(no subject)

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Proposed change to "Naming...

Moving the Main Page

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

12 Jan 2007 12 Jan '07

4:14 p.m.

I personally fear systemic bias on wikipedia is being squeezed from two directions concurrently at the moment. The way AFD currently works means that pages which are not on many users watchlists is uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation. So that means that the bias stemming from our communitys composition not only affects what gets created but also what gets deleted. This two-way squeeze worries me. Although I commend in general terms the drive to emphasize quality over quantity, to me at least that does not extend so far as to emphasizing removal of content over creation of it. And this is a question that should at least be addressed. I think it would be useful if the board and or Jimbo uttered something on the matter to let us know how they view the question in general on this mailing list. I do not wish to make this a discussion of specific examples but rather a more general definition of guiding principles. But if necessary for illustrating the reality of the issue, I will find some examples to ground it in reality. I really don't think such is necessary, and would much prefer to discuss the matter under a "veil of ignorance" about which particular areas are most vulnerable, and in the abstract. So how about it? Even if we accept that quantity is *less* important than the quality, is creation still preferred over removal? -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Show replies by date

Nina Stratton

12 Jan 12 Jan

4:49 p.m.

+! Nina On 1/12/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

James Hare

5:19 p.m.

I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability. Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol' reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are important, but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button). Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting and more on evaluating the opinions of people. On 1/12/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

+! Nina On 1/12/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Thomas Dalton

5:22 p.m.

...

I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.

Who determines someone's qualifications? I can claim to be an expert on any topic I like, that doesn't make it true.

Ray Saintonge

13 Jan 13 Jan

5:49 a.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.

Who determines someone's qualifications? I can claim to be an expert on any topic I like, that doesn't make it true.

You can establish your expertise through your participation in the relevant WikiProject. Ec

geni

1:54 p.m.

On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Thomas Dalton wrote:

I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.

Who determines someone's qualifications? I can claim to be an expert on any topic I like, that doesn't make it true.

You can establish your expertise through your participation in the relevant WikiProject.

After what happened with the WikiProject Alternative medicine I do not trust wikiprojects to be neutral. You also risk turning every wikiproject into something with internal politics matching Esperanza. -- geni

Ray Saintonge

8:44 p.m.

geni wrote:

...

On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Thomas Dalton wrote:

I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.

Who determines someone's qualifications? I can claim to be an expert on any topic I like, that doesn't make it true.

You can establish your expertise through your participation in the relevant WikiProject.

I can't comment on Esperanza because I have not been following that debate. I do think it's wrong to extrapolate the experiences regarding Alternative medicine into all sorts of unrealated projects. In the present context all we would be asking them to do is to deal with alternative medicine topics. There may be contentious issues there, but I think it's reasonable to expect that both sides will remain more or less on topic. The potential for every WikiProject to have it's own internal politics is certainly there, but why is that so bad? Is it really any better to throw these issues into a communal sewage treatment plant than a local septic tank? It might be easier to find a lost diamond ring in the latter. Ec

geni

9:08 p.m.

On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Both sides? You appear to have missed the point of that project back in the day

...

The potential for every WikiProject to have it's own internal politics is certainly there, but why is that so bad? Is it really any better to throw these issues into a communal sewage treatment plant than a local septic tank? It might be easier to find a lost diamond ring in the latter.

Establishing an effective monoply is always bad. At the moment a wikiproject knows that if they are less than ideal people will just go around them. Give them power that outsiders have no easy way to disspute and the various problems wikiprojects have become a lot more serious. -- geni

Ray Saintonge

14 Jan 14 Jan

12:56 a.m.

geni wrote:

...

On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Both sides? You appear to have missed the point of that project back in the day

Why shouldn't both sides need to stay on topic. Admittedly I chose not to participate in that debate because I was not ready to do the research needed to properly defend the closed-minded attacks from the opponents of alternative medicine. Now, we have a simple notability. Even a practice that has been unanimously rejected as having no medical value can remain historically notable.

...

Who said anything about a monopoly? Or that they have any new "powers"? Or that outsiders would not be able to participate? Ec

geni

1:13 a.m.

On 1/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Why shouldn't both sides need to stay on topic.

Ah you miss the point. The wikiproject sort to exclude those who did not believe in alt med.

...

Admittedly I chose not to participate in that debate because I was not ready to do the research needed to properly defend the closed-minded attacks from the opponents of alternative medicine.

So you admit that you like to take positions on the basis of belief rather than evidence and logic?

...

Who said anything about a monopoly? Or that they have any new "powers"? Or that outsiders would not be able to participate?

You did. "You can establish your expertise through your participation in the relevant WikiProject" Giving WikiProjects an effective monopoly. -- geni

Ray Saintonge

10:50 a.m.

geni wrote:

...

