I dont write here much anymore, but this is blatent POV enough to mention.
I just told User:Drboisclair on his talk about how, lacking any editorial guidance where consensus is weak, non-standard strategies can work, I said: * "If necessary we can even add Category:Anti-Arab people to various pages to illustrate our point, but first we should simply write something to wikien."
Of course when I start putting Category:Anti-Arab people on various pages, people should rightly revert me. Such a subjective categorization, as its based on mere political rhetoric, or actions, should be regarded as drastically POV.
[[Category:Anti-Semitic people]] on the other hand seems to get more leeway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June...
I believe this is basic bonehead-level NPOV people, and it should be a good lesson to resolve it. As interesting as it is to organize people by their faulty views, doing so in this manner only reveals our own faulty adherence to the holy prime directive. And if youre one of those people who has to ask what that is...
Basic stuff, people Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/22/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
I believe this is basic bonehead-level NPOV people, and it should be a good lesson to resolve it. As interesting as it is to organize people by their faulty views, doing so in this manner only reveals our own faulty adherence to the holy prime directive. And if youre one of those people who has to ask what that is...
It's a dodgy category bound to offend people. And is it helpful? Are people likely to browse this category for some research purpose? I feel that lists like "People that Israel has accused of anti-semitism" would be more useful in that regard. Allowing such broad interpretations of "anti-semite" or even "accused of anti-semitism" is unlikely to be NPOV.
In any case, most of these religion or ethnicity-related categories are pretty dodgy. I'd like to hear any suggestions anyone has for dealing with them, and in particular, want to hear what the main arguments for keeping them are. Ie: what is useful about "Category:Jewish Americans".
Steve
G'day Steve,
Of course when I start putting Category:Anti-Arab people on various pages, people should rightly revert me. Such a subjective categorization, as its based on mere political rhetoric, or actions, should be regarded as drastically POV.
[[Category:Anti-Semitic people]] on the other hand seems to get more leeway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June...
<muchos snips />
Well, folks and folkettes, we always have a long wait for these things, but it looks like we've finally found another violation of WP:POINT. Unless there's some fantastic joke there that's gone zooming over my poor little head ...
For what it's worth, I do agree with you: [[Category:Anti-Semitic people]] a) does not appear to serve a useful purpose, b) is not exactly neutral, c) could well be described as a lawsuit waiting to happen, if applied improperly. I don't see a good reason for keeping it on that TfD --- but that could be because most of the posters seemed to assume the default position that *of course* it should exist, and we're just talking about other stuff now because the keep/delete debate has already been settled, and that unanimously.
You could do with being a little less strident about it, though. Your comment on that TfD wasn't going to change anyone's mind: it looks quite logical to someone who already agrees with you, but that's not as beneficial as you might think.
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Well, folks and folkettes, we always have a long wait for these things, but it looks like we've finally found another violation of WP:POINT.
Since when does WP:POINT trump WP:NPOV? I will never apologise for "violating" POINT if its to make a stand for NPOV - particularly in light of a leadership vacuum wherin clear NPOV violations are by "consensus" allowed to stand.
For what it's worth, I do agree with you: [[Category:Anti-Semitic people]] a) does not appear to serve a useful purpose, b) is not exactly neutral, c) could well be described as a lawsuit waiting to happen, if applied improperly.
I disagree with the lawsuit paranoia, and dislike is usage as a crutch in arguments wherin a plain application of basic bonehead-level NPOV will suffice. Your agreement is noted, but is it counted?
You could do with being a little less strident about it, though. Your comment on that TfD wasn't going to change anyone's mind: it looks quite logical to someone who already agrees with you, but that's not as beneficial as you might think.
I dont know what else to say. Either we have a culture which respects NPOV or we do not.
Regards, SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
G'day Steve,
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Well, folks and folkettes, we always have a long wait for these things, but it looks like we've finally found another violation of WP:POINT.
Since when does WP:POINT trump WP:NPOV? I will never apologise for "violating" POINT if its to make a stand for NPOV - particularly in light of a leadership vacuum wherin clear NPOV violations are by "consensus" allowed to stand.
WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never said it did. One is a core principle, the other is a page which, like many of our policies, acts only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially acceptable language. Now, there are multiple ways of making a point. Some of them involve being a dick. You appear to be choosing one of those ways, as WP:POINT makes clear. It would be nice if you could restrain yourself.
For what it's worth, I do agree with you: [[Category:Anti-Semitic people]] a) does not appear to serve a useful purpose, b) is not exactly neutral, c) could well be described as a lawsuit waiting to happen, if applied improperly.
I disagree with the lawsuit paranoia, and dislike is usage as a crutch in arguments wherin a plain application of basic bonehead-level NPOV will suffice.
Like Ilmari the other day, I just threw that in for discussion's sake. Discussion is this thing we have occasionally although, I admit, not very often.
Your agreement is noted, but is it counted?
You've never made a habit of counting others' opinions. It's one of the reasons that ... ahh, but who wants to go *there*?
You could do with being a little less strident about it, though. Your comment on that TfD wasn't going to change anyone's mind: it looks quite logical to someone who already agrees with you, but that's not as beneficial as you might think.
I dont know what else to say. Either we have a culture which respects NPOV or we do not.
You think the category is incompatible with NPOV. I think you're right. There are those, however, who do not (or who have not considered the issue, and gone along with the cat because it's there). There are two ways for you to get your way: you can either convince them you're right, or you can grind their faces into dust. Now, you're not in much of a position these days to do any face-grinding, so we're just left with the former option.
The traditional approach taken when trying to change someone else's mind is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can I best state my message to convince you I'm right?" The approach *you* are taking is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can you be *so stupid* as to disagree with me? Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious? I'm disgusted with the lot of you!"
You may feel that this strategy is one likely to bring success. If so, I have some bad news.
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never said it did. One is a core principle, the other is a page which, like many of our policies, acts only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially acceptable language. Now, there are multiple ways of making a point. Some of them involve being a dick. You appear to be choosing one of those ways, as WP:POINT makes clear. It would be nice if you could restrain yourself.
No, WP:DBAD uses unsuitably dickish language itself and thus had to be removed to meta. In the hierarchy its probably lower than {{proposed}}, though the typically dickish citing of it would leave newbies to believe otherwise. Please dont mistake casual terseness for dickishness. I certainly dont.
I disagree with the lawsuit paranoia, and dislike
its usage as a crutch in arguments wherin a plain
application of basic bonehead-level NPOV will
suffice.
Like Ilmari the other day, I just threw that in for discussion's sake. Discussion is this thing we have occasionally although, I admit, not very often.
Yes, this 'discussion' is in contrast with the terseness thing.
You think the category is incompatible with NPOV. I think you're right. There are those, however, who do not (or who have not considered the issue, and gone along with the cat because it's there). There are two ways for you to get your way: you can either convince them you're right, or you can grind their faces into dust. Now, you're not in much of a position these days to do any face-grinding, so we're just left with the former option.
Dont make this personal. This seems to be a rarer case, and this is why I brought it to the list. The basic point is that "consensus" only works if its overwhelmingly in one direction or another, and (as I think Cobb was alluding to) AFD doesnt always work as a discussion forum. Where there are sharp divides between actual consensus and NPOV, speaks to a deeper issue of leadership with regard to NPOV, and this relates to the problem of newbie indoctrination.
The traditional approach taken when trying to change someone else's mind is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can I best state my message to convince you I'm right?" The approach *you* are taking is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can you be *so stupid* as to disagree with me? Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious? I'm disgusted with the lot of you!"
I was simply stating my case in a clear and incontrovertible way. I dont see the need to make an argument weak just for sake of endless discussion with those who hold to a relativist position, or to appease those, who fail AGF and assume dickishness where there is none. I dropped a note, to bring some attn to it.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
G'day Steve,
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never said it did. One is a core principle, the other is a page which, like many of our policies, acts only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially acceptable language. Now, there are multiple ways of making a point. Some of them involve being a dick. You appear to be choosing one of those ways, as WP:POINT makes clear. It would be nice if you could restrain yourself.
