--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
I think that I meant that it seemed rather circular to claim that a name must be changed because it's "inflammatory" ("of a nature to rouse passion, anger, or animosity" -- OED) when the only passion, anger, and animosity that it raised was in the business of changing names in the first place.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary ;)
There was no mention (there was eventually, but late in the process) of any emotions being aroused by the name /other/ than the desire to ban it on the grounds that it was "inflammatory".
Wikipedia is not an emotionary either.
But that is hardly what I said; which, as I mentioned, was not very coherent. And was overly combative. And rude. Sorry about that.
No-- you were just too quick to type back in retort -- like LD was. You both are gracious enough to recognize it and apologise for the minor miscommunications along the way, and I am admirous of both of you for having the fortitude to do so.
Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy. A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most recent post, which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav.
The best policies are simple. Where subjective concerns are dealt with, we need consensus. There is no way around it--these situations will arise, and there will need to be decisions made. Either there will be a community consensus, on what that decision will be, or there will be a Jimbo consensus. This is the choice.
According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the wiki process.
Its faith in people. Not the process. Wikifaith, as I define it is simply an understanding that "Wiki works" because "people work"-- Wiki is a name for a tool that represents a technological extension of the human spirits of community and collegiality. Changes which act to hamper this are rooted in mistrust, and are for lack of a better term "anti-wiki"
That's neither here nor there when it comes to personal usernames. I have a great deal of faith in the wiki process these days -- more than I did when I first heard of it! ^_^
To make the argument that usernames are in some way different is the same as saying that they are special -- in what way are they special? Do they need to be protected? Are they
I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do the right thing;
I have no faith in the thing called "Wikipedia" whatsoever. My faith is reserved for the people who happen to be on it. Nes pa?
To the extent that money measures faith,
Your donation of "money" (work hours quantified, right) is a good thing. Are you going to compare your donation in anyway to those of others?
See, if that ever /really/ went through, I would leave. Hell, if it were ever a serious issue, I'd lose a lot of faith (in Wikipedia, but not much in the wiki process in general).
Youre an addict, Toby. ;-) Besides-- you make my point-- nothing would come of it. I can whip up some annoying fuss trying to get some support for it, and it will be over like *snap* I'll *bet that the namechange page would even be deleted (as inflammatory vandalism )-- and you and I both know that there needs be "consensus" for such a thing to stand. ;-)
OK, that might not be entirely without doubt;
See?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible situation where.... for the community to attempt to impose on me by force.
If we acted unreasonably by your standards, then you would leave. But because were open, we tend to attract rather intelligent people, and this standard of reason would no doubt have to be high. Even in situations where there is a close split (which reminds me: time-limited voting, no anons, no newbies (except the user themself) etc. ) there is still the need for the community to stand by its own policy. This is why its important to hammer it out and-- if I may add-- why your criticisms are valid.
I suspect that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules.
Idea: Keep the discussion limited to the context at hand, eh?
If people couldn't do anything to change Drolsi's old name /other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis and try to convince him that it would be a good idea, then that might have been what people tried in the first place!
This is idealistic-- measures to enforce that which is best for wikipedia are in place now-- Jim can pull even pull the plug if its going to be good for wiki. Lets keep perspective here. This is just a name. "There is no G-d-given right to edit Wikipedia" remember. (Tarquin, I think) If your critique is of my approach-- I will acknowledge that I could have been more cordial to JiL.
Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary, in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too, like anythin that interferes with the wiki process (in which I have so much faith).
So, under it all-- you oppose banning itself? Then we need a namechange for this thread. Should we take the step of voting on it?
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com