I've deleted the scabrous template [[Template:Twoversions]] as a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View. It was voted "keep" on TFD, which is complete rubbish because eight people can't vote to violate NPOV on Wikipedia. Currently protected blank.
Voting is not only Evil, it's Stupid. Think, dammit.
- d.
On 10/27/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've deleted the scabrous template [[Template:Twoversions]] as a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View. It was voted "keep" on TFD, which is complete rubbish because eight people can't vote to violate NPOV on Wikipedia. Currently protected blank.
Voting is not only Evil, it's Stupid. Think, dammit.
- d.
Not all dissputes are over NPOV.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/27/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've deleted the scabrous template [[Template:Twoversions]] as a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View. It was voted "keep" on TFD, which is complete rubbish because eight people can't vote to violate NPOV on Wikipedia. Currently protected blank.
Voting is not only Evil, it's Stupid. Think, dammit.
- d.
Not all dissputes are over NPOV.
I have to concur. There are plenty of disputes over "facts" - I requested page protection for such an article the other day.
I propose re-creating {{twoversions}} as:
"The editors of this article are crazy and will be shot as soon as a rouge admin finds them. (Look, there's one! Under the big pile of hay in the barn! Quick, before 'e gets away! CHARGE!!!!!!1)"
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/27/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've deleted the scabrous template [[Template:Twoversions]] as a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View. It was voted "keep" on TFD, which is complete rubbish because eight people can't vote to violate NPOV on Wikipedia. Currently protected blank.
Voting is not only Evil, it's Stupid. Think, dammit.
I disagree with this; in my experience twoversions has been useful in providing transparency to the nature of a dispute over two distinct versions of an article. Differences of opinion over which version is more neutral are legitimate--balance is about judgement, not a black and white issue. There may also be differences over other issues, such as style. Most recently I used twoversions when an article rewrite was opposed. The dispute was over whether the correct definition of the subject of the article was being used.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I disagree with this; in my experience twoversions has been useful in providing transparency to the nature of a dispute over two distinct versions of an article. Differences of opinion over which version is more neutral are legitimate--balance is about judgement, not a black and white issue. There may also be differences over other issues, such as style. Most recently I used twoversions when an article rewrite was opposed. The dispute was over whether the correct definition of the subject of the article was being used.
I've used it too, though darned if I can remember what the article was at this point. The twoversions template didn't say anything about what the _nature_ of the dispute between the two versions was, and it doesn't give any indication that the two-version situation is good or permanent (perhaps more emphasis can be added when it's restored that it's only a temporary measure), so I don't think it'll be a tool for POV-splitting articles in the long run. Perhaps if someone thinks it might be they should check the articles that use it to see how long the template's been in use on each.
It isn't much use for 3 dissputes and I don't like anything that limits people to thinking there are only two posible outcomes.
geni
On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The twoversions template didn't say anything about what the _nature_ of the dispute between the two versions was, and it doesn't give any indication that the two-version situation is good or permanent (perhaps more emphasis can be added when it's restored that it's only a temporary measure), so I don't think it'll be a tool for POV-splitting articles in the long run. Perhaps if someone thinks it might be they should check the articles that use it to see how long the template's been in use on each.
The problem with {{twoversions}} is when it becomes a way of life for the article.
Too bad we can't rig it so the template explodes after seven days.
Kelly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The twoversions template didn't say anything about what the _nature_ of the dispute between the two versions was, and it doesn't give any indication that the two-version situation is good or permanent (perhaps more emphasis can be added when it's restored that it's only a temporary measure), so I don't think it'll be a tool for POV-splitting articles in the long run. Perhaps if someone thinks it might be they should check the articles that use it to see how long the template's been in use on each.
The problem with {{twoversions}} is when it becomes a way of life for the article.
Too bad we can't rig it so the template explodes after seven days.
I look forward to the day when Mediawiki becomes Turing-complete :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I look forward to the day when Mediawiki becomes Turing-complete :)
I've got a whole array of gmail account stacked up for the eventuality that one day their filtering system will become Turing-complete. I'm patient...