On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Sorry, but I absolutely do not accept that lack of an article on ED is any kind of a problem at all.
Not only is it a site of no obvious significance, anyone who wants to find out about it can do so at the only place that actually gives a shit, which is ED itself.
Well, I'm not saying it's deletion was wrong-- I wasn't involved in it, so I'm totally going to accept that it was the appropriate response at the time. If it's not notable, it's not notable, what can ya do? Our content policies are our content policies-- we can't bend them just to combat the false impression that we're being suppressive.
I'm just saying, the project will come off looking a whole lot better when or if ED is mentioned in enough reliable sources that we are able to write an article about it. Having an article would be one more piece of ammunition we can steal from the critics and turn to an advantage. Anyone who showed up accusing of us of suppressing our critics would have a giant shiny article we could point to where we could say "Oh yea?? well what is THAT article doing here then?"
But, as good as that would look, the decision to have or not have such an article should be made completely independent from "Wikipolitical" concerns-- which is why I haven't nominated a deletion review, or indeed, even made up my mind whether a reasonable article could have been written about ED. I've never been to closely involved in deletion debates, if I started the recreation myself, it'd be guilty of "improving wikipedia to prove a point" which itself is a problem.
I'm just saying-- the day when an ED article can exist here while complyign with WP:V will be one that is very very good for Wikipedia, and I'll be happy when or if that time comes, as one more sign that our strength as an encyclopedia that we can neurtally cover EVERYTHING-- even those who attack us. Writing the fairest, most objective article possible on ED would be the Wiki equivalent of turning the other cheek.
Alec
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:40:12 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just saying, the project will come off looking a whole lot better when or if ED is mentioned in enough reliable sources that we are able to write an article about it. Having an article would be one more piece of ammunition we can steal from the critics and turn to an advantage. Anyone who showed up accusing of us of suppressing our critics would have a giant shiny article we could point to where we could say "Oh yea?? well what is THAT article doing here then?"
This rather ignores the fact that we have articles on WikiTruth, Judd Bagley and other prominent critics.
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:40:12 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who showed up accusing of us of suppressing our critics would have a giant shiny article we could point to where we could say "Oh yea?? well what is THAT article doing here then?"
This rather ignores the fact that we have articles on WikiTruth, Judd Bagley and other prominent critics.
Don't get me wrong-- I'm not saying that at all. I think we do a GREAT job of it.
I'm just saying-- if we CAN cover ED in a NPOV, Verifiable, NOR way, we absolutely should. Another feather in the cap, another trophy in the case-- as indeed, all our articles are.
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
From an encyclopedic point of view, 100% agree. The decion can't be
motivated in any way by "meta-" or wikipolitical concerns. That, I think, is part and parcel of NPOV.
But, between you and me, from a meta point of view, if we get to the point where we CAN have one, that would be extremely impressive of us. :)
Alec
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:30:40 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just saying-- if we CAN cover ED in a NPOV, Verifiable, NOR way, we absolutely should. Another feather in the cap, another trophy in the case-- as indeed, all our articles are.
And given the number of ED fans still active on Wikipedia you may be reasonably sure that this is exactly what would happen.
The problem with ED is, as David notes above, that it is legendary only in its own mind. It almost went bust earlier this year.
Guy (JzG)
On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:30:40 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just saying-- if we CAN cover ED in a NPOV, Verifiable, NOR way, we absolutely should. Another feather in the cap, another trophy in the case-- as indeed, all our articles are.
And given the number of ED fans still active on Wikipedia you may be reasonably sure that this is exactly what would happen.
The problem with ED is, as David notes above, that it is legendary only in its own mind. It almost went bust earlier this year.
Guy (JzG)
11 mentions on google news.
Going bust doesn't mean much since it appeals to an internet savy demographic that doesn't click on ads even if it doesn't actively block them.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:56:54 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
11 mentions on google news.
One in the last month , and that in a blog. Of your eleven at least one is not even related (you did not quite the name).
Quoting the name gives four hits, one of which is a passing mention, one in Dutch, one is about Craigslist not ED and one is password-protected so I can't see it.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:56:54 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
11 mentions on google news.
One in the last month , and that in a blog. Of your eleven at least one is not even related (you did not quite the name).
Quoting the name gives four hits, one of which is a passing mention, one in Dutch, one is about Craigslist not ED and one is password-protected so I can't see it.
Guy (JzG)
Yeah, I have to go with The Guy on this one. I do hope reliable sources will emerge for ED so we can cover it-- (as I hope, for reliable sources for ANY topic so we can cover it). But I definitely haven't seen any evidence that shows ED is there yet.
I mean, who could we quote to substantiate things about ED? We can't quote them, that's for sure-- they'd have a blast with that, and talk about your unreliable narrator! hehe.
So, looking over what reliable sources DO exist, it looks like right now, our article would be a one line stub stating "Encyclopedia Dramatica exists". And that's no article.
Alec
On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
Guy (JzG)
On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
...that suddenly became an issue after 13 AFDs. Right. Whatever you say, Guy.
Quoting James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com:
On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
...that suddenly became an issue after 13 AFDs. Right. Whatever you say, Guy.
That wasn't what the summary said for the deletion reason, nor was it was closed in the DRV. Brandt was deleted under the new BLP clause (although not really deleted, all the content got moved elsewhere). This was despite, not due to sourcing.
Doesn't mean there won't be anything now.
Anyway, "Reliable Sources" seems to be a very flexible phrase around WP. If we didn't have Notability to fight about, we could have the exact same fights there. We''ve already redefined N this year to mean N for over a year if it's a living person, regardless of the number and status of the sources, and I suppose we could define RS to mean blog sources only for people whom we approve of--we've been using them freely for science fiction and Unix/Linux people.
On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
Guy (JzG)
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt#Przypisy_i_.C5.BAr.C3.B3d.C5.82a
There are probably more by now.
Quoting geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
Guy (JzG)
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt#Przypisy_i_.C5.BAr.C3.B3d.C5.82a
There are probably more by now.
There are at least 4 now, two of which are indisputable non-trivial (I've been keeping track in case we have an eventual DRV). And that Polish version doesn't include a number of other sources that were in the no longer used English version.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:56:34 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt#Przypisy_i_.C5.BAr.C3.B3d.C5.82a
Wow! One of those is nearly biographical, almost.
Guy (JzG)
On 2007.11.15 16:43:27 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net scribbled 0 lines:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
Guy (JzG)
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
-- gwern
Quoting Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com:
On 2007.11.15 16:43:27 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net scribbled 0 lines:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
Guy (JzG)
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
To clarify - what actually happened was after repeated AfDs (13 of them) and Brandt repeated harassment, the current clause in BLP that allows for deletion for marginally notable people was added. A 14th AfD occurred. This AfD was closed with a "complex merge" attempting to preserve as much of the articles material as possible while respecting a possible privacy right for Brandt.
Now my editorializing: It is clear that if Brandt were not Brandt it would have been almost certainly kept. As far as I can tell, there have been exactly two cases where the community has been willing to delete an article of a willing public figure; Daniel Brandt, and Seth Finkelstein. In both cases, there was not a clear consensus in the AfD, both had a DRV and the response in the DRVs in both cases was more or less "we're sick of this. enough". However, there was not a lack of sources.
Now, as an aside can we please discuss this rationally without insulting each other and making Hitler comparisons?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:44:42 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
It is clear that if Brandt were not Brandt it would have been almost certainly kept.
If he were not Brandt then we would not have had the article in the first place, let's remember that.
Guy (JzG)
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:44:42 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
It is clear that if Brandt were not Brandt it would have been almost certainly kept.
If he were not Brandt then we would not have had the article in the first place, let's remember that.
Incorrect, Brandt was uninvolved when SV wrote the original article. And even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. An article of someone of an equivalent notability would have been a keep. That this specific article had an odd history has little relevancy to that decision.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:45:56 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
If he were not Brandt then we would not have had the article in the first place, let's remember that.
Incorrect, Brandt was uninvolved when SV wrote the original article. And even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. An article of someone of an equivalent notability would have been a keep. That this specific article had an odd history has little relevancy to that decision.
I mean: if he were not a single-minded pursuer of his crusades.
But this is circular reasoning of course.
Guy (JzG)
On 2007.11.15 13:44:42 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu scribbled 0 lines:
Quoting Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com:
On 2007.11.15 16:43:27 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net scribbled 0 lines:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Having an article because they hate us is no better than not having one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
Guy (JzG)
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
To clarify - what actually happened was after repeated AfDs (13 of them) and Brandt repeated harassment, the current clause in BLP that allows for deletion for marginally notable people was added. A 14th AfD occurred. This AfD was closed with a "complex merge" attempting to preserve as much of the articles material as possible while respecting a possible privacy right for Brandt.
Now my editorializing: It is clear that if Brandt were not Brandt it would have been almost certainly kept. As far as I can tell, there have been exactly two cases where the community has been willing to delete an article of a willing public figure; Daniel Brandt, and Seth Finkelstein. In both cases, there was not a clear consensus in the AfD, both had a DRV and the response in the DRVs in both cases was more or less "we're sick of this. enough". However, there was not a lack of sources.
Now, as an aside can we please discuss this rationally without insulting each other and making Hitler comparisons?
The deletionists long ago showed that they'd already irrationally made up their minds, that no amount of sources would ever be sufficiently reliable, notable, or 'about' Brandt to count. Hence, they are in effect cloaking their IDONTLIKEIT arguments in rhetoric about RS and V and so on. You just saw an example of this by Guy in another email.
