In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
--------------------------
What is holding up the move?
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
Legal reasons. GFDL isn't compatible with it. GFDLs new version is said to be compatible but the release of that has been delayed many times so far. - White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
What is holding up the move?
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, the new version is out and allows us to start dual licensing. Discussing is taking place on EN here: [[Wikipedia talk:Transition to CC-BY-SA]]
A final vote will be on Meta to move all the projects.
--Falcorian
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
Legal reasons. GFDL isn't compatible with it. GFDLs new version is said to be compatible but the release of that has been delayed many times so far.
- White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
What is holding up the move?
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered. - White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Falcorian < alex.public.account+ENWikiMailingList@gmail.comalex.public.account%2BENWikiMailingList@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, the new version is out and allows us to start dual licensing. Discussing is taking place on EN here: [[Wikipedia talk:Transition to CC-BY-SA]]
A final vote will be on Meta to move all the projects.
--Falcorian
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
Legal reasons. GFDL isn't compatible with it. GFDLs new version is said
to
be compatible but the release of that has been delayed many times so far.
- White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
What is holding up the move?
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
- White Cat
The real underlying problem is that no one has any defensible bright line as to what the scope of an encyclopedia is.
Somebody clever may be able to find one though. Perhaps some sort of points system or statistically based technique could be devised.
Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk has been rock solid all along. A problem has emerged when people decided to expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles without securing a consensus for it.
An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a consensus. If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action.
The issue surrounding fiction related articles and other unimportant topics needs a resolution and I am willing to settle with any kind of resolution at this point.
-- White Cat
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 10/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
- White Cat
The real underlying problem is that no one has any defensible bright line as to what the scope of an encyclopedia is.
Somebody clever may be able to find one though. Perhaps some sort of points system or statistically based technique could be devised.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk has been rock solid all along.
I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself:
A problem has emerged when people decided to expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles without securing a consensus for it.
In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours, presumably because their value system varies.
An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a consensus. If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action.
Thinking laterally, just an idea:
Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to see them).
In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for anonymous users.)
Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before becoming full-fledged articles.
I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.
-- White Cat
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to see them).
I think that has been proposed before and reejcted. Could be proposed again, I suppose.
In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for anonymous users.)
That would mess up linking between articles.
Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before becoming full-fledged articles.
Userspace is generally used for article incubation in controversial cases. Having a Wikipedia project place or namespace for this is not a bad idea though.
I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.
You might get arguments over links and redirections to or from or not (as the case may be) this namespace.
Carcharoth
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
Carcharoth
But it's very probable that that person clicked the article to actually read it/search it, not raise its quality, which would be in 2nd place, if the person happens to know about the topic.
-- Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 16:22, "Ian Woollard" ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
Carcharoth
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
I agree red links are positive, but people generally think redlinks are the absence of an article. Clicking on a redlink normally gets a screen asking if you want to create an article, not "can you improve this article". A different colour link leading to the "incubation" namespace is probably what you are thinking of, and might work.
Carcharoth
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
I agree red links are positive, but people generally think redlinks are the absence of an article. Clicking on a redlink normally gets a screen asking if you want to create an article, not "can you improve this article". A different colour link leading to the "incubation" namespace is probably what you are thinking of, and might work.
This is all hypothetical, but I was thinking that if the article was, according to the values you had set, underwater, then the links to it would be red, and clicking on them would lead you, not to the article page, but to a page with a link to be able to see and edit the subpar article.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
I agree red links are positive, but people generally think redlinks are the absence of an article. Clicking on a redlink normally gets a screen asking if you want to create an article, not "can you improve this article". A different colour link leading to the "incubation" namespace is probably what you are thinking of, and might work.
This is all hypothetical, but I was thinking that if the article was, according to the values you had set, underwater, then the links to it would be red, and clicking on them would lead you, not to the article page, but to a page with a link to be able to see and edit the subpar article.
I'm not thinking here of articles being rated to allow reader-side filtering by setting a value, but of AfD having a userspace to send grossly subpar articles to, rather then sending them to userspace. It depends how often userfication is successful in producing an improved and acceptable article. In many cases, bold recreation can work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_(online_game)
On the other hand, date context is still a remarkably hard skill to knock into people's heads:
"Threshold was, for three consecutive years, The MUD Journal's highest-rated role-playing game."
