On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And naturally it's gone as a result of what looks to me like a rather messy process.
The 14th AfD just closed.
That says a lot. Why should the 14th AfD be any different from all the other AfDs?
And furthermore, the article's been around since September 2005 so that means on average it's gone up for AfD roughly every 1.3 months. Some sort of rate limit would be nice.
I agree. A four month moratorium following a "Keep", or two months after a "no consensus" seems plenty to me. Maybe 6 and 3 respectively.
The other change I'd really like to see to the AfD process is that, following a "Keep" result, there should be a presumption against deletion in further AfDs, with the preferred remedy (if remedy proves necessary) being restoration to the version of the article that was Kept. Otherwise, you get silly situations like this where people keep going and going until they eventually get the result they want.
On 6/14/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
The other change I'd really like to see to the AfD process is that, following a "Keep" result, there should be a presumption against deletion in further AfDs, with the preferred remedy (if remedy proves necessary) being restoration to the version of the article that was Kept. Otherwise, you get silly situations like this where people keep going and going until they eventually get the result they want.
Indeed, in the majority of cases, reverting to a good version should always considered as an alternative to deletion.
—C.W.
I think that a presumption of no AFD deletion for the same policy reason is a great idea, but not across the board. If someone brings up an AFD for a new reason, it should be eligible. But definitely not for the exact same reason infinitely. That's the problem that is going on as we speak for Conservapedia. Some new user is disregarding the results of the previous three or four AFD's and is once again saying it doesn't meet the qualifications for inclusion that were exactly the same as the AFD's that resulted in Keep. Preventing AFD's on the same policy might also work to make nominators be more clear about referring to policy in their reasoning for deletion. - VanTucky
On 6/14/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And naturally it's gone as a result of what looks to me like a rather messy process.
The 14th AfD just closed.
That says a lot. Why should the 14th AfD be any different from all the other AfDs?
And furthermore, the article's been around since September 2005 so that means on average it's gone up for AfD roughly every 1.3 months. Some sort of rate limit would be nice.
I agree. A four month moratorium following a "Keep", or two months after a "no consensus" seems plenty to me. Maybe 6 and 3 respectively.
The other change I'd really like to see to the AfD process is that, following a "Keep" result, there should be a presumption against deletion in further AfDs, with the preferred remedy (if remedy proves necessary) being restoration to the version of the article that was Kept. Otherwise, you get silly situations like this where people keep going and going until they eventually get the result they want.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
I think that a presumption of no AFD deletion for the same policy reason is a great idea, but not across the board. If someone brings up an AFD for a new reason, it should be eligible. But definitely not for the exact same reason infinitely. That's the problem that is going on as we speak for Conservapedia. Some new user is disregarding the results of the previous three or four AFD's and is once again saying it doesn't meet the qualifications for inclusion that were exactly the same as the AFD's that resulted in Keep. Preventing AFD's on the same policy might also work to make nominators be more clear about referring to policy in their reasoning for deletion. - VanTucky
You underestimate how resourceful determined people can be when they are looking for new excuses to delete something. If there are multiple reasons for deleting something the proposers should put them all on the table right from the beginning, and not dragging the community painfully through a one-by-one seriues of excuses.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
I think that a presumption of no AFD deletion for the same policy reason is a great idea, but not across the board. If someone brings up an AFD for a new reason, it should be eligible. But definitely not for the exact same reason infinitely. That's the problem that is going on as we speak for Conservapedia. Some new user is disregarding the results of the previous three or four AFD's and is once again saying it doesn't meet the qualifications for inclusion that were exactly the same as the AFD's that resulted in Keep. Preventing AFD's on the same policy might also work to make nominators be more clear about referring to policy in their reasoning for deletion. - VanTucky
You underestimate how resourceful determined people can be when they are looking for new excuses to delete something. If there are multiple reasons for deleting something the proposers should put them all on the table right from the beginning, and not dragging the community painfully through a one-by-one seriues of excuses.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'd generally tend more to say "Anyone who cannot accept that consensus could conceivably change on anything, any day, and that no decisions are final, probably is working on the wrong project." Don't necessarily like that sometimes, but I really don't see it being changed or [[Wikipedia:Binding decisions]] getting made into policy anytime very soon.
That being said, I -would- like to see previous discussions on a matter considered when someone starts a new one. If strong consensus was already at one point reached on something, no one's saying you -can't- overturn it-but you'll need an even stronger consensus that it hasn't worked and it's time to change or overturn. If no consensus forms with the new discussion, the status quo is left intact.
(Of course, this presumes we don't go with Slim/Tony's well-intentioned but truly awful "All Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal than others" proposal.)
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'd generally tend more to say "Anyone who cannot accept that consensus could conceivably change on anything, any day, and that no decisions are final, probably is working on the wrong project." Don't necessarily like that sometimes, but I really don't see it being changed or [[Wikipedia:Binding decisions]] getting made into policy anytime very soon.
The idea that the recent Daniel Brandt deletion resembles anything like a changed consensus is, frankly, absurd. It was nothing but deletion by attrition and broken process.
Perhaps the article should have been deleted, perhaps not. But those who proudly point to the Brandt AfD as a sign of policy maturity are misguided; indeed, the Brandt deletion wars only showcase some of the fundamentally mistaken assumptions in the AfD process.
The most serious one among these is: a single person should be the final arbiter of something that hundreds of community members have debated for weeks. Contentious AfDs should _always_ be closed in a more deliberate process involving a small group of trusted editors who are _not_ self-selected.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'd generally tend more to say "Anyone who cannot accept that consensus could conceivably change on anything, any day, and that no decisions are final, probably is working on the wrong project." Don't necessarily like that sometimes, but I really don't see it being changed or [[Wikipedia:Binding decisions]] getting made into policy anytime very soon.