Many people have also said that Brandt was not worth the trouble of covering and that the article should just be deleted or that they should give in to those who wanted it deleted. Can you think of any better examples of appeasement than Neville Chamberlain?
-- gwern
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0500, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
So you say. I think it went because the sources were not *about Brandt*.
But I'm game, let's take it to deletion review.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 15, 2007 1:52 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0500, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
So you say. I think it went because the sources were not *about Brandt*.
But I'm game, let's take it to deletion review.
Guy (JzG)
Let's not.
How many featured articles could've been written with the effort that's been extended to Daniel Brandt issues? How many unreferenced articles could've been referenced? No matter how important you think it is to have an article on Brandt, you have to admit its not worth the cost. Unless you think the *principle* of building an encyclopaedia is more important than the *practice* of building an encyclopaedia.
Brandt may be encyclopaedic, I don't know. I don't care. An article on him isn't worth the trouble these days. Put a moratorium on it until one million articles are featured. There's more important stuff to do.
Cheers WilyD
On 2007.11.15 18:52:34 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net scribbled 0 lines:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0500, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
So you say. I think it went because the sources were not *about Brandt*.
But I'm game, let's take it to deletion review.
Guy (JzG)
Yes. That's an excellent way of putting it, that you are game. Unfortunately you and the other deletionists have quite successfully gamed AfD and DRV on this issue, so I would only be wasting my time and potentially marking myself as a target.
I would note though that DRV was only supposed to be for when deletions did not follow procedure, but (like the Arbcom not making policy or NOR not supposed to apply to brain-dead inferences) this has long since fallen by the wayside.
-- gwern
One of the ways of not following procedure is to not take proper consideration of the evidence, which inevitably leads to a discussion of what ought to have been proper consideration of the evidence.
On 11/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2007.11.15 18:52:34 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net scribbled 0 lines:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0500, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
So you say. I think it went because the sources were not *about Brandt*.
But I'm game, let's take it to deletion review.
Guy (JzG)
Yes. That's an excellent way of putting it, that you are game. Unfortunately you and the other deletionists have quite successfully gamed AfD and DRV on this issue, so I would only be wasting my time and potentially marking myself as a target.
I would note though that DRV was only supposed to be for when deletions did not follow procedure, but (like the Arbcom not making policy or NOR not supposed to apply to brain-dead inferences) this has long since fallen by the wayside.
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
This rather ignores the fact that we have articles on WikiTruth, Judd Bagley and other prominent critics.
The article on Wikitruth as been nominated for deletion six times so far, seven if you count one nom under a different name. We do not have an article on Judd Begley. The first article was deleted at the instigation of The Cabal, and the second was redirected to Overstock.com over The Cabal's objections.
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:33:27 -0500, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
This rather ignores the fact that we have articles on WikiTruth, Judd Bagley and other prominent critics.
The article on Wikitruth as been nominated for deletion six times so far, seven if you count one nom under a different name. We do not have an article on Judd Begley. The first article was deleted at the instigation of The Cabal, and the second was redirected to Overstock.com over The Cabal's objections.
Not much of a cabal, then, is it? Obviously you should stop worrying so much about it.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:33:27 -0500, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
This rather ignores the fact that we have articles on WikiTruth, Judd Bagley and other prominent critics.
The article on Wikitruth as been nominated for deletion six times so far, seven if you count one nom under a different name. We do not have an article on Judd Begley. The first article was deleted at the instigation of The Cabal, and the second was redirected to Overstock.com over The Cabal's objections.
Not much of a cabal, then, is it? Obviously you should stop worrying so much about it.
If the BADSITES faction is as ineffective as the WR-ites, that doesn't prevent either of them from making a real nuisance of themselves over this. The single most frustrating thing I find about editing is having to watch articles. It's one of the reasons I've taken to writing articles that, on some level, could be called trivial: nobody has much of an urge to come along and trash them. I have one article which I have to watch simply because the same person will come along every few months and revert it to his heavily POV and from what I can tell inaccurate version; when I finally grow tired of it, I have to assume that the article will revert to his version unless someone else is willing to take up watch for me.
What BADSITES means is that any article which has an external link (including citations) to something less inarguable than a major media source is vulnerable to that site putting up content to which a BADSITES proponent objects. It's just one more kind of damage to be watched for, and when it occurs, to get into a time-wasting spat about, without regard to the many occaisions on which the community has stated a consensus against it.
I don't think there is really a cabal, in spite of what we have heard about the "sooper seekrit" mailing list. But there obviously is a group of people who aren't going to let BADSITES die in spite of the repeated rejection of it, just as there is a group which repeatedly objects whenever it is brought up again. Since the community has consistently taken the side of the latter group, is there some reason we have to keep being put through the necessity of rejecting it over and over?