Quite why the article doesn't bother to say *which* three consecutive years these were, I don't know.
But getting back to the recreation aspect. Once you *see* an acceptable article or stub in place on the ground (after the required work has been done, and lots of work is often needed), then many objections melt away.
One pitfall, in your system and mine, is who decides when to move articles from the incubation namespace to the main namespace (and vice versa) and in your system who decides what the rating of a particular article should be to fit the reader-set filtering?
All hypothetical, as you say. At the moment, the best approach is rigorously sourced stubs that can slowly grow over time - slower than they would if it was just fans of the game or similar editors working on it, but of better quality for being held to a higher standard.
Carcharoth
Fiction articles do not deserve to be exiled into someones userspace. Them being in the article namespace is not disruptive as stub articles are not banned. If I am wrong in my assessment then all stub articles should be moved to someones userspace. I wager even the attempt of applying such a standard to all articles would face a serious resistance. Then again I may be wrong. Consensus can determine that and anyone can initiate such a discussion. If someone wants to hide certain articles in their search results they may use the minus tag on Google. For example searching
"Topic" -anime -manga -movie -television
would eliminate most of popular culture in your search results. Of course smarter search words can be chosen depending on what you are looking for. Here I am merely giving a general example.
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
I'm not thinking here of articles being rated to allow reader-side filtering by setting a value, but of AfD having a userspace to send grossly subpar articles to, rather then sending them to userspace. It depends how often userfication is successful in producing an improved and acceptable article. In many cases, bold recreation can work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_(online_game)
On the other hand, date context is still a remarkably hard skill to knock into people's heads:
"Threshold was, for three consecutive years, The MUD Journal's highest-rated role-playing game."
Quite why the article doesn't bother to say *which* three consecutive years these were, I don't know.
But getting back to the recreation aspect. Once you *see* an acceptable article or stub in place on the ground (after the required work has been done, and lots of work is often needed), then many objections melt away.
One pitfall, in your system and mine, is who decides when to move articles from the incubation namespace to the main namespace (and vice versa) and in your system who decides what the rating of a particular article should be to fit the reader-set filtering?
All hypothetical, as you say. At the moment, the best approach is rigorously sourced stubs that can slowly grow over time - slower than they would if it was just fans of the game or similar editors working on it, but of better quality for being held to a higher standard.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think this would work properly, sinve don't forget this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and it is supposed to have the same content from everyone; otherwise it would get pretty messed up. And when you say that only selected articles would appear, you're saying there would be some articles one would be unable to read?
-- Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 15:34, "Ian Woollard" ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/ delete - take your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk has been rock solid all along.
I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself:
A problem has emerged when people decided to expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles without securing a consensus for it.
In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours, presumably because their value system varies.
An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a consensus. If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action.
Thinking laterally, just an idea:
Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to see them).
In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for anonymous users.)
Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before becoming full-fledged articles.
I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.
-- White Cat
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 11/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete -
take
your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can
always
be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of
junk
has been rock solid all along.
I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself:
Tens of thousands of articles were removed by one individual (User:TTN) via the means I listed in the past year and a half. This was done without securing a general consensus. He himself said that his motivation was merely to get rid of articles he feels are junk (which are practically every article on fiction). He was sanctioned for his conduct by the arbitration committee as he was revert waring among other things.
A problem has emerged when people decided to expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles without securing a consensus for it.
In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours, presumably because their value system varies.
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a
consensus.
If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action.
Thinking laterally, just an idea:
Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to see them).
In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for anonymous users.)
Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before becoming full-fledged articles.
I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.
Can you at least explain me how such a ranking would slow down or stop deletionism? Such types of ranking already exists.
For example Googles results are based on popularity. If more people are going to the 'Beowulf 2007' article than the 'Beowulf' article, that is hardly the fault of the authors of the articles.
More history related topics are featured than fiction related topics. That alone is a ranking difference if you ask me.
Such a ranking may provoke deletionism more. Consider a case where a history related topic gets a rating lower than a fiction related topic. Instead of improving the poorly written history related topic deletionists pursue seeking the deletion of the fiction related topic (which may not necessarily be better in quality). It is much easier to delete something than improve it.