No, WP:DBAD uses unsuitably dickish language itself and thus had to be removed to meta. In the hierarchy
Well, that's one interpretation.
its probably lower than {{proposed}}, though the typically dickish citing of it would leave newbies to believe otherwise. Please dont mistake casual terseness for dickishness. I certainly dont.
It's an easy mistake to make. In any case, a campaign to add a category you know is inappropriate to certain articles is hardly "casual terseness"; it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and being a dick besides.
<snip: okay/>
You think the category is incompatible with NPOV. I think you're right. There are those, however, who do not (or who have not considered the issue, and gone along with the cat because it's there). There are two ways for you to get your way: you can either convince them you're right, or you can grind their faces into dust. Now, you're not in much of a position these days to do any face-grinding, so we're just left with the former option.
Dont make this personal. This seems to be a rarer
Fair enough. It wasn't really called for, was it? Bit childish of me, there.
case, and this is why I brought it to the list. The basic point is that "consensus" only works if its overwhelmingly in one direction or another, and (as I think Cobb was alluding to) AFD doesnt always work as
What Cobb was alluding to --- always and only --- is his inability to get all fancruft deleted immediately.
a discussion forum. Where there are sharp divides between actual consensus and NPOV, speaks to a deeper issue of leadership with regard to NPOV, and this relates to the problem of newbie indoctrination.
Fair enough.
The traditional approach taken when trying to change someone else's mind is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can I best state my message to convince you I'm right?" The approach *you* are taking is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can you be *so stupid* as to disagree with me? Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious? I'm disgusted with the lot of you!"
I was simply stating my case in a clear and incontrovertible way. I dont see the need to make an argument weak just for sake of endless discussion with those who hold to a relativist position, or to appease those, who fail AGF and assume dickishness where there is none. I dropped a note, to bring some attn to it.
What you see as "making an argument weak" I see as trying not to get those you're trying to convince off-side.
Of course, I'm guilty of the same thing, here. I see someone say "why are you too STUPID to disagree with me?", and I reply "that's obviously a counter-productive approach. Why are you too STUPID to listen to my alternative?"
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Dont make this personal.
Fair enough. It wasn't really called for, was it? Bit childish of me, there.
I much appreciate that! Let us you and I henceforth agree to not be dicks, either by dickishness itself or by accusal thereof.
What Cobb was alluding to --- always and only --- is his inability to get all fancruft deleted
immediately.
Ah. Well thats... practical.
I guess I now would be a good time for me to make note of some 'Pediacruft (self-refs), wikicruft (references to wiki tknlgy), and Jimbocruft (fans apparently). Nah, I wont mention it.
Fair enough.
We have to come up with a better term for "newbie indoctrination" though.
What you see as "making an argument weak" I see as trying not to get those you're trying to convince off-side.
Yeah, I can see that. But that doesnt really work when dealing with POV pushers. If the issue is adherence to POV, my addition of [[Category:Anti-French people]] for example should be rightly seen as POINT and not as POV.
Naturally someone can report me to the Arbcom for POINT, and get me deadminned or something like that without much consideration of NPOV. If we really need to 'kick out bad writers', what good does it do when not just the Arbcom, but the whole community fails to understand or apply some basic NPOV?
I agree what you said in another email that "the Trifecta" is simple and therefore effective for newbies. But what we have yet to do IMHO is to elaborate more on NPOV as our most elevated, trancendent and fundamental core doctrine, by way of drills, practices, examples, and organized religion-style propaganda.
-Stevertigo PS: I could just go ahead and edit-integrate the policy pages though myself but Im lazy.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 23/06/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I dont know what else to say. Either we have a culture which respects NPOV or we do not.
You think the category is incompatible with NPOV. I think you're right.
That's wrong. Or atleast please refer me to the part of NPOV that it would violate.
I don't think that that category would be a very good idea at all (it doubtless violates other policy).
IMO having carefully read the NPOV, it doesn't violate NPOV. If you think it does, point me to the place which it violates.
There's a lot of myths about NPOV. Practically nobody gets NPOV right. This annoys me a lot.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse