--- Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think WP is serious. Nonsense postings are pushed to the margins, as far as I can see (forgive me if I'm not much interested in Larouche issues, which I think are barely relevant outside the USA).
Trust me, they're no more relevant inside the USA.
RickK
__________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
If I may throw my two fundamental units of an arbitrary currency into the discussion.
On rules vs. good ideas:
The problem with rules, and hence the resitance of many wikipedian's to their enaction, is that they are inflexible, absolute, cannot be written with all circumstances in mind, and very often outgrow their intended purpose and assume a life of their own. A good idea, however, can be changed, it can develop and it needn't be applied concretely regardless of context.
The recognition of this problem in Wiki communities is evident with the original "Ignore all rules" dictum, and is perhaps best expressed in Chuck Yeager's aphorism "Rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own". For people to be positive contributors to the wikipedia, beyond a very small scope, they must be willing and able to moderate their own behaviour, to understand wikiquette and its implications, to be able to assess their and others' actions objectively and rationally, and to put themselves into a neutral mindset when disputes arise.
Rules erode this responsibility. If there are rules that are used without contextual interpretation to dictate what behaviour is acceptable, and what isn't, people will not put so much consideration into enforcing their own codes and principles of editing. That is not to say that rules and virtues cannot co-exist, but only that for a large number of people, the presence of the former seems to invalidate the need for the latter.
A good wikipedian, whose name I forget, explained to 3RR to me in a very useful way, explaining that it is best to be seen as a slap in the face because if one has to resort to reverting the same page thrice in one day, there is something wrong with one's editing/dispute-resolution procedures.
So why don't we start viewing the 3RR as a good idea, an inspiration for finding better ways to overcome dispute and achieve consensus, and a tool to let people know when they need to introspect. But let us not view is as a commandment, set in stone, to be applied rigidly.
Anyhow, just bouncing ideas about.
Yours in liberty, -nsh
nsh said:
A good wikipedian, whose name I forget, explained to 3RR to me in a very useful way, explaining that it is best to be seen as a slap in the face because if one has to resort to reverting the same page thrice in one day, there is something wrong with one's editing/dispute-resolution procedures.
So why don't we start viewing the 3RR as a good idea, an inspiration for finding better ways to overcome dispute and achieve consensus, and a tool to let people know when they need to introspect. But let us not view is as a commandment, set in stone, to be applied rigidly.
Those two paragraphs seem to be mutually contradictory. Surely if three reverts is a sign that there is something wrong (a sentiment with which I strongly agree) we don't want to just regard 3RR as "a good idea, an inspiration." It should be taken as what it is: a sign that we're doing something seriously wrong. We shouldn't, therefore, be too surprised if someone comes along and gives us 24 hours off the task of editing, during which we can reconsider our editing style.
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 21:22:27 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
nsh said:
A good wikipedian, whose name I forget, explained to 3RR to me in a very useful way, explaining that it is best to be seen as a slap in the face because if one has to resort to reverting the same page thrice in one day, there is something wrong with one's editing/dispute-resolution procedures.
So why don't we start viewing the 3RR as a good idea, an inspiration for finding better ways to overcome dispute and achieve consensus, and a tool to let people know when they need to introspect. But let us not view is as a commandment, set in stone, to be applied rigidly.
Those two paragraphs seem to be mutually contradictory. Surely if three reverts is a sign that there is something wrong (a sentiment with which I strongly agree) we don't want to just regard 3RR as "a good idea, an inspiration." It should be taken as what it is: a sign that we're doing something seriously wrong. We shouldn't, therefore, be too surprised if someone comes along and gives us 24 hours off the task of editing, during which we can reconsider our editing style.
My phrasing rarely leaves nothing to be desired :-) I do agree that in many cases a temporary block is necessary to help provoke the introspection that I mentioned, however this does not mean that it is always needed, or more importantly that the block achieves anything in or of itself. It ought always be accompanied with an explaination that there are better ways to solve disputes, preferably with some pointers as to how the person in question could go about learning or practising these improved methods.
My only fear is that all too often those 24 hours will not be spent trying to improve one's understanding of Wikipedia and the Wiki way, but in the development of fuming resentment which aids no-one and nothing. Is this entirely the fault of the person implimenting the block? No. But neither would it be entriely the fault of the person who is blocked if they are not afforded an opportunity to understand why such action has been taken away from them or if such action is taken prematurely.
Hope this clarifies my nsh-waffle.
Yours, &c -nsh
nsh said:
My phrasing rarely leaves nothing to be desired :-) I do agree that in many cases a temporary block is necessary to help provoke the introspection that I mentioned, however this does not mean that it is always needed, or more importantly that the block achieves anything in or of itself. It ought always be accompanied with an explaination that there are better ways to solve disputes, preferably with some pointers as to how the person in question could go about learning or practising these improved methods.
I think we're in agreement, really.
My only fear is that all too often those 24 hours will not be spent trying to improve one's understanding of Wikipedia and the Wiki way, but in the development of fuming resentment which aids no-one and nothing. Is this entirely the fault of the person implimenting the block? No. But neither would it be entriely the fault of the person who is blocked if they are not afforded an opportunity to understand why such action has been taken away from them or if such action is taken prematurely.
It's the "We need *this* edit war for the good of Wikipedia" syndrome. It's related to [[Wikipedia:The Wrong Version]].
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 21:57:04 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
It's the "We need *this* edit war for the good of Wikipedia" syndrome. It's related to [[Wikipedia:The Wrong Version]].
Indeed. There is so much to be achieved through dialectic and consensus, and nothing at all to be achieved through violence. And though it may debase the meaning of violence to apply it digitally, a revert was _is_ analogous a physical controntation when words have failed. Let us import knowledge from the real world, not stupidity. :-) -nsh