Jimmy Wales wrote:
I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!
- d.
On 1/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!
That seems to be the trend throughout Wikipedia; I'm sure that you can recall a number of cases in the recent past where trying to delete things without attempting to engage in discussion has caused trouble ;-)
The solution is to stop treating all of these issues with such urgency. Nobody will die because Article X or Category Y exist in a "bad" state for a few days while we talk things over.
Our byzantine system of deletion rules doesn't help, of course; there's an enormous benefit to getting an AFD result on something quickly, since it can then be used to bludgeon everyone else (with the "re-creation of deleted material" CSD clause, or simply to cry that there was "no consensus to delete/merge/whatever" if anyone tries to make major changes).
The other option would be to transwiki "Don't be a dick" back to en: and to link to it prominently on every policy page ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 1/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!
That seems to be the trend throughout Wikipedia; I'm sure that you can recall a number of cases in the recent past where trying to delete things without attempting to engage in discussion has caused trouble ;-)
The solution is to stop treating all of these issues with such urgency. Nobody will die because Article X or Category Y exist in a "bad" state for a few days while we talk things over.
Our byzantine system of deletion rules doesn't help, of course; there's an enormous benefit to getting an AFD result on something quickly, since it can then be used to bludgeon everyone else (with the "re-creation of deleted material" CSD clause, or simply to cry that there was "no consensus to delete/merge/whatever" if anyone tries to make major changes).
The other option would be to transwiki "Don't be a dick" back to en: and to link to it prominently on every policy page ;-)
Once I got *very* annoyed with an editor who had obviously not discovered the "Preview" button and whipped up {{preview}} to redirect to [[Wikipedia:Preview]] (or whatever it is); I then subst:ed it onto their talk page. IIRC I reverted myself, the template went to TfD, and was saved after I or someone else wrote something sensible there.
But yeah, I can see cases where subst:ing [[Wikipedia:Don't be a dick]] in all it's glory onto someone's talk page would have the desired effect.
On 1/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!
- d.
When someone is trying to inforce a bad idea on you it is general human respond in kind. Comunication lines do need to be improved. -- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 1/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!
- d.
When someone is trying to inforce a bad idea on you it is general human respond in kind. Comunication lines do need to be improved. -- geni
Yes, that makes sense when the idea is bad, but what about in this case?
- -- Sean Barrett | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun sean@epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Yes, that makes sense when the idea is bad, but what about in this case?
It is a bad idea. Unless there is a plan to change the way the software works wrt catigories. It won't even result in the creation of a useable list.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Yes, that makes sense when the idea is bad, but what about in this case?
It is a bad idea. Unless there is a plan to change the way the software works wrt catigories. It won't even result in the creation of a useable list.
I can't speak for Sean but as far as I can see, this thread is about an article which is on VfD for no discernable reason. I do not see how your objections to the creation of a category are relevant. Please take it to the relevant talk page.
--Jimbo
On 1/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I can't speak for Sean but as far as I can see, this thread is about an article which is on VfD for no discernable reason. I do not see how your objections to the creation of a category are relevant. Please take it to the relevant talk page.
--Jimbo
The start of this thread (at least as far as gmail is concerned) at least was about catigory listed on CFD. I was explaining people's behaviour. Trying to impose things from the top down out of the blue on a group that is as open as wikipedia tends to be is unlikely to work very well.
-- geni
On the CfD, I don't think that many of those engaged in the CfD realised how useful categories are within the database. With such category linking, it is pretty easy to produce comprehensive reports of living people, the amount of editing their articles get, and so on. We could if we decided to make an overnight decision to semiprotect all such articles, and I for one wouldn't object. But we could only do so if first we identified the articles on living people in a manner that enables them to be located quickly within our rather immense database.