The idea that the recent Daniel Brandt deletion resembles anything like a changed consensus is, frankly, absurd. It was nothing but deletion by attrition and broken process.
Perhaps the article should have been deleted, perhaps not. But those who proudly point to the Brandt AfD as a sign of policy maturity are misguided; indeed, the Brandt deletion wars only showcase some of the fundamentally mistaken assumptions in the AfD process.
It would be wrong to treat the Brandt process as typical of anything. Too many people were too emotionally involved for it to resemble anything that happens anywhere else. Looking at what happens in a smooth delete and a smooth keep would be more instructive.
Ec
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:26:05 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
The other change I'd really like to see to the AfD process is that, following a "Keep" result, there should be a presumption against deletion in further AfDs
There already is, in *all* AfDs, not just previously-kept.
Guy (JzG)
On 20/06/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:26:05 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
The other change I'd really like to see to the AfD process is that, following a "Keep" result, there should be a presumption against deletion in further AfDs
There already is, in *all* AfDs, not just previously-kept.
Yes, but you cunningly snipped the part of the sentence that contained my actual point: "with the preferred remedy (if remedy proves necessary) being restoration to the version of the article that was [previously] Kept."
We should certainly consider changing the deletion process. I'd favor a switch to "default to delete" for biographical articles.
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We should certainly consider changing the deletion process. I'd favor a switch to "default to delete" for biographical articles.
Define "biographical".
See I think depending on the defintion this may be an ah interesting time to reopen the schools debate.
On 6/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We should certainly consider changing the deletion process. I'd favor a switch to "default to delete" for biographical articles.
Define "biographical".
Primarily I'm thinking about living biographies. If an article is substantially a description of events in the life of a living person, then we should perhaps consider "if in doubt, delete". We already have a "Living people" category so in most cases it should be easy enough to identify such articles.
See I think depending on the defintion this may be an ah interesting time to reopen the schools debate.
I think it's still running. Generally those articles aren't biographies, however, so I don't really understand the relevance, if any.
if in doubt, delete? are you kidding me? you can't just have a blanket rule just totally disregards the individual circumstances and merit of individual articles. It's a complete violation of the discussion process that makes Wikipedia what it is.
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We should certainly consider changing the deletion process. I'd favor a switch to "default to delete" for biographical articles.
Define "biographical".
Primarily I'm thinking about living biographies. If an article is substantially a description of events in the life of a living person, then we should perhaps consider "if in doubt, delete". We already have a "Living people" category so in most cases it should be easy enough to identify such articles.
See I think depending on the defintion this may be an ah interesting time to reopen the schools debate.
I think it's still running. Generally those articles aren't biographies, however, so I don't really understand the relevance, if any.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
besides, not everyone is a deletionist Tony...
On 6/20/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
if in doubt, delete? are you kidding me? you can't just have a blanket rule just totally disregards the individual circumstances and merit of individual articles. It's a complete violation of the discussion process that makes Wikipedia what it is.
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We should certainly consider changing the deletion process. I'd
favor
a switch to "default to delete" for biographical articles.
Define "biographical".
Primarily I'm thinking about living biographies. If an article is substantially a description of events in the life of a living person, then we should perhaps consider "if in doubt, delete". We already have a "Living people" category so in most cases it should be easy enough to identify such articles.
See I think depending on the defintion this may be an ah interesting time to reopen the schools debate.
I think it's still running. Generally those articles aren't biographies, however, so I don't really understand the relevance, if any.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/20/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
besides, not everyone is a deletionist Tony...
I am not a deletionist, indeed I'm normally considered to be an inclusionist.
The issue here is how we handle biographies of living persons. I agree that it's a tricky one, but I think we're reaching the point where we should consider extending Jimmy Wales' "better nothing than something potentially harmful" principle, concerning biographical articles, to deletion policy.
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
besides, not everyone is a deletionist Tony...
I am not a deletionist, indeed I'm normally considered to be an inclusionist.
The issue here is how we handle biographies of living persons. I agree that it's a tricky one, but I think we're reaching the point where we should consider extending Jimmy Wales' "better nothing than something potentially harmful" principle, concerning biographical articles, to deletion policy.
Everything is potentially harmful.
On 6/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The issue here is how we handle biographies of living persons. I agree that it's a tricky one, but I think we're reaching the point where we should consider extending Jimmy Wales' "better nothing than something potentially harmful" principle, concerning biographical articles, to deletion policy.
Everything is potentially harmful.
Absolutely. We seek to minimise the potential harm where that is possible without compromising the encyclopedia.
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We seek to minimise the potential harm where that is possible without compromising the encyclopedia.
As soon as you bring in things not directly related to writing the encyclopedia in (and do no harm isn't at least outside the article on wicca) you compromise the encyclopedia.
On 6/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We seek to minimise the potential harm where that is possible without compromising the encyclopedia.
As soon as you bring in things not directly related to writing the encyclopedia in (and do no harm isn't at least outside the article on wicca) you compromise the encyclopedia.
I think this is true only if you think that information is neutral, irrespective of the form of presentation. Why would I not want to put my son's excellent academic record, or my beautiful and talented daughter's photograph, on a notice on every telegraph pole in my neighborhood? I've nothing to be ashamed of, I'm a proud father, and they're both adults, so why don't I just go ahead and do that?
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We seek to minimise the potential harm where that is possible without compromising the encyclopedia.
