On 5/3/06, wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org
From: Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cyde should not have violated Deletion policy (Johntex) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 4459925E.90903@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I didn't "close" the debate so much as I "canceled" it. My "vote", as you mention, was to cancel it ... and then a minute after that I realized I could go through with what I said should be done.
Unfortunately, this misses the point. Whether you called it a "closure" or "cancellation" or a "stoppage" or whatever. You halted the process that a lot of people were contributing to. They had a right to be heard. This wastes a lot of time and looks like bad behavior for an admin to kill an AfD early, especially one he has been involved in.
Johntex
John Tex wrote:
On 5/3/06, wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org
From: Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cyde should not have violated Deletion policy (Johntex) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 4459925E.90903@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I didn't "close" the debate so much as I "canceled" it. My "vote", as you mention, was to cancel it ... and then a minute after that I realized I could go through with what I said should be done.
Unfortunately, this misses the point. Whether you called it a "closure" or "cancellation" or a "stoppage" or whatever. You halted the process that a lot of people were contributing to.
The process was /wrong/.
They had a right to be heard.
Wikipedia is NOT a democracy; the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States only guarantees "free speech" against intervention by Congress. Wikipedia is a private website where you have exactly TWO rights:
* The right to leave * The right to fork
This wastes a lot of time and looks like bad behavior for an admin to kill an AfD early, especially one he has been involved in.
It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
On May 4, 2006, at 3:57 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Wikipedia is NOT a democracy; the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States only guarantees "free speech" against intervention by Congress. Wikipedia is a private website where you have exactly TWO rights:
- The right to leave
- The right to fork
Those are your enforceable legal rights; however, you also have the right to participate on an equal basis in the project; the right to be treated with respect; and the right to a fair hearing should your rights not be respected or should you be accused of violating the rights of others. Just because you cannot go into a court and enforce Wikipedia policies does not mean that they do not exist and are not upheld.
Fred
On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
[[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justifcation for descission makeing.
-- geni
I respect John a great deal, but I think the end result was right in this instance and support Cyde's actions.
k
On 5/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
[[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justifcation for descission makeing.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni wrote:
On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
[[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justification for decision making.
The reason the [[Monty Hall problem]] is a "problem" is because it appears to turn common sense on its head: the "exception that proves the rule".
Just because there exist carefully designed situations in which common sense will lead you up a carefully prepared garden path does not invalidate the application of common sense in each and every situation.
The reason it is called "common sense" is after all because it commonly makes sense.
HTH HAND
On 5/4/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
[[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justification for decision making.
The reason the [[Monty Hall problem]] is a "problem" is because it appears to turn common sense on its head: the "exception that proves the rule".
That phrase makes no sense in commonly used modern english english.
Just because there exist carefully designed situations in which common sense will lead you up a carefully prepared garden path does not invalidate the application of common sense in each and every situation.
Ok then how about:
[[Proof that 0.999... equals 1]] or most of [[Quantum mechanics]]
Since there is no useful way of telling when "common sense" is going to break down it's use over logical deduction from evidence is not jusifiable.
The reason it is called "common sense" is after all because it commonly makes sense.
Our article on the subject disagres
-- geni
On 5/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
[[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justification
for
decision making.
The reason the [[Monty Hall problem]] is a "problem" is because it
appears
to turn common sense on its head: the "exception that proves the rule".
That phrase makes no sense in commonly used modern english english.
Just because there exist carefully designed situations in which common
sense
will lead you up a carefully prepared garden path does not invalidate
the
application of common sense in each and every situation.
Ok then how about:
[[Proof that 0.999... equals 1]] or most of [[Quantum mechanics]]
and for what is worth, 0.9999.... = 1 is common sense to me (but I won't comment on quantum mechanics)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
[[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justifcation for descission makeing.
For what it's worth I figured out the Monty Hall problem on my own with a simple experiment when I was younger, so don't say it tricks everyone, because it doesn't.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
Ben McIlwain wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
[[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justifcation for descission makeing.
For what it's worth I figured out the Monty Hall problem on my own with a simple experiment when I was younger, so don't say it tricks everyone, because it doesn't.
More to the point, the outcome of the Monty Hall problem is "common sense" once you understand it. Denying that staying will give you a better chance of winning when there are 9999998 doors with goats behind them open, when you've had it explained to you, is /not/ common sense. On Wikipedia there's a term for this sort of ignoring common sense - being a dick.
On Wed, 3 May 2006 23:51:01 -0700, you wrote:
Unfortunately, this misses the point. Whether you called it a "closure" or "cancellation" or a "stoppage" or whatever. You halted the process that a lot of people were contributing to. They had a right to be heard. This wastes a lot of time and looks like bad behavior for an admin to kill an AfD early, especially one he has been involved in.
I disagree. Cyde stopped a catfight.
Guy (JzG)
On May 4, 2006, at 5:26 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006 23:51:01 -0700, you wrote:
Unfortunately, this misses the point. Whether you called it a "closure" or "cancellation" or a "stoppage" or whatever. You halted the process that a lot of people were contributing to. They had a right to be heard. This wastes a lot of time and looks like bad behavior for an admin to kill an AfD early, especially one he has been involved in.
I disagree. Cyde stopped a catfight.
But he took a job as a cat herder. Yes, the AfD is extremely messy and, however decided, will involve bad feeling, but when we attempt to write encyclopedia articles about contemporary controversial subjects that is always the case. The alternative would be to not accept articles until the matter is settled. But our coverage of controversial current events is one of our strengths. It is like a great Limburger cheese. Nothing that stinky, or interesting, on Britannica.
Fred
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think Cyde did the right thing. As I understand it, not one but three separate attempts at vote-stacking were under way. Better to halt the fiasco quickly and to block the miscreants than to let them stack votes and then try to wikilawyer their desired result in deletion review.