I had email problems, so this wasnt posted earlier -= like around 9am PST -- but .here it is anyway
Danny wrote
"Wikipedia is a project with a stated
objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its objective is not to create an ideal >democratic >society a la Martin's perception of one. Nor is it a dumping ground, where anyone can put any crap they want in the name of free speech. It is a place that works best by consensus and compromise--not by making abrupt decisions that this must be the policy, come hell or high water. That is why I was opposed to making a final decision on the date format and spelling policies. ""
""The end result of all this is that some of the
serious long term contributors have left--Zoe, for one, was one of the most ?>prolific Wikipedians and a real defender of the project against vandalism. While Martin is certainly prolific on the Recent Changes, a quick look at his past 500 changes show that his work is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and most of the rest on contentious pages, where it is bound to flame the fires of dispute.""
How does having a democratic and responsive way of dealing with issues conflict with making an encyclopedia? -- Do not, Danny, fall victim to the typical assumptions and presumptions of academics. That said, your views on the usefulness of formalization seem to be inline with mine -- in terms of the nonsense details. In terms of process, however, and conducting administrative affairs, it seems the time is ripe to formalize under sunlight the way things get voted on, etc.
""What I would like to see are some solid
contributions--an article culled out of a Talk page does not count---before >wasting our time with the Vandal Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was made a sysop whether it was to police it >over the rest of us or to further the goal of creating an encyclopedia.""
You are 'free to wonder, Danny, but not aloud.' Hehe. Well... rather, if you make comments like the above, the rest of us might be inclined to point out that they are not in character for someone of your caliber, and that they need not be addressed if they are made as a slant, rather than as a formal complaint. In any case, your worthy history entitles you to some excusing.
As for Zoe (sob!) and others leaving, I might point out that they by and large left under some stress. The stress comes from the conflict that their personal or institutionalized standards are not the absolute measure here, rather it is consensus that is. If a disagreement is met, it must be dealt with in ways (like co-operation and respect) that some academics seem to avoid learning. Aside from the fact that academics need to find non-academic hobbies, anyone who lets themselves get too stressed on the WP will soon enough have to face a monster of their own making, namely that same-said stress. This stress comes via various factors: Severed attachment to areas of concern, a negated sense of accomplishment when something is changed, personality issues, and so on.
That academics eventually would call for higher standards, to "cut out the deadwood," and "weed out the weaklings," reflects only the fact that these professionals failed to understand what was Wikipedias founding spirit in the first place. Such people, despite their vast areas of rote knowledge, tend to have some fundamental inefficiencies that may make them in the end, extinct. Its kind of like the proverbial health-food junkie who dies if he eats bad food. Compared to the beefy, eat-anything robustness of a typically-poor diet, that health nut is an accident waiting to happen. (In some situations). The WP wont be obsolete, because it will be what it is. If Jim decided, say, to rename the WP, "Nupedia" -- saying "this henceforth a peer-reviewed thing," -- it will make no difference. It will still be the stagnant and dying Nupedia, regardless of how many articles it got via Wikipedic means.
Zoe, ironically, seemed to be non-academic enough to qualify as being among the robust, but then she took it upon herself to be the top-cop, the Ken Starr chasing Clinton, and of course, like Starr, some of the methods, words and tactics Zoe chose tended to make some skeptical of her intent. And besides, how do we know she's just not hanging out at the beach more often? The WP is nice for stay at home dads and IT dungeon keepers, but for others the appeal of a topical argument stands short against the realization that life in front of a screen is a bad habit at best.
So in short, I take issue with you, Danny, when you confuse the issues you presented, with the altogether different phenomenon of the changing guard.
Get well soon, all -Steve
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
steve vertigo wrote:
"the appeal of a topical argument stands short against the realization that life in front of a screen is a bad habit at best."
[[Heresy]]! [[Execution by burning|Buuurrrnnn]] the unbeliever!
:-)
Stan
steve vertigo wrote:
How does having a democratic and responsive way of dealing with issues conflict with making an encyclopedia?
It doesn't, generally, although I think we can all agree that there is sometimes tension between ideals of openness and ideals of quality in the encyclopedia. We have to deal with these friction points thoughtfully and 'conservatively' in the sense of working to adapt our policies over time, but cautiously, so as not to follow the fad of the month.
What will naturally happen is that we will tend to fall at different points along a spectrum, but as long as we all recognize that reasonable people can differ, we're already a long way down the road to finding mutually satisfactory solutions.
Steve isn't the first person to recommend a formalization of the way some things happen, and I'll be thinking and writing more about that in the next few weeks.
--Jimbo
steve vertigo wrote in part:
Do not, Danny, fall victim to the typical assumptions and presumptions of academics.
If a disagreement is met, it must be dealt with in ways (like co-operation and respect) that some academics seem to avoid learning.
That academics eventually would call for higher standards, to "cut out the deadwood," and "weed out the weaklings," reflects only the fact that these professionals failed to understand what was Wikipedias founding spirit in the first place. Such people, despite their vast areas of rote knowledge, tend to have some fundamental inefficiencies that may make them in the end, extinct.
Zoe, ironically, seemed to be non-academic enough to qualify as being among the robust,
I think that it's time for me, as an academic that has had few conflicts with Stevertigo, to ask, what in the world are you talking about???
-- Toby