- White Cat
-- White Cat
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have been trying to write an essay on that for ages on that: see [[WP:TINCON]]
By "community consensus" I mean the result of "community wide discussion". Community consensus does not mean a discrete discussions by an elite number of editors in some hidden sub project page no one cares about. - White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about
achieving
consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have been trying to write an essay on that for ages on that: see [[WP:TINCON]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And since there is no effective means of community wide discussion, and after that, there is no means to determine that consensus has been reached, with a community so ill defined, we have a problem with consensus.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
By "community consensus" I mean the result of "community wide discussion". Community consensus does not mean a discrete discussions by an elite number of editors in some hidden sub project page no one cares about.
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about
achieving
consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have been trying to write an essay on that for ages on that: see [[WP:TINCON]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not commenting on the correct answer to inclusionist v deletionist but...
Generally the best way to get lasting agreement on major policy changes on wikipedia is/used to be a policy RFC. You then advertise that RFC and get folks involved that way. That gives you the "more then 10" that white cat was referring to.
On 1/13/09, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
And since there is no effective means of community wide discussion, and after that, there is no means to determine that consensus has been reached, with a community so ill defined, we have a problem with consensus.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
By "community consensus" I mean the result of "community wide discussion". Community consensus does not mean a discrete discussions by an elite number of editors in some hidden sub project page no one cares about.
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about
achieving
consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have been trying to write an essay on that for ages on that: see [[WP:TINCON]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary. During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches. In the course of the site many principles were adopted in this manner.
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary.
WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached?
During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches.
Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set?
Marc
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please see my prior reply. A policy RFC is a very good way to gauge communty thought. You can figure out if the coommunity is divided strongly or are there some points that everyone agrees on. You will be surprised... Heck the latest RFCs on linking dates found some common ground... Albit not enough to foestall the RFAR... But the RFAR is almost more about behavior issues.
Regardless... Policy RFC will get a better idea of consensus then this mailing list. Be sure to advertise the RFC in all the places that editors meet... Perhaps even a notice when editors go to see their watchlists.
On 1/13/09, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary.
WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached?
During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches.
Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set?
Marc
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 1/13/09 9:14 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz at wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote:
Please see my prior reply. A policy RFC is a very good way to gauge communty thought. You can figure out if the coommunity is divided strongly or are there some points that everyone agrees on. You will be surprised... Heck the latest RFCs on linking dates found some common ground... Albit not enough to foestall the RFAR... But the RFAR is almost more about behavior issues.
Regardless... Policy RFC will get a better idea of consensus then this mailing list. Be sure to advertise the RFC in all the places that editors meet... Perhaps even a notice when editors go to see their watchlists.
I have been to these places, Wilhelm, and there seems to be more chaos than constructive dialogue going on there. And, it doesn't appear very easy for the average Community Member to navigate through it all.
Marc
On 1/13/09, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary.
WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached?
During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches.
Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set?
Marc
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well that is the best we have for community wide discussion about changes in policy. You could also try the village pump... But even that is only watched by a select few.
By its very nature, the more people you put in a discussion the noisier and choatic a discussion gets.
Really any discussion that you can have that has a large cross section of the community is likely to be a strong argument for changes in policy based on the results of the discussion.
The trick is getting any meaningful agreement on principles or select parts of a change. If you can't get that then any changes you make to a policy that affects the whole encyclopedia as dramatically as this is always going to be contested as not enough people in the consensus. This issue is playing out now in an existing arbitration case. (changes were made on a discussion with 14 people... 11 supporting and 3 contesting... If I recall right) The point being large changes can't be made without bringing the changes up for the whole community to review. Right now I would say a well done policy RFC is your best option. Feel free to try something else... But that format seems to work best for lots of folks commenting.
On 1/13/09, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/13/09 9:14 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz at wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote:
Please see my prior reply. A policy RFC is a very good way to gauge communty thought. You can figure out if the coommunity is divided strongly or are there some points that everyone agrees on. You will be surprised... Heck the latest RFCs on linking dates found some common ground... Albit not enough to foestall the RFAR... But the RFAR is almost more about behavior issues.
Regardless... Policy RFC will get a better idea of consensus then this mailing list. Be sure to advertise the RFC in all the places that editors meet... Perhaps even a notice when editors go to see their watchlists.