As soon as you bring in things not directly related to writing the encyclopedia in (and do no harm isn't at least outside the article on wicca) you compromise the encyclopedia.
I think this is true only if you think that information is neutral, irrespective of the form of presentation. Why would I not want to put my son's excellent academic record, or my beautiful and talented daughter's photograph, on a notice on every telegraph pole in my neighborhood? I've nothing to be ashamed of, I'm a proud father, and they're both adults, so why don't I just go ahead and do that?
I hope you ask them before you do that. You could be attracting the wrong crowd.
Ec
On 6/21/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We seek to minimise the potential harm where that is possible without compromising the encyclopedia.
As soon as you bring in things not directly related to writing the encyclopedia in (and do no harm isn't at least outside the article on wicca) you compromise the encyclopedia.
I think this is true only if you think that information is neutral, irrespective of the form of presentation. Why would I not want to put my son's excellent academic record, or my beautiful and talented daughter's photograph, on a notice on every telegraph pole in my neighborhood? I've nothing to be ashamed of, I'm a proud father, and they're both adults, so why don't I just go ahead and do that?
I hope you ask them before you do that. You could be attracting the wrong crowd.
They know they can trust their dad. I'm proud but not stupid.
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is true only if you think that information is neutral, irrespective of the form of presentation. Why would I not want to put my son's excellent academic record, or my beautiful and talented daughter's photograph, on a notice on every telegraph pole in my neighborhood? I've nothing to be ashamed of, I'm a proud father, and they're both adults, so why don't I just go ahead and do that?
You would probably run into your local anti-littering laws. There would also be various issues of image rights by WP:V should keep wikipedia covered in that respect.
On 6/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is true only if you think that information is neutral, irrespective of the form of presentation. Why would I not want to put my son's excellent academic record, or my beautiful and talented daughter's photograph, on a notice on every telegraph pole in my neighborhood? I've nothing to be ashamed of, I'm a proud father, and they're both adults, so why don't I just go ahead and do that?
You would probably run into your local anti-littering laws. There would also be various issues of image rights by WP:V should keep wikipedia covered in that respect.
Questioning the legality is avoiding the question. I don't put that information on my web page, either, and that's completely legal.
By "WP:V" I assume you mean the verifiability policy. Well in many cases information about relatively private people is quite verifiable, because it appears in medical case studies and in newspapers. A person's name is splashed all over the newspapers because he survives the Virginia Tech massacre. Do we put his name into the encyclopedia? I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Questioning the legality is avoiding the question. I don't put that information on my web page, either, and that's completely legal.
Eh under UK law there are some potential civil issues but that is a matter for you and anyone else involved.
By "WP:V" I assume you mean the verifiability policy. Well in many cases information about relatively private people is quite verifiable, because it appears in medical case studies and in newspapers. A person's name is splashed all over the newspapers because he survives the Virginia Tech massacre. Do we put his name into the encyclopedia?
That would rather depend on the context. We mention that John Hopgood was hurt by an exploding cannon although it appears that history records nothing else about the man.
I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
Cataloguing runs into the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
We are however meant to be writing a neutral encyclopedia and that means writing it in a neutral manner.
On 6/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
By "WP:V" I assume you mean the verifiability policy. Well in many cases information about relatively private people is quite verifiable, because it appears in medical case studies and in newspapers. A person's name is splashed all over the newspapers because he survives the Virginia Tech massacre. Do we put his name into the encyclopedia?
That would rather depend on the context. We mention that John Hopgood was hurt by an exploding cannon although it appears that history records nothing else about the man.
We don't seem to have an article on the fellow. I see that he's mentioned in the article on the contruction of the Rolle Canal, about 180 years ago.
I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
Cataloguing runs into the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
We are however meant to be writing a neutral encyclopedia and that means writing it in a neutral manner.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni wrote:
I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
Cataloguing runs into the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
What's indiscriminate about cataloguing?
Ec
Yes, cataloging is the basic way of discrimination about what's important. We see what's there and we sort it out. As we are interested into providing an encyclopedia for reading as well as reference, and not just a biographical database, we need to sort biographies into manageable units, which means selecting the ones important enough to any significant group of the users of the encyclopedia to be worth the attention. We are not writing it as a Book of judgement, we are writing it just as a non-authoritative online encyclopedia for the purpose of being used. We are not judging DB, or anyone else. We are recording what is said about people for the befit of those who will read it.
Some of the arguments here seem to be taking WP too seriously. We want to be used, so we want to be --and be perceived as being -- objective, and fair, and reasonable, and unprejudiced and uncensored. Those are the principles on which we should form our ethics.
On 6/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
Cataloguing runs into the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
What's indiscriminate about cataloguing?
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/21/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
Cataloguing runs into the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
What's indiscriminate about cataloguing?
Ec
The way it appears to be done with regards to the archives of the various formally nationalised industries in the UK.
On 21/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Cataloguing runs into the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
What's indiscriminate about cataloguing?
Ec
The way it appears to be done with regards to the archives of the various formally nationalised industries in the UK.
One example of something being done badly does not mean you can redefine the concept to mean "is done badly"...
On 6/21/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Cataloguing runs into the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
What's indiscriminate about cataloguing?
Ec
The way it appears to be done with regards to the archives of the various formally nationalised industries in the UK.
One example of something being done badly does not mean you can redefine the concept to mean "is done badly"...
Okay that was the jokey answer. The serious answer is that a catalogue of concerned with the entire contents of any given set and not so much with the encyclopedicnes of items within that set.
For example: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/heritage/lbsearch.htm http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/heritage/colsearch.htm
Although useful (since under UK law you can view any item on the list on pain of the owner having to pay tax on it) have no place in Wikipedia (although the general law involved probably does).
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is true only if you think that information is neutral, irrespective of the form of presentation. Why would I not want to put my son's excellent academic record, or my beautiful and talented daughter's photograph, on a notice on every telegraph pole in my neighborhood? I've nothing to be ashamed of, I'm a proud father, and they're both adults, so why don't I just go ahead and do that?
You would probably run into your local anti-littering laws. There would also be various issues of image rights by WP:V should keep wikipedia covered in that respect.
Questioning the legality is avoiding the question. I don't put that information on my web page, either, and that's completely legal.
By "WP:V" I assume you mean the verifiability policy. Well in many cases information about relatively private people is quite verifiable, because it appears in medical case studies and in newspapers. A person's name is splashed all over the newspapers because he survives the Virginia Tech massacre. Do we put his name into the encyclopedia? I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not sure there's any "ethical issue" there at all. As you stated, those peoples' names are very well-known already. I would tend to agree that we shouldn't present a "biography" of such since we can't present a complete one, but not even mentioning the names? That does indeed serve an encyclopedic purpose-making things easier, for example, for a future researcher who might be looking into the massacre, or wishes to follow up. I would think that would outweigh any "ethical" considerations of-what? Republishing already published information?
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
By "WP:V" I assume you mean the verifiability policy. Well in many cases information about relatively private people is quite verifiable, because it appears in medical case studies and in newspapers. A person's name is splashed all over the newspapers because he survives the Virginia Tech massacre. Do we put his name into the encyclopedia? I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
I'm not sure there's any "ethical issue" there at all. As you stated, those peoples' names are very well-known already. I would tend to agree that we shouldn't present a "biography" of such since we can't present a complete one, but not even mentioning the names? That does indeed serve an encyclopedic purpose-making things easier, for example, for a future researcher who might be looking into the massacre, or wishes to follow up. I would think that would outweigh any "ethical" considerations of-what? Republishing already published information?
Our references contain the names, so future researchers can obtain them. Meanwhile we're one of the most popular websites on the internet so putting the names of those individuals here instead of some obscure newspaper archive does raise ethical questions.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
By "WP:V" I assume you mean the verifiability policy. Well in many cases information about relatively private people is quite verifiable, because it appears in medical case studies and in newspapers. A person's name is splashed all over the newspapers because he survives the Virginia Tech massacre. Do we put his name into the encyclopedia? I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question involved in such an act. It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as we sometimes like to pretend.
I'm not sure there's any "ethical issue" there at all. As you stated, those peoples' names are very well-known already. I would tend to agree that we shouldn't present a "biography" of such since we can't present a complete one, but not even mentioning the names? That does indeed serve an encyclopedic purpose-making things easier, for example, for a future researcher who might be looking into the massacre, or wishes to follow up. I would think that would outweigh any "ethical" considerations of-what? Republishing already published information?
Our references contain the names, so future researchers can obtain them. Meanwhile we're one of the most popular websites on the internet so putting the names of those individuals here instead of some obscure newspaper archive does raise ethical questions.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Alright, then you tell me, Tony, since I've seen you, Doc, and a few others continually try to proof-by-assertion this. What -is- the ethical question? The information is already easily available to anyone who wishes to find it, so right-to-privacy doesn't hold. (We're not talking about digging through some obscure town's archives to find these people's names here, a quick Google search will do.) Their names are already widely available and distributed on the web.
Others? Presumably, we weren't saying anything libelous or slanderous about them, and if we were that could have been simply fixed by editing. The main "ethical issue" I see here is such a thing being rammed through, without attempt at community-wide discussion or debate. Put it on the watchlist header. See if the community -wants- this (the whole community, not the OTRS subset). But don't just claim "ethics"-you keep on using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Personally, I would be fully in agreement with moving or merging "event" articles presented as biographies to a title reflecting the event, or merging them into an article about the event, with the name left as a redirect. But we shouldn't wholesale delete the information if it's well-sourced. You asked for an encyclopedic purpose. I gave you one, specifically, precision. (By your logic, all of our information in every article is (or should be) in the references and external links, so we should simply have a list of those, and not put in any prose at all!) We're not a directory to other sites, we're an -encyclopedia-. And part of a reference work's task is to be precise. Put the exact number. Name the name. Use the precision scientific terminology. Put down the exact formula.
I agree with you on some things, Tony, but this has gone much, much too far. Please, would you be willing to slow down, get this discussed (by the WIDER community, those who may not routinely know policy gets discussed until they run headfirst into it), and put it on the watchlist notice? This is certainly a far more major change than ATT (after all, that just consolidated -existing- policy into one page without changing it), and that merited a watchlist notice. Let's do that again, and let's really see what people think. Not just the ArbCom, not just OTRS, but everyone as a whole. Maybe it'll turn out you're right! If people turn out overwhelmingly in support of your position, you'll likely never run into significant resistance again. On the other hand, if it turns out there really isn't any consensus, maybe time to rethink.
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What -is- the ethical question? The information is already easily available to anyone who wishes to find it, so right-to-privacy doesn't hold.
Actually, it does. We are not a newspaper archive and our standards are not theirs. If we do not need to use the names of living private individuals, we should not do so, because *every* publication of information about a private individual diminishes his privacy, and while we are not in a position to control the contents of many newspaper archives, we certainly are in complete control of one of the most popular information sources on the planet. We should not needlessly compromise privacy.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What -is- the ethical question? The information is already easily available to anyone who wishes to find it, so right-to-privacy doesn't hold.
Actually, it does. We are not a newspaper archive and our standards are not theirs. If we do not need to use the names of living private individuals, we should not do so, because *every* publication of information about a private individual diminishes his privacy, and while we are not in a position to control the contents of many newspaper archives, we certainly are in complete control of one of the most popular information sources on the planet. We should not needlessly compromise privacy.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Needlessly, no. Which is why we shouldn't go digging through some town's court records and publish a "List of people convicted of speeding in Podunk in 1994."
On the other hand, in this case, there is a need and a rationale. You can argue that your consideration -competes- with that need, and it may turn out others agree with you. But as I said, that's a discussion which should be held by the community as a whole. I have a suspicion a whole lot of people don't know this discussion is going on and won't like it once it hits them over the head. Put it on the watchlist notice. If you're as right as you think you are, you'll just get unequivocal support from the whole community!
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What -is- the ethical question? The information is already easily available to anyone who wishes to find it, so right-to-privacy doesn't hold.
Actually, it does. We are not a newspaper archive and our standards are not theirs. If we do not need to use the names of living private individuals, we should not do so, because *every* publication of information about a private individual diminishes his privacy, and while we are not in a position to control the contents of many newspaper archives, we certainly are in complete control of one of the most popular information sources on the planet. We should not needlessly compromise privacy.
I can only agree with that for some value of "needlessly". While there are some cases where there's absolutely no benefit to adding a name to an article, and other cases where there's absolutely no point in having an article without having a name, it's those in-between cases that are the ones where we have to make a judgment.
On 6/22/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What -is- the ethical question? The information is already easily available to anyone who wishes to find it, so right-to-privacy doesn't hold.
Actually, it does. We are not a newspaper archive and our standards are not theirs. If we do not need to use the names of living private individuals, we should not do so, because *every* publication of information about a private individual diminishes his privacy, and while we are not in a position to control the contents of many newspaper archives, we certainly are in complete control of one of the most popular information sources on the planet. We should not needlessly compromise privacy.
I can only agree with that for some value of "needlessly". While there are some cases where there's absolutely no benefit to adding a name to an article, and other cases where there's absolutely no point in having an article without having a name, it's those in-between cases that are the ones where we have to make a judgment.
Absolutely. The key is that we should always ask ourselves if including the names of private individuals is necessary for completeness. Usually it isn't.
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What -is- the ethical question? The information is already easily available to anyone who wishes to find it, so right-to-privacy doesn't hold.
Actually, it does. We are not a newspaper archive and our standards are not theirs. If we do not need to use the names of living private individuals, we should not do so, because *every* publication of information about a private individual diminishes his privacy, and while we are not in a position to control the contents of many newspaper archives, we certainly are in complete control of one of the most popular information sources on the planet. We should not needlessly compromise privacy.
I can only agree with that for some value of "needlessly". While there are some cases where there's absolutely no benefit to adding a name to an article, and other cases where there's absolutely no point in having an article without having a name, it's those in-between cases that are the ones where we have to make a judgment.
Absolutely. The key is that we should always ask ourselves if including the names of private individuals is necessary for completeness. Usually it isn't.
I wouldn't say "usually" Human beings are primarily interested in other human beings, and usually remember events by the names of the participants (rather than the place or the date), and to understand the event in terms of its effects on individual people, not a discussion with all the names cunningly avoided.
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What -is- the ethical question? The information is already easily available to anyone who wishes to find it, so right-to-privacy doesn't hold.
Actually, it does. We are not a newspaper archive and our standards are not theirs. If we do not need to use the names of living private individuals, we should not do so, because *every* publication of information about a private individual diminishes his privacy, and while we are not in a position to control the contents of many newspaper archives, we certainly are in complete control of one of the most popular information sources on the planet. We should not needlessly compromise privacy.
I can only agree with that for some value of "needlessly". While there are some cases where there's absolutely no benefit to adding a name to an article, and other cases where there's absolutely no point in having an article without having a name, it's those in-between cases that are the ones where we have to make a judgment.
Absolutely. The key is that we should always ask ourselves if including the names of private individuals is necessary for completeness. Usually it isn't.
When dealing with information which has already been published elsewhere, I put the balancing question closer to whether or not including the name of the individual makes a better encyclopedia article. Usually it does.
Anthony wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What -is- the ethical question? The information is already easily available to anyone who wishes to find it, so right-to-privacy doesn't hold.
Actually, it does. We are not a newspaper archive and our standards are not theirs. If we do not need to use the names of living private individuals, we should not do so, because *every* publication of information about a private individual diminishes his privacy, and while we are not in a position to control the contents of many newspaper archives, we certainly are in complete control of one of the most popular information sources on the planet. We should not needlessly compromise privacy.
I can only agree with that for some value of "needlessly". While there are some cases where there's absolutely no benefit to adding a name to an article, and other cases where there's absolutely no point in having an article without having a name, it's those in-between cases that are the ones where we have to make a judgment.
Absolutely. The key is that we should always ask ourselves if including the names of private individuals is necessary for completeness. Usually it isn't.
When dealing with information which has already been published elsewhere, I put the balancing question closer to whether or not including the name of the individual makes a better encyclopedia article. Usually it does.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One would certainly think so. I think the questions would be "Is it necessary to carefully craft and twist the prose in order to avoid the names? Do people keep adding them in, thinking they're helping out? Would a reader expect to see names in such an article and be surprised to find them missing (and, again, perhaps add them)? Do most or all of the sources I'm using mention someone(s) by name?"