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:57:43 -0500, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Not much of a cabal, then, is it? Obviously you should stop worrying so much about it.
If the BADSITES faction is as ineffective as the WR-ites, that doesn't prevent either of them from making a real nuisance of themselves over this.
Not sure what you mean. I find that the BADSITES activists - i.e. the ones who reflexively revert any removal of links with hysterical cries of BADSITES! - are almost always a major contributor and enabler of drama.
The single most frustrating thing I find about editing is having to watch articles. It's one of the reasons I've taken to writing articles that, on some level, could be called trivial: nobody has much of an urge to come along and trash them. I have one article which I have to watch simply because the same person will come along every few months and revert it to his heavily POV and from what I can tell inaccurate version; when I finally grow tired of it, I have to assume that the article will revert to his version unless someone else is willing to take up watch for me.
It was ever thus. This with a POV to push are more motivated than those who work to keep the article neutral.
What BADSITES means is that any article which has an external link (including citations) to something less inarguable than a major media source is vulnerable to that site putting up content to which a BADSITES proponent objects. It's just one more kind of damage to be watched for, and when it occurs, to get into a time-wasting spat about, without regard to the many occaisions on which the community has stated a consensus against it.
And this has happened.... less than six times. That's around one quarter of one thousandth of one percent of all articles. Compared with the number that will suffer blatant vandalism, POV pushing, edits seeking to damage the reputation of unpopular living individuals... it's a problem not worth worrying about on anything like the scale you represent.
I don't think there is really a cabal, in spite of what we have heard about the "sooper seekrit" mailing list. But there obviously is a group of people who aren't going to let BADSITES die
One person, anyway. Dan Tobias. Some of us have moved on.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 29, 2007 8:34 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
And this has happened.... less than six times. That's around one quarter of one thousandth of one percent of all articles. Compared with the number that will suffer blatant vandalism, POV pushing, edits seeking to damage the reputation of unpopular living individuals... it's a problem not worth worrying about on anything like the scale you represent.
Well, that's your opinion, but I don't think that's a reasonable way of treating the statistics. But the thing is, six could easily be none, if BADSITES could be allowed to die. The way to let it die is to quit removing the links and to enforce the consensus that they not be removed.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:44:27 -0500, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that's your opinion, but I don't think that's a reasonable way of treating the statistics. But the thing is, six could easily be none, if BADSITES could be allowed to die. The way to let it die is to quit removing the links and to enforce the consensus that they not be removed.
BADSITES *is* dead, ages ago.
You'll never prevent people removing, in good faith, content they find objectionable. Look at the incredible acrimony stirred up by the Jyllands-Posten cartoon article.
What you can do is minimise the disruption by having a clear guideline and following [[WP:BRD]] - the D part has been conspicuous by its absence in the tiny number of disputes we've had.
Guy (JzG)
Quoting Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Sorry, but I absolutely do not accept that lack of an article on ED is any kind of a problem at all.
Not only is it a site of no obvious significance, anyone who wants to find out about it can do so at the only place that actually gives a shit, which is ED itself.
Well, I'm not saying it's deletion was wrong-- I wasn't involved in it, so I'm totally going to accept that it was the appropriate response at the time. If it's not notable, it's not notable, what can ya do? Our content policies are our content policies-- we can't bend them just to combat the false impression that we're being suppressive.
I'm just saying, the project will come off looking a whole lot better when or if ED is mentioned in enough reliable sources that we are able to write an article about it. Having an article would be one more piece of ammunition we can steal from the critics and turn to an advantage. Anyone who showed up accusing of us of suppressing our critics would have a giant shiny article we could point to where we could say "Oh yea?? well what is THAT article doing here then?"
But, as good as that would look, the decision to have or not have such an article should be made completely independent from "Wikipolitical" concerns-- which is why I haven't nominated a deletion review, or indeed, even made up my mind whether a reasonable article could have been written about ED. I've never been to closely involved in deletion debates, if I started the recreation myself, it'd be guilty of "improving wikipedia to prove a point" which itself is a problem.
I'm just saying-- the day when an ED article can exist here while complyign with WP:V will be one that is very very good for Wikipedia, and I'll be happy when or if that time comes, as one more sign that our strength as an encyclopedia that we can neurtally cover EVERYTHING-- even those who attack us. Writing the fairest, most objective article possible on ED would be the Wiki equivalent of turning the other cheek.
Maybe it is become I'm Jewish, but I've never been very in favor of turning the other cheek. In any event, it doesn't meet [[WP:WEB]]. When it does we will write an article on it. Put bluntly, until it does the ED people can cry until they die of dehydration or lack of electrolytes (I don't know which would occur first since tears have a high salt content) and it won't change our inclusion criteria. It isn't a complicated situation.