I have been to these places, Wilhelm, and there seems to be more chaos than constructive dialogue going on there. And, it doesn't appear very easy for the average Community Member to navigate through it all.
Marc
On 1/13/09, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary.
WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached?
During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches.
Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set?
Marc
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am not too keen on a policy RFC. Not that I oppose it but I do not believe we had enough preliminary discussion to come up with a decent proposal. A policy RFC would get shot down almost instantly. As for the RFAR comment. Arbcom has proven themselves to be useless in this dispute. They went out of their way not to resolve the dispute. They are first class in establishing "findings of fact" but are dead last when it comes in doing something about those "facts" they found...
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
Well that is the best we have for community wide discussion about changes in policy. You could also try the village pump... But even that is only watched by a select few.
By its very nature, the more people you put in a discussion the noisier and choatic a discussion gets.
Really any discussion that you can have that has a large cross section of the community is likely to be a strong argument for changes in policy based on the results of the discussion.
The trick is getting any meaningful agreement on principles or select parts of a change. If you can't get that then any changes you make to a policy that affects the whole encyclopedia as dramatically as this is always going to be contested as not enough people in the consensus. This issue is playing out now in an existing arbitration case. (changes were made on a discussion with 14 people... 11 supporting and 3 contesting... If I recall right) The point being large changes can't be made without bringing the changes up for the whole community to review. Right now I would say a well done policy RFC is your best option. Feel free to try something else... But that format seems to work best for lots of folks commenting.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:29 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am not too keen on a policy RFC. Not that I oppose it but I do not believe we had enough preliminary discussion to come up with a decent proposal. A policy RFC would get shot down almost instantly. As for the RFAR comment. Arbcom has proven themselves to be useless in this dispute. They went out of their way not to resolve the dispute. They are first class in establishing "findings of fact" but are dead last when it comes in doing something about those "facts" they found...
One of my reasons (not stated at the time) for recusing from that case request that was ultimately not accepted was because I believe this kind of issue is best handled at the article and policy level and that work is needed on devising processes that work to bring large-scale change to policies and guidelines slowly but surely through the system, with the full input of the community throughout the process.
Just a few basic principles for all such discussions of proposed changes would be:
1) Take things slowly - rushing will derail the process, moving slower ensures long-term stability
2) Draft a set of changes that reflect changes in actual practice
3) Advertise the proposed changes properly - this is no longer trivial on Wikipedia due to the project size
4) Provide a proposed overall timetable at the start, flexible enough to get broad support
5) Allow input and changes and full discussion at each stage - discuss and edit, do not vote
6) Judge the right times in the process to move from drafting to polling and back
7) Be prepared to repeat each stage several times and endure lots of hard work and false starts
8) Monitor the progress in terms of participation (growing numbers after each stage is good, declining numbers is bad)
9) Final straw poll to determine acceptance must have widespread advertisement and clear timetable for start and end
10) Neutral person or group of people need to be found to close the whole process and declare a result
11) Celebrate or prepare to start a new round of editing the proposal
With many refinements from experiences other people have had of such processes.
Carcharoth
Perhaps it would be better if we had a questionnaire out there. I think our approach is a bit wrong. How about we ask the readers what they want to see on the site. After all our policy decisions should be inline with what the readers want.
I know this has not been done before... I am starting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questionnaire/2009
I hope it will help with the decision making process.
I hope to ask questions like:
Are you happy with the amount of coverage of fiction related topics? Yes (why) No (why) No opinion.
Better wording is of course welcome.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:30 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it would be better if we had a questionnaire out there. I think our approach is a bit wrong. How about we ask the readers what they want to see on the site. After all our policy decisions should be inline with what the readers want.
I know this has not been done before... I am starting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questionnaire/2009
I hope it will help with the decision making process.
I hope to ask questions like:
Are you happy with the amount of coverage of fiction related topics? Yes (why) No (why) No opinion.
Better wording is of course welcome.
There is a fiction-related questionnaire already by Pixelface (not everyone likes it though):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pixelface/Fiction_Survey_2008_draft
Carcharoth
I am thinking of a general questionnaire. Not one just on fiction but over policy related issues in general. This is not aimed at editors alone but also to the readers. - White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:30 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it would be better if we had a questionnaire out there. I think
our
approach is a bit wrong. How about we ask the readers what they want to see on the site. After all our policy decisions should be inline with what the readers want.