The more of those that are a yes, the more likely you should mention specific names. If they're all yes, it's almost a lock-the names effectively must be used for the sake of accuracy, completeness, and reflection of sourcing. We shouldn't sensationalize, but that doesn't mean we need to bowdlerize.
Um, acutally "anyone can edit" i.e. any user can create a new article, is exactly the reverse side to the right to nominate for deletion. and that's exactly what it means. nomination for AFD isn't a crazy unilateral power overload to new users. when new users nominate for deletion for obviously stupid reasons, it is speedily knocked down (like the last AFD for Conservapedia). Taking away the right to remove articles is just one step down the slippery slope of removing the right to create articles...and then edit articles at all (without meeting some absurd bureaucratic meritocracy or arbitrary time limit).
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We seek to minimise the potential harm where that is possible without compromising the encyclopedia.
As soon as you bring in things not directly related to writing the encyclopedia in (and do no harm isn't at least outside the article on wicca) you compromise the encyclopedia.
I think this is true only if you think that information is neutral, irrespective of the form of presentation. Why would I not want to put my son's excellent academic record, or my beautiful and talented daughter's photograph, on a notice on every telegraph pole in my neighborhood? I've nothing to be ashamed of, I'm a proud father, and they're both adults, so why don't I just go ahead and do that?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We seek to minimise the potential harm where that is possible without compromising the encyclopedia.
As soon as you bring in things not directly related to writing the encyclopedia in (and do no harm isn't at least outside the article on wicca) you compromise the encyclopedia.
It's a pity that our first step was to compromise it so immensely by all that "free content" rules, then.
Geni, there are no hard and fast lines. We shouldn't avoid making policies because we can't define the edge cases - as with your worries about people creatively misinterpreting the living-people rules to somehow prevent us writing about anything organic - and we shouldn't avoid making them because they won't make the project divinely perfect at a stroke.
No silly attempt to misread or twist the rules to the detriment of the project will last against common sense. (Well, not on a statistically significant rate. Two million pages is always hard to say absolutely never...)
On 6/21/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It's a pity that our first step was to compromise it so immensely by all that "free content" rules, then.
Our aim is to produce a free encyclopedia so no conflict with underlying aims.
Geni, there are no hard and fast lines.
Or you don't want there to be.
We shouldn't avoid making policies because we can't define the edge cases
Generally it is best to write policies with the minimum possible number of edge cases.
- as with your worries
about people creatively misinterpreting the living-people rules to somehow prevent us writing about anything organic - and we shouldn't avoid making them because they won't make the project divinely perfect at a stroke.
No silly attempt to misread or twist the rules to the detriment of the project will last against common sense.
8000 years of human history suggests otherwise. Power will be abused that is a given. Why do you think that traditional policy so limited what admins could so.
Common sense will be the rallying cry of those abusing the powers remember:
[[Wikipedia:There is no common sense]]
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We should certainly consider changing the deletion process. I'd favor a switch to "default to delete" for biographical articles.
Define "biographical".
Primarily I'm thinking about living biographies. If an article is substantially a description of events in the life of a living person, then we should perhaps consider "if in doubt, delete". We already have a "Living people" category so in most cases it should be easy enough to identify such articles.
I think "if in doubt, delete" is a bit too far - "majority rules" would be better IMO, but if we're going to drastically alter deletion standards we should probably consider doing away with the whole concept of letting any idiot who creates an account vote on such a matter.
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Primarily I'm thinking about living biographies. If an article is substantially a description of events in the life of a living person, then we should perhaps consider "if in doubt, delete". We already have a "Living people" category so in most cases it should be easy enough to identify such articles.
Groovy so delete every article on an election (bound to have a negative portrayal of someone). I rather doubt that le Pen likes our article on the last french presidential election.
I think it's still running. Generally those articles aren't biographies, however, so I don't really understand the relevance, if any.
They generally contain biographical details such as say alumni or stuff about the head.
doing away with the whole concept of letting "any idiot" who creates an account vote on such a
matter?
You mean like creating a hated cabal of long-term users or admins who are the only ones who can delete articles? sounds just great, and really in line with whole "anyone can edit" idea.
On 6/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Primarily I'm thinking about living biographies. If an article is substantially a description of events in the life of a living person, then we should perhaps consider "if in doubt, delete". We already have a "Living people" category so in most cases it should be easy enough to identify such articles.
Groovy so delete every article on an election (bound to have a negative portrayal of someone). I rather doubt that le Pen likes our article on the last french presidential election.
I think it's still running. Generally those articles aren't biographies, however, so I don't really understand the relevance, if any.
They generally contain biographical details such as say alumni or stuff about the head.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/20/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
doing away with the whole concept of letting "any idiot" who creates an account vote on such a
matter?
You mean like creating a hated cabal of long-term users or admins who are the only ones who can delete articles?
No, there wouldn't be anything secret about it.
sounds just great, and really in line with whole "anyone can edit" idea.
"Anyone can edit" doesn't imply "anyone can delete". Never has.
Steven Walling wrote:
doing away with the whole concept of letting "any idiot" who creates an account vote on such a
matter?
You mean like creating a hated cabal of long-term users or admins who are the only ones who can delete articles? sounds just great, and really in line with whole "anyone can edit" idea.
Like telling them that a part of accepting that we are all equals includes accepting that some are more equal than others.. ;-)
Ec
On 6/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Primarily I'm thinking about living biographies. If an article is substantially a description of events in the life of a living person, then we should perhaps consider "if in doubt, delete". We already have a "Living people" category so in most cases it should be easy enough to identify such articles.
Groovy so delete every article on an election (bound to have a negative portrayal of someone). I rather doubt that le Pen likes our article on the last french presidential election.
