending PROD to allow second bites? Alternatively, is
> there a way of getting the prod tag onto prodded articles
> automatically? How about if we had a bot run through and add the
> template to the talk page of prodded articles? Sort of "This article
> was PRODDED on the 10 September 2009". That way, if the prod is removed
> from the article, we have a way of knowing it was once prodded. If the
> article is deleted, the talk page goes too so no issues there. If we set
> this up, it would also catch articles which have already been prodded,
> because even though the prod would get removed from the article since
> the article had been prodded before, the template would remain on the
> talk page. The only extra hurdle would be getting admins to restore talk
> oages when they restore deleted articles, something which really should
> be best practise anyway.
>
> a) PROD is not allowed for any article that has already been PRODed or AFDed, which means you have to go through the history first - making a 5 second job a 10 second job (an issue if you plan to do 50,000 articles by hand) and pushing you down a different route for
>
> There is no way you can determine if an article should be deleted in 5
seconds, unless it is a blatant attack page or patent nonsense.
> b) If you PROD an article it can be de-PRODed by anyone, without having to give a reason, which means you have to take it to AFD. This is particularly a case if a dedicated inclusionist starts to follow your actions for whatever reason.
>
> If you are indeed disruptively mass deletion tagging, then we should be
thankful if someone is keeping an eye on you.
On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
discussion?
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:14:00 -0500
> From: Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com>
>
> Holy cow. Is Jimbo aware of this?>>
>> Jimbo is irrelevant. We're cooking and eating him next week.
>>
> I'll bet he'll be delicious with BBQ sauce and a side of mashed
> potatoes and baked beans. Mmm mmm mmm. X-D
>
I suppose that's superior to sacrificing a holy cow.
Ec
>
> From: Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and "!voting", what's the difference?
>
> On 8/28/09, Al Tally <majorly.wiki(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to
>> > wade through a mass of comments.
>>
> If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting
> or "!voting" is the way to go.
>
That's a cop out!
> You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling". You can't make a
> decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
>
In that case no-one is accepting responsibility for the results.
Ec
> From: Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com
>> > A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not
>> > object).
>>
> You're right.
>
To a point, but you also need to make allowance for the person who only
finds out about the issue after the discussion is over, and a decision
made. If he significantly disagrees with the decision the consensus is
not longer valid.
>> > That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which
>> > actually just means a vote.
>>
> See, my vision of "rough consensus" is something like "If you
> eliminate people who !vote without leaving any comment to debate upon,
> and who hasn't participate in the debate elsewhere, or who do
> something like WP:WHYNOT, WP:NOTNOW, or WP:I[DON'T]LIKEIT what do you
> get?" I guess this would be a vote in a sense, albeit a very skewed one.
>
> Emily
I'm not about to spend time exploring what these shortcuts mean, though
they sound very much like excuses for quashing discussion. Maybe the
person did participate in the discussion elsewhere and elsewhen, but
under a completely different heading and with completely contrary
results. Eliminating people who vote without commenting is a problem
too. They may agree or disagree with the main points and arguments that
have already been made, but to comment would just add repetitious
verbiage. Counting the raw number of distinct arguments made for or
against as votes isn't very reliable either because it assumes equal
weight for each argument.
Ec
Ec
>
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:39:40 +0100
> From: Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Voting and "!voting", what's the difference?
>
> Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive
> polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme
> appeared on Wikipedia: the "!vote".
>
> Unlike the "vote", the "!vote" seems to afford the author the latitude
> to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact
> engaged in a polling exercise.
>
> In short, a "!vote" is simply a way of recasting polls so as to avoid
> calling them polls. "!Polls?"
>
> The reason we avoid polls? Because they lead to vote-counting
> (counting "!votes" is the same thing even if we're supposed to pretend
> that a "!vote! is not the same as a vote). Because they lead to
> taking sides. Because they destroy efforts at compromise. Because in
> the worst case they encourage people to create a separate section for
> people who agree with one another to congregate their comments, where
> there is no danger of their comments being mistaken for attempts to
> reach consensus by discussion.
>
> I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and
> attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe
> they're following Wikipedia policy.
>
> It's 2009. Why is this happening?
>
>
It's happening as a by-product of the human need for certainty, even
when certainty is impossible. Many people are really not ever
comfortable without clear and precise guidelines about what to do, and
do not accept any answer that would require them to exercise imagination
or innovation. It's more comfortable for them to adapt the data to fit
the rules than to adapt the rules to fit the data. Votes do indeed force
people to take sides when the best solution is really somewhere between
the two proposed extremes. A person who feels overwhelmed by the amount
of "corrections" he feels obliged to make will see his time spent more
productively when he can make
In theory, I would expect that "votes" would be more formal than
"polls". What some regard as "informal straw polls" to give a rough
idea about where the discussion is going, the more insecure among us
will take even a marginal one-voice victory as proof that the matter has
been decided and that we can now move on to another topic. If we
introduce "!vote" or "!poll" as some kind of new idea we do no better
than a dog chasing his own tail.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
> So making a
> drama-free "clean up afterwards" procedure was considered the least
> worst way of dealing with things.
Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
revived a notable-seeming Indian politican lady from the dead. If the 10
ton weight drops on me, I'll say "he told me ..."
Charles
http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2009/09/wikipedia-
ludicrously-sexist-and-racist-part-ii.html
Just another person complaining that "Wikipedia is soooo POV in this
way... and that way," "wikipedia is full of idiot writing useless
articles," and "it's horribly sexist and racist!"
I am still trying to figure out what she meant by "village tool"...
does anyone else know?
-X!
Charles a few things.
You do not need to be in the US to read a Google Book. There is a thing
called proxy or super proxy or something of that sort, which will mask where
you are, and thus allow anyone to read a book as if they were in the US.
Secondly I like the idea of asking Google Books to specify what sort of
citation THEY would like a person to use. In lieu of that, there is a standard
form of citation to include the repository in which you found the item, as
well as the item itself. I think though, 99.34% of our writers probably
will continue to use the simplest form possible. In fact we have a robot just
to help fill out bad citations. When I find them, I tend to make these
citations fuller myself, but it's a never-ending task.
Will
2009/8/31 Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org>:
> On 8/31/09 7:35 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
> We've been planning to get a test setup together since conversations at
> the Berlin developer meetup in April, but actual implementation of it is
> pending coordination with Luca and his team.
>
> My understanding is that work has proceeded pretty well on setting it up
> to be able to fetch page history data more cleanly internally, which was
> a prerequisite, so we're hoping to get that going this fall.
To add to what Brion said: The author of the Wired story, Hadley
Leggett, scheduled a call with me earlier this month, but she missed
the call. I didn't have time to follow up with her after that, and she
filed the story without it. This is why there's no WMF quote in the
story.
The gist of it is that:
We're very interested in WikiTrust, primarily for two reasons:
- it allows us to create blamemaps for history pages, so that you can
quickly see who added a specific piece of text. This is very
interesting for anyone who's ever tried to navigate a long version
history to find out who added something.
- it potentially allows us to come up with an algorithmic "best recent
revision" guess. This is very useful for offline exports.
The trust coloring is clearly the most controversial part of the
technology. However, it's also integral to it, and we think it could
be valuable. If we do integrate it, it would likely be initially as a
user preference. (And of course no view of the article would have it
toggled on by default.) There may also be additional community
consultation required.
Any integration is contingent on the readiness of the technology. It
seems to have matured over the last couple of years, and we're
planning to meet with Luca soon to review the current state of things.
There's no fixed deployment roadmap yet, and the deployment of
FlaggedRevs is our #1 priority.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate