maveric149 at yahoo.com:
"The ability to write good summaries is a rarer trait than the ability to write at length on a subject. Let those who can summarize help improve the article series by making it useful to people who don't want to read for an hour."
Are you saying that I can't. FYI, I've written dozens of brief articles on broad subjects too. I just don't list them on my user page because I don't want to give stalkers a guidebook.
-172
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access fights spam and pop-ups now 3 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
Abe Sokolov wrote:
maveric149 at yahoo.com:
"The ability to write good summaries is a rarer trait than the ability to write at length on a subject. Let those who can summarize help improve the article series by making it useful to people who don't want to read for an hour."
Are you saying that I can't. FYI, I've written dozens of brief articles on broad subjects too. I just don't list them on my user page because I don't want to give stalkers a guidebook.
I would prefer to take Mav's statement at the face value of a generality without any implicit criticism of you or anybody else. Personalizing somebody's general comments is not very encouraging for interwikipedian relations. O:-)
Ec
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Abe Sokolov wrote:
maveric149 at yahoo.com:
"The ability to write good summaries is a rarer trait than the ability to write at length on a subject. Let those who can summarize help improve the article series by making it useful to people who don't want to read for an hour."
Are you saying that I can't. FYI, I've written dozens of brief articles on broad subjects too. I just don't list them on my user page because I don't want to give stalkers a guidebook.
I would prefer to take Mav's statement at the face value of a generality without any implicit criticism of you or anybody else. Personalizing somebody's general comments is not very encouraging for interwikipedian relations. O:-)
Treating the topic as a personal afront appears to be 172's strategy in every interaction. One is left with one of two reactions: bewildered shock that one has inadvertently caused offense, or suspicion that 172 is acting in bad faith. I have offered evidence in my previous email why I embrace the latter interpretation, but here's one more example:
172 complains that he doesn't have the time to make certain changes in the article under discussion, & that the article isn't important enough for him to make them. Mav offers to do the work, & 172's response is to find offense.
I haven't written further about the matters of my earlier email to allow 172 time to respond to my accusations, but he has not seen fit to answer them, let alone acknowledge them. I assume that a lack of answer indicates his tacit consent to my charges.
Geoff
This may partially result from 172 attempting to do too much, editing and watching more articles than he has time to properly attend to. Proper attending to an article including the time and willingness to take time to discuss the article with others and accomodate others views in a graceful way. This was definitely a part of what we ran into with Wik.
Thus dispute resolution tends to be shortcutted with reverts and treats of reverts taking the place of discussion and research.
Fred
From: Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com Reply-To: Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:18:51 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: Summary style (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Response to Bryan Derken)
Treating the topic as a personal afront appears to be 172's strategy in every interaction. One is left with one of two reactions: bewildered shock that one has inadvertently caused offense, or suspicion that 172 is acting in bad faith. I have offered evidence in my previous email why I embrace the latter interpretation, but here's one more example:
172 complains that he doesn't have the time to make certain changes in the article under discussion, & that the article isn't important enough for him to make them. Mav offers to do the work, & 172's response is to find offense.
I haven't written further about the matters of my earlier email to allow 172 time to respond to my accusations, but he has not seen fit to answer them, let alone acknowledge them. I assume that a lack of answer indicates his tacit consent to my charges.
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Abe Sokolov wrote:
maveric149 at yahoo.com:
"The ability to write good summaries is a rarer trait than the ability to write at length on a subject. Let those who can summarize help improve the article series by making it useful to people who don't want to read for an hour."
Are you saying that I can't. FYI, I've written dozens of brief articles on broad subjects too. I just don't list them on my user page because I don't want to give stalkers a guidebook.
I would prefer to take Mav's statement at the face value of a generality without any implicit criticism of you or anybody else. Personalizing somebody's general comments is not very encouraging for interwikipedian relations. O:-)
Treating the topic as a personal afront appears to be 172's strategy in every interaction. One is left with one of two reactions: bewildered shock that one has inadvertently caused offense, or suspicion that 172 is acting in bad faith. I have offered evidence in my previous email why I embrace the latter interpretation, but here's one more example:
172 complains that he doesn't have the time to make certain changes in the article under discussion, & that the article isn't important enough for him to make them. Mav offers to do the work, & 172's response is to find offense.
I haven't written further about the matters of my earlier email to allow 172 time to respond to my accusations, but he has not seen fit to answer them, let alone acknowledge them. I assume that a lack of answer indicates his tacit consent to my charges.
The problem here is in assuming bad faith. Personal affront strikes me as an expected by-product of a siege mentality when faced with attacks from a broad range of sources. No-one can keep up with detailed responses to the volume of material that has emerged on 172's behaviour in respect of a wide range of historical articles. Attempting to answer everything only increases the probability of further offence in both directions. A kind of positive feedback loop. When the auditorium speakers start screeching the worst thing you can do is keep talking into the microphone. Ec
On 06/10/04 04:18, Geoff Burling wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Abe Sokolov wrote:
maveric149 at yahoo.com:
"The ability to write good summaries is a rarer trait than the ability to write at length on a subject. Let those who can summarize help improve the article series by making it useful to people who don't want to read for an hour."
Are you saying that I can't. FYI, I've written dozens of brief
I would prefer to take Mav's statement at the face value of a generality
Treating the topic as a personal afront appears to be 172's strategy in every interaction. One is left with one of two reactions: bewildered shock that one has inadvertently caused offense, or suspicion that 172 is acting in bad faith. I have offered evidence in my previous email why I embrace the latter interpretation, but here's one more example: 172 complains that he doesn't have the time to make certain changes in the article under discussion, & that the article isn't important enough for him to make them. Mav offers to do the work, & 172's response is to find offense.
I don't think it's bad faith at all. Although the effects are often indistinguishable, the motivation is important.
User:172 is annoying and arbitrary. But I'm sure Abe Solokov is in fact a fine fellow. There's something about the Internet hothouse social environment that sets some people off.
Abe: when people make personal attacks on 172, you really do have to imitate a duck's back and let it roll off.
172 just doesn't seem to get the [[Cathedral and the Bazaar]]. One's edits, style and formatting have to be intuitively obviously a good idea to a random editor a year hence. Reverting in a territorial fashion because it's decided in one's own mind is an example of not being able to work with others.
(I am trying to go easier on [[Linux]] when the [[GNU]] partisans - who I in fact agree with on the [[GNU/Linux naming controversy]] - change the whole article while introducing grammatical errors into *every sentence edited*.)
I present to you an essay: "What Makes A Fuckhead?" by David Kendrick. (Warning: contains salty language.)
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fuckhead.html
It works better if you think of it as an adjective not a noun, e.g. "Am I having an attack of fuckhead today?" I catch myself a lot.
The primary Internet social skill is to (0) accept that "My God! It's full of idiots!" and (1) be able to cope with the fact. "Staying cool when the editing gets hot."
(This is a very rough draft of a prospective pompous essay on the subject. Acerbic editorial demolition welcomed.)
- d.
ps: trolls are NO trouble compared to the people described above. Trolls sometimes rest.