Charles Matthews wrote:
The question is
more whether lurkers should be stakeholders. Traditionally what is
respected is showing the better way, rather than compiling a wishlist.
The best way to solve whether lurkers should be stakeholders is to ask
them. Showing the better way would be fine. Have we agreed on a better
way yet?
Why? You would be better advised to draft in userspace
rather than just
type straight into the box, but I don't understand why you think it
doesn't still work in principle.
I can't do now what I did then. IP's cannot create new articles, and
you have to wait four days after creating an account to create a new
article. You just lost me. It doesn't still work either in principle or
in practise.
The point I
was making was that we were not the high-ground; we don't exist to
publish academic research.
No, we exist to regurgitate it.
Hmm. Not sure I agree, but I think we'd head into a primary versus
secondary sourcing argument. I'd certainly argue our mission would be to
contextualise and explain the research through recourse to secondary
sources, rather than to simply regurgitate it. I think there's a viable
argument that regurgitating it would fall foul of NOT NEWS.
The closure was a compromise, rather than a consensus emerging.
([[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 11#Deans of
Lincoln]], for mavens.) While "Dean" and "Lincoln" were both deemed
individually ambiguous, one side only was disambiguated. But not for a
specific clash. So in a sense I lost the argument, it seems. But it
could have been worse.
Hmm. Yes, interesting debate. That's one of the reasons I avoid CFD
these days. I think a major point that got missed is that no-one asked
the question of at what point would context not do the disambiguating.
Only then would there be a need for disambiguating. There's been a lot
of thought about CFD over the years, and how to address the
shortcomings, but nothing has ever gotten nailed down. There's a
conflict between consensus can change and speedy deletion criteria as
currently installed at the moment, and there's also a lot of confusion
as to what categories actually are and how they work. I think a lot of
the issues with categories are down to the fact that we never nailed
down what they were for when they were implemented, and now everyone has
a different view on how to categorise. I still can't work out how, if
you are looking at an article in Category:Deans of Lincoln, it won't be
clear what Lincoln it is. But I've had this argument a number of times:
people seem to like standards just to have standards. If a parent
category says Lincoln, Lincolnshire, so must all sub-cats. Otherwise, it
looks untidy.