http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomi...)
And before anyone gets too outraged, do make note of today's date.
Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P ⚕ אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי elipongo@gmail.com http://elipongo.blogspot.com/
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomi...)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_%282nd_nomination%29
I can't find a single reference on it which wasn't written by someone involved in the project.
I mean, really, COI and NPOV problems don't come any more clearly demonstrated than this.
Where are our reliable independent sources?
We have standards, people.
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of "we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny. Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them."
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.)
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of "we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny. Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them."
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.)
Oh, lighten up! People are just having a little fun, no one takes it seriously, and no one is "breaking the rules". People are just having a laugh! It's a small bit of satire at the culture at AfD, and an opportunity for people to make Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (our spiritual ancestor) jokes.
--Oskar
2009/4/1 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of "we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny. Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them."
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.)
Oh, lighten up! People are just having a little fun, no one takes it seriously, and no one is "breaking the rules". People are just having a laugh! It's a small bit of satire at the culture at AfD, and an opportunity for people to make Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (our spiritual ancestor) jokes.
Amen. Surely it's a good sign that the community can take the piss out of itself.
So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in it.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of "we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny. Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them."
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.)
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 Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in it.
Personally, I've never understood why deliberately misleading people is supposed to be funny. I don't particularly enjoy having my time wasted by people having a lark just because it is a certain day of the year. I don't see why we should tolerate disruption that would, on any other day of the year, be instantly dealt with.
Now, I don't make a big deal out this on the wiki, because dozens of people will jump down my throat with exactly the kind of language you use. I recognise that, apparently, other people find this kind of thing fun and totally acceptable. But I can certainly sympathise with the people who you describe as "buzzkillers".
For them, of course, the buzz has been killed already and they are more than a little fed up.
Sam
Don't get me wrong, I like April Fools, but there is so much unfunny stuff around...
Man, whoever takes the cleanup job at the end of today has my condolences.
- Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller
in
it.
Personally, I've never understood why deliberately misleading people is supposed to be funny. I don't particularly enjoy having my time wasted by people having a lark just because it is a certain day of the year. I don't see why we should tolerate disruption that would, on any other day of the year, be instantly dealt with.
Now, I don't make a big deal out this on the wiki, because dozens of people will jump down my throat with exactly the kind of language you use. I recognise that, apparently, other people find this kind of thing fun and totally acceptable. But I can certainly sympathise with the people who you describe as "buzzkillers".
For them, of course, the buzz has been killed already and they are more than a little fed up.
Sam
-- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
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 Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.)
In all seriousness, this is why it's just a guideline and not a policy. There are no problems with a subject editing his or her own article (or someone directly related to the subject), as long as they follow our other policies and guidelines.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 13:08, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.)
In all seriousness, this is why it's just a guideline and not a policy. There are no problems with a subject editing his or her own article (or someone directly related to the subject), as long as they follow our other policies and guidelines.
Unfortunately, that was not my experience with the FOSS article [[MojoMojo]]. I am one of the project contributors and have first-hand knowledge of the subject. After submitting outside references from reliable specialized sources, and disclosing the fact that I am a contributor, I was accused of COI throughout the AfD and on IRC.
-- Dan [[User:Dandv]]
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Dan Dascalescu ddascalescu+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, that was not my experience with the FOSS article [[MojoMojo]]. I am one of the project contributors and have first-hand knowledge of the subject. After submitting outside references from reliable specialized sources, and disclosing the fact that I am a contributor, I was accused of COI throughout the AfD and on IRC.
Yes, that's a sad reality. :-( Wikipedians respond too crazily to COIs... what we usually suggest is that people don't tell others that they have first-hand knowledge. :-) In the end, it should matter what is written and how it's supported -- not who wrote it.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 14:06, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's a sad reality. :-( Wikipedians respond too crazily to COIs... what we usually suggest is that people don't tell others that they have first-hand knowledge. :-)
Here is dmoz.org's policy on insider editors:
"The ODP exists as a non-commercial, end-user resource created by Web users for Web users. We do not bar editors with business affiliations, since those editors with their own sites usually know their competition and related sites better than anyone. This knowledge can be ideal for helping build an authoritative directory."
Does Wikipedia have something similar?