On 1/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Why shouldn't both sides need to stay on topic.

Ah you miss the point. The wikiproject sort to exclude those who did not believe in alt med.

Fair enough, but those interested in alt med are still in a better position to review what is notable in the field. If they choose to delete something, I'm sure that even you will agree that article is pretty far from reality. If they choose to keep, the opportunities to debate the subject will remain.

...

Admittedly I chose not to participate in that debate because I was not ready to do the research needed to properly defend the closed-minded attacks from the opponents of alternative medicine.

So you admit that you like to take positions on the basis of belief rather than evidence and logic?

Choosing not to participate is far removed from taking a position in an article.

...

Who said anything about a monopoly? Or that they have any new "powers"? Or that outsiders would not be able to participate?

You did. "You can establish your expertise through your participation in the relevant WikiProject" Giving WikiProjects an effective monopoly.

There is nothing about a monopoly in that quote. Building credibility does not imply monopoly. Ec

geni

11:08 a.m.

On 1/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Choosing not to participate is far removed from taking a position in an article.

You took a position on a subject while at the same time admitting you did not know how to counter the arguments against that position. Thus you chose belief over logic

...

There is nothing about a monopoly in that quote. Building credibility does not imply monopoly.

It does if there is only one way to do it. -- geni

Jeff Raymond

12 Jan 12 Jan

6:03 p.m.

James Hare wrote:

...

Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

I can see it now - Librarian badlydrawnjeff notes that over 10k books generally meet our standard in a given year, and a shitstorm ensues. A good idea that will never, ever happen. -Jeff

James Hare

6:10 p.m.

I think the WikiProjects should set the standards -- people generally involved in the WikiProjects are knowledged in the field and know what separates the boys from the men (and the girls from the women). Wait a darn second, doesn't that happen already? Ah, but yes, other people have a say as well. It's part good and part unfortunate. On 1/12/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

...

James Hare wrote:

Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote

counting

and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

I can see it now - Librarian badlydrawnjeff notes that over 10k books generally meet our standard in a given year, and a shitstorm ensues. A good idea that will never, ever happen. -Jeff _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Ray Saintonge

13 Jan 13 Jan

9:07 a.m.

Jeff Raymond wrote:

...

James Hare wrote:

Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

I can see it now - Librarian badlydrawnjeff notes that over 10k books generally meet our standard in a given year, and a shitstorm ensues. A good idea that will never, ever happen.

Yeah, shitstorms tend not to be noticed by people who are already full of it. :-) Ec

Rob Smith

12 Jan 12 Jan

8:33 p.m.

On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Somethig like this should apply to RfC's as well; for example when an RfC on an historical subject is hung out in politics to invite input from partisan users with no understanding of the issues involved. Rob Smith aka nobs

geni

8:50 p.m.

On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability. Chemists determine chemical notability,

Define your terms

...

Finns determine notability of Finnish folk,

Um trying that with the countries around the balkans would be um interesting if you were at a safe distance.

...

the list goes on.

Not really since you have failed to define what the list was of. Countries? So only australians can talk about [[Ball's Pyramid]]. How are you defineing Countries anyway? Does scotland count? What about cornwall?

...

Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol' reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are important, but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).

Define qualified.

...

Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

Or you could try going to AFDs and commenting rather than voteing. -- geni

James Hare

9:06 p.m.

I am sorry for providing only a basic idea of what I was looking for. No, I am not limiting the people of a niche for discussion. Anyone can discuss things. However, more weight should be given to the opinions of the people who KNOW what they're talking about -- this should be reflected by their article contributions. That is what I consider "qualified." Now, if we were to make cabals of people who can verifiably be considered experts (like how Citizendium has Editors), then they sure could be able to speak but let them yield not so much power because everyone is important. This gives me an idea... Let's not talk about countries or things like that -- topics are topics. Cornwall is Cornwall, Scotland is Scotland, Egyptian literature is Egyptian literature, things of that nature. I define a topic as something that has a main article and more articles expanding on the idea (remember: strict definitions are instruction creep). On 1/12/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people

with

background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability. Chemists determine chemical notability,

Define your terms

Finns determine notability of Finnish folk,

Um trying that with the countries around the balkans would be um interesting if you were at a safe distance.

the list goes on.

Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol' reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are

important,

but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).

Define qualified.

Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote

counting

and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

Or you could try going to AFDs and commenting rather than voteing. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

geni

9:20 p.m.

On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

So the closeing admin has to dig through a load of contribution histories before closeing an AFD?

...

Let's not talk about countries or things like that -- topics are topics. Cornwall is Cornwall, Scotland is Scotland,

Why is Scotland Scotland but Cornwall not England (assume this isn't a test of knowlage on UK constitutional law)

...

