It seems there is a proven effective tactic that was used once already to get me banned and is now being used again. Evercat is insisting that I must preserve all the context in every message on every talk page when I insert material. I must not only defend my own positions now but also protect and defend the positions of others. I have had many posts broken up by the responses from others. Do I have a right to reversion all of their edits then ask for their immediate banning if in ten minutes they are still trying to put THEIR OWN COMMENTS in context?
I really despise having to appeal to the masses just to use wikipedia as any other person is doing right at this very moment. Having to continually and constantly defend each and every single edit, no matter how trivial, is really tiresome. What is causing all "the problems" on wikipedia? Is it people like me? Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?
Honestly I have to say if the sorts Evercat is complaining about are bannable offenses, Evercat, show your evidence here. Let us all see what you're so uptight about, before you get me banned again.
On Wednesday 18 February 2004 04:22 pm, Plautus Satire wrote:
I really despise having to appeal to the masses just to use wikipedia as any other person is doing right at this very moment. Having to continually and constantly defend each and every single edit, no matter how trivial, is really tiresome. What is causing all "the problems" on wikipedia? Is it people like me?
Yes
Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?
No. This is precisely the wrong attitude. If what constitutes the "truth" is under contention, then simply stating that you are the bearer of the supreme and only truth will lead nowhere except reversion wars. What is needed is backing up with evidence and citations. Which you seem to describe as "constantly defend each and every single edit".
Best, Sascha Noyes
You may reasonably expect the other party to also defend their edits.
Fred
From: Sascha Noyes lists@pantropy.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:36:51 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.
On Wednesday 18 February 2004 04:22 pm, Plautus Satire wrote:
I really despise having to appeal to the masses just to use wikipedia as any other person is doing right at this very moment. Having to continually and constantly defend each and every single edit, no matter how trivial, is really tiresome. What is causing all "the problems" on wikipedia? Is it people like me?
Yes
Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?
No. This is precisely the wrong attitude. If what constitutes the "truth" is under contention, then simply stating that you are the bearer of the supreme and only truth will lead nowhere except reversion wars. What is needed is backing up with evidence and citations. Which you seem to describe as "constantly defend each and every single edit".
Best, Sascha Noyes -- PGP key: http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc (KeyID:4990287E) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2004 04:22 pm, Plautus Satire wrote:
Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?
No. This is precisely the wrong attitude. If what constitutes the "truth" is under contention, then simply stating that you are the bearer of the supreme and only truth will lead nowhere except reversion wars. What is needed is backing up with evidence and citations. Which you seem to describe as "constantly defend each and every single edit".
I think this is a postive direction for Wikipedia to move: providing sources & backup for not only the opinions or judgements presented here -- but also for the facts. Spend a little time in alt.folklore.urban, & you will see how off-the-cuff surmises can morph into statements "everyone knows"; study almost any social science in depth, & you will see how a thesis thrown out by one writer will become a fact in another's paper.
One of the open secrets of 20th century print encyclopedias is that the material in them was often outdated or incorrect. But since the target audience was the school kid either looking to find the population & chief industry of Boise, Idaho, or looking for text to copy into his report on Flatworms, no one cared.
Even if this process is slower, we can be proud that the result will be more accurate.
Geoff
Without doing hours of research into what Evercat is talking about, I think that you should while editing talk pages ensure that the posts by others still make sense (or as least as much as they ever did) when you are done.
Fred
From: Plautus Satire plautus@shaw.ca Reply-To: plautus@shaw.ca, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:22:30 +0000 To: English@mail.wikimedia.org, Wikipedia@mail.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.
It seems there is a proven effective tactic that was used once already to get me banned and is now being used again. Evercat is insisting that I must preserve all the context in every message on every talk page when I insert material. I must not only defend my own positions now but also protect and defend the positions of others. I have had many posts broken up by the responses from others. Do I have a right to reversion all of their edits then ask for their immediate banning if in ten minutes they are still trying to put THEIR OWN COMMENTS in context?
I really despise having to appeal to the masses just to use wikipedia as any other person is doing right at this very moment. Having to continually and constantly defend each and every single edit, no matter how trivial, is really tiresome. What is causing all "the problems" on wikipedia? Is it people like me? Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?
Honestly I have to say if the sorts Evercat is complaining about are bannable offenses, Evercat, show your evidence here. Let us all see what you're so uptight about, before you get me banned again. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l