I think you're reaching here. "United Kingdom general election, February 1974" is not in category "Living people". It focuses on the events and only mentions the people as participants.
I think it's still running. Generally those articles aren't biographies, however, so I don't really understand the relevance, if any.
They generally contain biographical details such as say alumni or stuff about the head.
Such material would be generally unproblematic and any problems that did crop up could be handled by editing. A bit like the general election article above.
The "do no harm" thing is already policy in the BLP Tony.
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Primarily I'm thinking about living biographies. If an article is substantially a description of events in the life of a living person, then we should perhaps consider "if in doubt, delete". We already have a "Living people" category so in most cases it should be easy enough to identify such articles.
Groovy so delete every article on an election (bound to have a negative portrayal of someone). I rather doubt that le Pen likes our article on the last french presidential election.
I think you're reaching here. "United Kingdom general election, February 1974" is not in category "Living people". It focuses on the events and only mentions the people as participants.
I think it's still running. Generally those articles aren't biographies, however, so I don't really understand the relevance, if any.
They generally contain biographical details such as say alumni or stuff about the head.
Such material would be generally unproblematic and any problems that did crop up could be handled by editing. A bit like the general election article above.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree. A four month moratorium following a "Keep", or two months after a "no consensus" seems plenty to me. Maybe 6 and 3 respectively.
I don't think "no consensus" AFDs should delay anything, there should only be a delay if there is a positive decision to keep. I'd say 3 months is probably enough - a lot can change in 3 months.
If someone isn't happy with the result of a recent AFD, we should have a process by which it can be reopened (ie. not a new AFD, but continuing the old one, on the same page, previous comments still count). Someone would propose reopening the AFD and would have to give a reason explaining what has changed (reasons to delete/keep should be ignored at this stage). If people agree that something significant has changed (that could be some real world change in the subject making it more notable, for example, or it could just be a change in community consensus demonstrated by a similar AFD resulting in an opposite decision) then they vote to reopen. If the is a consensus to reopen, then the AFD carries on from where it left off, just like when an AFD is relisted at the moment.
It should be made clear that this is a different process to DRV - DRV is for when you disagree with the determination of consensus, reopening is for when you think consensus has changed.
The key thing with this proposal is that the comments made the first time still count after it is reopened (anyone who commented the first time round should be notified in case they want to change their vote), which should stop the "deletion by attrition" problem.
Any article one dislikes can be seemingly deleted with enough persistence and adequate trolling. That was the case with [[Daniel Brandt]]. A valid rationale isn't even necessary anymore.
AFD is clearly a vote even though policy and people claim it isn't. AFD can't be fixed so long as the approach towards it is a vote. Consensus != votes but worthy comments. A lots of '''delete''', few '''keep''' should be kept if the delete remarks have no valid rationale and vice versa. We are explicitly seeking a "majority" vote to the point of calculating percentages. How can something like that NOT be a vote? "no consensus" closures should be given breathing space to promote people to discuss otherwise it is a vote.
Trolling should be strictly forbidden. Anyone trolling on RFAs, VFDs, CFDs should be immediately blocked rather than given any slack. Trolling itself should also be removed. If people are not able to give a rationale reasoning they shouldn't be participating in the discussion anyways.
In sum the first thing that needs to be done is to lower the bar for trolling tolerance. Second drop the vote approach.
- White Cat
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. A four month moratorium following a "Keep", or two months after a "no consensus" seems plenty to me. Maybe 6 and 3 respectively.
I don't think "no consensus" AFDs should delay anything, there should only be a delay if there is a positive decision to keep. I'd say 3 months is probably enough - a lot can change in 3 months.
If someone isn't happy with the result of a recent AFD, we should have a process by which it can be reopened (ie. not a new AFD, but continuing the old one, on the same page, previous comments still count). Someone would propose reopening the AFD and would have to give a reason explaining what has changed (reasons to delete/keep should be ignored at this stage). If people agree that something significant has changed (that could be some real world change in the subject making it more notable, for example, or it could just be a change in community consensus demonstrated by a similar AFD resulting in an opposite decision) then they vote to reopen. If the is a consensus to reopen, then the AFD carries on from where it left off, just like when an AFD is relisted at the moment.
It should be made clear that this is a different process to DRV - DRV is for when you disagree with the determination of consensus, reopening is for when you think consensus has changed.
The key thing with this proposal is that the comments made the first time still count after it is reopened (anyone who commented the first time round should be notified in case they want to change their vote), which should stop the "deletion by attrition" problem.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day White Cat,
Any article one dislikes can be seemingly deleted with enough persistence and adequate trolling. That was the case with [[Daniel Brandt]]. A valid rationale isn't even necessary anymore.
Arguably.
AFD is clearly a vote even though policy and people claim it isn't. AFD can't be fixed so long as the approach towards it is a vote. Consensus != votes but worthy comments. A lots of '''delete''', few '''keep''' should be kept if the delete remarks have no valid rationale and vice versa. We are explicitly seeking a "majority" vote to the point of calculating percentages. How can something like that NOT be a vote? "no consensus" closures should be given breathing space to promote people to discuss otherwise it is a vote.
I've closed rather a lot of xfDs in my time, and only ever calculated the vote tally once (my first complicated closure post-award of adminship). My efforts must have been bloody poor, since xfDs are all votes, and it's surprising that people weren't constantly squawking for my head on ANI and DRV.
We've seen a hell of a lot of cases of bad decisions made by vote-counters. We've seen a few cases of bad decisions made by consensus-judgers. In the case of the latter, it's because they misread the situation and made the wrong call. In the case of the former, the bad decision was built in to their status as vote-counters. If xfD is not a vote, we'll get the odd bad decision if the closing admin makes a bad call. If xfD is a vote, then bad decisions become an inherent --- celebrated! --- part of the process.
Trolling should be strictly forbidden. Anyone trolling on RFAs, VFDs, CFDs should be immediately blocked rather than given any slack. Trolling itself should also be removed. If people are not able to give a rationale reasoning they shouldn't be participating in the discussion anyways.
The problem with this is: "How do you define trolling?"
"Troll" has become a very useful catchphrase: you can use it as an insult and have the added benefit of hopefully damaging the credibility of your opponent (something that doesn't happen if you call her a "wanker"). People throw the word "troll" around at first resort, without thinking, without stopping to consider that it may or may not be appropriate.
More serious than this is the fact that many people, including those who presumably are quite well-respected on Wikipedia, don't even know what a troll *is*. Jeff Raymond's "trolling" was nothing more than criticising the Cabal (he did more than that, but it was for this crime that he was dubbed Sir Troll); do we want to see blocks like his more frequently? Why?
Not every critic is a troll. Heck, not every *vexatious* critic is a troll (sometimes a chap is annoying because he's right and you don't want to admit it). Until we can reliably distinguish critics from trolls, we should run screaming from your proposal as fast as our skinny little wikilegs can carry us.
In sum the first thing that needs to be done is to lower the bar for trolling tolerance. Second drop the vote approach.
In two words: Hell, no. Step *away* from the Big Red Button, before someone gets hurt.
Cheers,
On 6/24/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day White Cat,
Any article one dislikes can be seemingly deleted with enough persistence and adequate trolling. That was the case with [[Daniel Brandt]]. A valid rationale isn't even necessary anymore.
Arguably.
AFD is clearly a vote even though policy and people claim it isn't. AFD can't be fixed so long as the approach towards it is a vote. Consensus != votes but worthy comments. A lots of '''delete''', few '''keep''' should be kept if the delete remarks have no valid rationale and vice versa. We are explicitly seeking a "majority" vote to the point of calculating percentages. How can something like that NOT be a vote? "no consensus" closures should be given breathing space to promote people to discuss otherwise it is a vote.
I've closed rather a lot of xfDs in my time, and only ever calculated the vote tally once (my first complicated closure post-award of adminship). My efforts must have been bloody poor, since xfDs are all votes, and it's surprising that people weren't constantly squawking for my head on ANI and DRV.
We've seen a hell of a lot of cases of bad decisions made by vote-counters. We've seen a few cases of bad decisions made by consensus-judgers. In the case of the latter, it's because they misread the situation and made the wrong call. In the case of the former, the bad decision was built in to their status as vote-counters. If xfD is not a vote, we'll get the odd bad decision if the closing admin makes a bad call. If xfD is a vote, then bad decisions become an inherent --- celebrated! --- part of the process.
Trolling should be strictly forbidden. Anyone trolling on RFAs, VFDs, CFDs should be immediately blocked rather than given any slack. Trolling itself should also be removed. If people are not able to give a rationale reasoning they shouldn't be participating in the discussion anyways.
The problem with this is: "How do you define trolling?"
"Troll" has become a very useful catchphrase: you can use it as an insult and have the added benefit of hopefully damaging the credibility of your opponent (something that doesn't happen if you call her a "wanker"). People throw the word "troll" around at first resort, without thinking, without stopping to consider that it may or may not be appropriate.
More serious than this is the fact that many people, including those who presumably are quite well-respected on Wikipedia, don't even know what a troll *is*. Jeff Raymond's "trolling" was nothing more than criticising the Cabal (he did more than that, but it was for this crime that he was dubbed Sir Troll); do we want to see blocks like his more frequently? Why?
Not every critic is a troll. Heck, not every *vexatious* critic is a troll (sometimes a chap is annoying because he's right and you don't want to admit it). Until we can reliably distinguish critics from trolls, we should run screaming from your proposal as fast as our skinny little wikilegs can carry us.
In sum the first thing that needs to be done is to lower the bar for trolling tolerance. Second drop the vote approach.
In two words: Hell, no. Step *away* from the Big Red Button, before someone gets hurt.
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
"Heck, not every *vexatious* critic is a troll (sometimes a chap is annoying because he's right and you don't want to admit it)."
But it's sure nice to have a once-size-fits-all word to throw down at those vexatious ones.
It's been overdone for a long time.
I've never looked up the meaning of troll, in the cyber toss-down-the-guantlet sense. I'd always assumed it was the Swedish bogey-man troll, but I guess it must mean the fishing troll. It's hard to tell, with the way the word is tossed into a conversation by anyone frustrated for something to say.
The WP article on trolling is pure doo-doo, when fisheries are a major news item. Not a single mention of the dangers of tuna trolling--the most deadly commercial fishing experience. I'll see what I can do, without inserting what I think should happen to people who go out with the intent of en masse killing of the blue god Thunnus thynnus. Any on-list fishermen/women might take a look at the article, too.
Wikipedia still has too many articles in desperate need of work for its editors and admins to be so cavalier with name calling. (Hes and Stan will wonder if that's just a plug for my favorite investigator of lesser known kingdoms--probably.) Shouting troll to close an argument should be seen for what it is: not an attempt to get rid of inappropriate dialogue, but an attempt to close dialogue. The articles are better when dialogue resolves issues, not when bullying and name-calling resolves issues.
George, good comments about the need for a little PR-consciousness raising on Wikipedia. Being a little more aware of how others look at the random community creating one of the top sites on the web is important.
KP