Egyptian literature is Egyptian literature,

...

things of that nature. I define a topic as something that has a main article and more articles expanding on the idea (remember: strict definitions are instruction creep).

By that logical I can't vote on subjects relating to chemistry which I am qualified in but could vote on subjects releated to american canals something I know nothing about (we have an article on canals and I have a fair number of edits in that area). -- geni

Thomas Dalton

9:35 p.m.

...

However, more weight should be given to the opinions of the people who KNOW what they're talking about -- this should be reflected by their article contributions.

The only people that can judge qualification by looking at article contributions are those that are qualified in the subject themselves. Your definition is circular.

Guy Chapman aka JzG

13 Jan 13 Jan

3:12 p.m.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:14:17 +0200, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation

Assuming bad faith, at all? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Sean Black

11:07 p.m.

On 1/13/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:14:17 +0200, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:

uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation

Assuming bad faith, at all?

Expressing one's viewpoint qualifies as an assumption of bad faith when that opinion is contrary to your's? Good to know. ~~sean

Guy Chapman aka JzG

14 Jan 14 Jan

12:20 p.m.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:07:00 -0500, "Sean Black" <smblac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation

Assuming bad faith, at all?

Expressing one's viewpoint qualifies as an assumption of bad faith when that opinion is contrary to your's? Good to know.

In what way are the terms "wonk" and "predation" evidence of anything other than bad faith? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Caroline Shurrab

5:32 p.m.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? What on earth are you talking about? Is this in response to something I wrote or what? Also, would you mind using layman's English because I have never heard of "wonk"...thanks so much. If this is in response to someone else's email, then disregard this email..... Ashani Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:07:00 -0500, "Sean Black" wrote:

...

uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation

Assuming bad faith, at all?

Expressing one's viewpoint qualifies as an assumption of bad faith when that opinion is contrary to your's? Good to know.

Caroline Shurrab

5:39 p.m.

Caroline Shurrab <isisandankh(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I'm sorry, did I miss something? What on earth are you talking about? Is this in response to something I wrote or what? Also, would you mind using layman's English because I have never heard of "wonk"...thanks so much. If this is in response to someone else's email, then disregard this email..... Ashani Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:07:00 -0500, "Sean Black" wrote:

...

uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation

Assuming bad faith, at all?

Expressing one's viewpoint qualifies as an assumption of bad faith when that opinion is contrary to your's? Good to know.

In what way are the terms "wonk" and "predation" evidence of anything other than bad faith? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

K P

7:53 p.m.

...

We'll be a step into the right direction if people try to improve some articles before nominating them for deletion. Sure, you CAN speedy an article for failing to claim notability, but if a quick google search shows beyond a shadow of a doubt it is notable and you can add a few words to prove it, it's really not the most produvtive endeavor to delete something. I see a lot of deletion discussions questioning notability when the nominator has no real idea about the subject. Perhaps when can have a separate page for notability discussions to avoid having them nominated for deletion ebefore we have all the facts. Mgm

Glad to know someone else sees this. I can't figure out how I would know an article should be deleted without knowing enough about the subject to discuss it even. I'm an old school gamer--how could I possibly tell which gaming articles should be deleted? If "nonsense to me" were a reason, they should all be deleted, except, of course, for Pong and Tetris. But this is the case, AfD nominator asserts it should be deleted because they never heard of it--someone asked for examples, I've found it in a number of votes, but I'll find it a current article and post it soon. It's common enough. KP

Guy Chapman aka JzG

9:10 p.m.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:32:47 -0800 (PST), Caroline Shurrab <isisandankh(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

I'm sorry, did I miss something? What on earth are you talking about?

You need a threaded mail client :-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

K P

9:50 p.m.

On 1/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:32:47 -0800 (PST), Caroline Shurrab <isisandankh(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm sorry, did I miss something? What on earth are you talking about?

You need a threaded mail client :-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Since I admit to still playing pong, do you think I know what a threaded mail client is? I just figured out that the pop-ups I keep reading about are the thingy someone gave me to download a few weeks ago that make little mini preview screens pop up. They gave it to me to download while I was trying to find the undo button on the edit page. I pasted the thread I was responding to, though. That is what on earth and in cyberspace I am talking about. KP

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

13 Jan 13 Jan

11:56 p.m.

...

6325

days inactive

6327

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

28 comments

13 participants

tags (0)

participants (13)

Caroline Shurrab
geni
Guy Chapman aka JzG
James Hare
Jeff Raymond
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
K P
MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Nina Stratton
Ray Saintonge
Rob Smith
Sean Black
Thomas Dalton