----- "Michael Peel" email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still played out in the same fashion.
I'm also a little uneasy about it, but to me it seems to be the one case in 1000 where even Wikipedia agrees that more information is actually a bad thing.
I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic.
As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off.
Andrew
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote:
I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic.
As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off.
It would have been much better if it was officially an office action. Instead, ordinary Wikipedians were being put in the position of being told by people with authority that the rules demanded something that they manifestly did not. Yes, it was a reliable source, and they said it wasn't, and it's an excuse. Think about what you are really saying when you're saying "it's an excuse". We *trust* the people in charge of Wikipedia to enforce rules fairly. This trust was broken. (And it was by no means the first time, it's just that the cause was a little better this time.)
2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote:
I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic.
As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off.
It would have been much better if it was officially an office action.
Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It would have been much better if it was officially an office action.
Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet.
In this situation, perhaps it was thought it would work better if it looked like just another "wiki squabble" over sources. We have plenty of those but "office actions" are rare.
"Hey, those idiots at Wikipedia can't even decide on whether or not this kidnapping's notable. He's just a shmoe, let him go".