In the end, it should matter what is written and how it's supported -- not who wrote it.
This idea sounds great. Is there a policy or rule for it?
I'm asking because in the same [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MojoMojo]], users of this FOSS pitched in with various arguments, and were flagged as:
"[[User:foo]] has made few or no other edits outside this topic."
I find this detrimental to Wikipedia because it means that only established Wikipedia users should edit a specialized article (or talk about its deletion). But in the vast majority of cases, FOSS developers are focused on development and don't even have a Wikipedia account. The above flag then effectively muzzles the voices of those who know, in favor of those who have made many edits but have little particular experience in the subject matter.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Dan Dascalescu ddascalescu+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
In the end, it should matter what is written and how it's supported -- not who wrote it.
This idea sounds great. Is there a policy or rule for it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UCS? :-)
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Casey Brown wrote:
In the end, it should matter what is written and how it's supported -- not who wrote it.
This idea sounds great. Is there a policy or rule for it?
Doesn't work. Any rule which says to use common sense will lose out against a more conventional rule. The reason is that rules really become necessary when you need to force someone else to follow them. If the rule gives a specific, detailed, description of what is and isn't allowed, with no room for human judgment, you can force someone else to follow it. If the rule is based on human judgment, you can't.
"If everyone agrees, this is what you can do" always loses to "if everyone doesn't agree, this is what you must do". After all, having a dispute means that not everyone agrees.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Casey Brown wrote:
In the end, it should matter what is written and how it's supported -- not who wrote it.
This idea sounds great. Is there a policy or rule for it?
Doesn't work. Any rule which says to use common sense will lose out against a more conventional rule. The reason is that rules really become necessary when you need to force someone else to follow them. If the rule gives a specific, detailed, description of what is and isn't allowed, with no room for human judgment, you can force someone else to follow it. If the rule is based on human judgment, you can't.
"If everyone agrees, this is what you can do" always loses to "if everyone doesn't agree, this is what you must do". After all, having a dispute means that not everyone agrees.
Not quite. If someone disagrees with you, you can explain why they are wrong, and at the end of the argument, you can appeal to common sense. Sometimes, if that person steps back and considers things with that mention of common sense in mind, they will be persuaded.
I see appeals to common sense as a way to jolt people out of rules-lawyering. But sometimes in a more successful way than saying something like "Ignore all rules".
Carcharoth
I see appeals to common sense as a way to jolt people out of rules-lawyering.
If only more admins had any common sense... I mean no [[WP:ATTACK]] of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fo...
Dan
2009/4/3 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Not quite. If someone disagrees with you, you can explain why they are wrong, and at the end of the argument, you can appeal to common sense. Sometimes, if that person steps back and considers things with that mention of common sense in mind, they will be persuaded.
Personally I would prefer that people considered things logically.
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Doesn't work. Any rule which says to use common sense will lose out against a more conventional rule. The reason is that rules really become necessary when you need to force someone else to follow them. If the rule gives a specific, detailed, description of what is and isn't allowed, with no room for human judgment, you can force someone else to follow it. If the rule is based on human judgment, you can't.
"If everyone agrees, this is what you can do" always loses to "if everyone doesn't agree, this is what you must do". After all, having a dispute means that not everyone agrees.
Not quite. If someone disagrees with you, you can explain why they are wrong, and at the end of the argument, you can appeal to common sense. Sometimes, if that person steps back and considers things with that mention of common sense in mind, they will be persuaded.
I see appeals to common sense as a way to jolt people out of rules-lawyering. But sometimes in a more successful way than saying something like "Ignore all rules".
Explaining why someone is wrong presupposes that he is in fact wrong, and that you are right. More often than not he feels the same way from the opposite perspective, and we have a POV battle.
It is unfortunate that some people aren't smart enough to live without rules to the point that mere guidelines become inviolable rules. This creates a culture of winners and losers. Keeping rules to an absolute minimum promotes innovation, and establishes more fertile ground for new ways of doing things. Most new ideas get nowhere for their own reasons. It's important to allow them a natural death through disuse; killing off these humble ideas quickly just gives something for people to argue about.
Ec
2009/4/1 Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomi...)
And before anyone gets too outraged, do make note of today's date.
One of these days people will learn to be original.