To my mind, this dialog has become rather unfortunately overly polarised. It's probably not as hard as we think to find common ground, which would certainly be for the good.
My main concern in all this (which I think is echoed elsewhere clearly and loudly) is that people have been taking 'on-wiki' actions without the appropriate level of 'on-wiki' discussion. I think we would all agree that a group (say 4 or 5) of 'senior' editors forming opinions privately, and then each taking action in the matter at hand at the very least is behaviour which probably requires great care to avoid becoming problematic.
.....and a small extra - in my view it also really helps to think about the good faith reasoning behind the posts on all sides, there's a little too much of the 'old school' 'anything goes' repartee of usenet past in some of these discussions. I guess what I mean by that is that a sensible, nuanced (diplomatic?) discussion isn't helped by incredulity on anyone's part, feigned or otherwise. If you are genuinely incredulous, I'd recommend the advice given previously - take a walk, calm down, and have a think before you post - "what the heck are you on about? I have no idea what you're talking about!" is part of the problem.
to my mind, almost all of these apply in some way; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis#Selected_quotations
PM. ps. many thanks for allowing this post onto the list.
On Dec 9, 2007 5:37 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
To my mind, this dialog has become rather unfortunately overly polarised. It's probably not as hard as we think to find common ground, which would certainly be for the good.
My main concern in all this (which I think is echoed elsewhere clearly and loudly) is that people have been taking 'on-wiki' actions without the appropriate level of 'on-wiki' discussion. I think we would all agree that a group (say 4 or 5) of 'senior' editors forming opinions privately, and then each taking action in the matter at hand at the very least is behaviour which probably requires great care to avoid becoming problematic.
Why do you keep repeating these things as if they're facts? Do you think it helps the tenor of the conversation to continually post unproven (and, in fact, repudiated) allegations, and then claim that they represent a "problematic" issue about which "great care" must be taken?
Here's what would help the tenor of discussions on the list; stop speculating, and then insisting the sky is falling based on that speculation.
If you are genuinely incredulous, I'd recommend the advice given previously - take a walk, calm down,
People who have no idea what others are talking don't need to "calm down"; mystification does not imply a lack of calmness, and it's very odd you would suggest they are the same thing, or inevitably accompany each other.
a brief response to Jajjg;
I don't think the sky is falling in, or there's a big mean conspiracy, or even that the wiki has lost it's innocence to a point of no return - it's all ok (honest, it is). Relax a little - I'm afraid I would best describe the tenor of your post as a chunter.
If you feel my previous post took the tenor of continually posting unproven and repudiated allegations, then it seems to me you're tilting at windmills, and though of course mystification doesn't imply a lack of calmness, it certainly doesn't help much, and a nice stroll might!
Is it a fair presumption that you see nothing worth discussing herein?
best, PM