I know this has not been done before... I am starting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questionnaire/2009
I hope it will help with the decision making process.
I hope to ask questions like:
Are you happy with the amount of coverage of fiction related topics? Yes (why) No (why) No opinion.
Better wording is of course welcome.
There is a fiction-related questionnaire already by Pixelface (not everyone likes it though):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pixelface/Fiction_Survey_2008_draft
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious opposition by the majority we consider that a "general agreement". In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are "avoiding the drama" till the dust could settle.
None of this has a fixed rule by the way... So I do not really have an easy answer.
It may sound like I am rambling on without providing any answers which would accurately describe how I am right now. Full of questions without any real answers...
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by
the
entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles -
even
if such an agreement is partial or temporary.
WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached?
During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches.
Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set?
Marc
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 1/13/09 2:26 PM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious opposition by the majority we consider that a "general agreement". In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are "avoiding the drama" till the dust could settle.
None of this has a fixed rule by the way... So I do not really have an easy answer.
It may sound like I am rambling on without providing any answers which would accurately describe how I am right now. Full of questions without any real answers...
It sounds to me like you are trying to make sense out of some things, WC, and for that I congratulate you. And, answers or no answers, keeping asking the questions. One huge answer is better communication skills for all involved. It is achievable, if only a commitment would be made to achieve it.
Marc
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by
the
entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles -
even
if such an agreement is partial or temporary.
WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached?
During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches.
Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set?
Marc
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just thinking about it is enough to turn anybody insane! :o - White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:26 PM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face
serious
opposition by the majority we consider that a "general agreement". In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many
votes
are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are "avoiding the drama" till the dust could settle.
None of this has a fixed rule by the way... So I do not really have an
easy
answer.
It may sound like I am rambling on without providing any answers which
would
accurately describe how I am right now. Full of questions without any
real
answers...
It sounds to me like you are trying to make sense out of some things, WC, and for that I congratulate you. And, answers or no answers, keeping asking the questions. One huge answer is better communication skills for all involved. It is achievable, if only a commitment would be made to achieve it.
Marc
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly.
In
general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by
the
entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles -
even
if such an agreement is partial or temporary.
WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached?
During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches.
Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set?
Marc
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote
:
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action
of
any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious opposition by the majority we consider that a "general agreement". In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are "avoiding the drama" till the dust could settle.
Dust has a hard time settling in the midst of a hurricane.
Ec
" does not face serious opposition by the majority " that's not an appropriate rule for policy, it should be "not face serious opposition for a substantial minority", or, more accurately, "when all but a few of the established editors involved are at least willing to live with it"
I've seen people give various figures for the size of the necessary supermajority, but it should be more a matter of tolerance than a poll.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious opposition by the majority we consider that a "general agreement". In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are "avoiding the drama" till the dust could settle.
Dust has a hard time settling in the midst of a hurricane.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Indeed. That was what I was trying to say. - White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:07 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
" does not face serious opposition by the majority " that's not an appropriate rule for policy, it should be "not face serious opposition for a substantial minority", or, more accurately, "when all but a few of the established editors involved are at least willing to live with it"
I've seen people give various figures for the size of the necessary supermajority, but it should be more a matter of tolerance than a poll.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face
serious
opposition by the majority we consider that a "general agreement". In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many
votes
are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are "avoiding the drama" till the dust could
settle.
Dust has a hard time settling in the midst of a hurricane.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:09 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
As per previous discussion and [[Wikipedia_talk:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License]] Duncan Harris made this comment which I agree with
"The way I see it the Document referred to in the GFDL cannot be an individual Wikipedia article. It has to be the whole of Wikipedia. If the Document were an individual article then Wikipedia would be in breach of its own license. Every time people copy text between articles then they would create a Modified Version under the GFDL. They mostly do not comply with GFDL section 4 under these circumstances on a number of points. So the only sensible interpretations are the whole of English Wikipedia or the whole of Wikipedia as the GFDL Document. This has the following implications for GFDL compliance: - only need to give network location of Wikipedia, not individual articles - only need to give five principal authors of Wikipedia, not of individual articles - no real section Entitled "History", so no requirement to copy that"
Roll on a better license, we all agree.
Andrew