I have never been so ashamed to be associated with Wikipedia as I am just now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allison_Stokke_...
There are a large number of people saying we should have this article. As of the time of writing, they seem to *all* be basing this on various forms of an assertion that because the subject fulfils an arbitrary criteria that we ourselves made up, having an article is therefore either necessary, our right, or inevitable. (It is not clear which of these schools they subscribe to, but it seems implicitly to be one of the three)
There is *one* passing comment, made in response to my complaint, about a neutral article being a defensibly a "good thing", because then we get on top of the google results and it's better than the alternatives - I disagree with it, but it's a reasoned position. Otherwise... not a smidgen of editorial thought. Just an incantation of an article of faith, a slavish devotion to a meaningless line in the sand.
And then, the crowning glory: "Strong keep ... No BLP issues and Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable ... Wikipedia is not censored ... ethical point of views and non-neutral !votes are irrelevant." - from, god help me, an admin. One of the people we theoretically select for common sense and an understanding of our goals. Linking - I am not making this up - to the content disclaimer.
Are we really saying that *because we made up an arbitrary rule ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly believe that this makes us an encyclopedia? A grand game of nomic over what does and doesn't constitute a topic, an endless series of rules on who we can and cannot write about, without any attempt to apply *judgement* to them? Without any attempt to say - hey, sometimes we have to make decisions on things?
The world is not full of hard and fast situations. We can't draw nice defining lines everywhere and get shining happy results. Sometimes, God forbid, we have to think about boundary cases. I wish people would show some willingness to.
What happened to the project I signed up to back in 2004? This twisted imitation of an attempt to write an encyclopedia sure as hell doesn't seem to be it.
I believe you are upset that people disagree with you. That is fine.
But believing that those people are malicious, vile, or lack judgment is a mistake.
For example, I think that Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions on BJAODN are destructive to the longterm health of Wikipedia.
But I don't think he was failing to apply any judgment. I just think his judgment is faulty.
Nor do I expect everyone to agree with me.
Though I would think that blatant wheel-warring wouldn't be countenanced.
On 6/4/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I have never been so ashamed to be associated with Wikipedia as I am just now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allison_Stokke_...
There are a large number of people saying we should have this article. As of the time of writing, they seem to *all* be basing this on various forms of an assertion that because the subject fulfils an arbitrary criteria that we ourselves made up, having an article is therefore either necessary, our right, or inevitable. (It is not clear which of these schools they subscribe to, but it seems implicitly to be one of the three)
There is *one* passing comment, made in response to my complaint, about a neutral article being a defensibly a "good thing", because then we get on top of the google results and it's better than the alternatives - I disagree with it, but it's a reasoned position. Otherwise... not a smidgen of editorial thought. Just an incantation of an article of faith, a slavish devotion to a meaningless line in the sand.
And then, the crowning glory: "Strong keep ... No BLP issues and Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable ... Wikipedia is not censored ... ethical point of views and non-neutral !votes are irrelevant." - from, god help me, an admin. One of the people we theoretically select for common sense and an understanding of our goals. Linking - I am not making this up - to the content disclaimer.
Are we really saying that *because we made up an arbitrary rule ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly believe that this makes us an encyclopedia? A grand game of nomic over what does and doesn't constitute a topic, an endless series of rules on who we can and cannot write about, without any attempt to apply *judgement* to them? Without any attempt to say - hey, sometimes we have to make decisions on things?
The world is not full of hard and fast situations. We can't draw nice defining lines everywhere and get shining happy results. Sometimes, God forbid, we have to think about boundary cases. I wish people would show some willingness to.
What happened to the project I signed up to back in 2004? This twisted imitation of an attempt to write an encyclopedia sure as hell doesn't seem to be it.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Andrew Gray wrote:
And then, the crowning glory: "Strong keep ... No BLP issues and Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable ... Wikipedia is not censored ... ethical point of views and non-neutral !votes are irrelevant." - from, god help me, an admin. One of the people we theoretically select for common sense and an understanding of our goals. Linking - I am not making this up - to the content disclaimer.
Are we really saying that *because we made up an arbitrary rule ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly believe that this makes us an encyclopedia? A grand game of nomic over what does and doesn't constitute a topic, an endless series of rules on who we can and cannot write about, without any attempt to apply *judgement* to them? Without any attempt to say - hey, sometimes we have to make decisions on things?
Welcome to the shitstorm of the week. This is what happens when administrators take it upon themselves to reinterpret policy and get everyone in a huff. See my Arbcom case for more.
No one would have noticed a damn thing about this article if certain people weren't acting the way they have been over the last month or so. This is simply the latest in a long line of casualties that isn't going to end pretty.
-Jeff
On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is *one* passing comment, made in response to my complaint, about a neutral article being a defensibly a "good thing", because then we get on top of the google results and it's better than the alternatives - I disagree with it, but it's a reasoned position. Otherwise... not a smidgen of editorial thought. Just an incantation of an article of faith, a slavish devotion to a meaningless line in the sand.
Your contention appears to be that every policy should be up for rediscussion and renegotiation on every single AfD? Wouldn't it be better to leave AfD for *application* of policy, and have the philosophising at some central location? I'm not saying your arguments aren't valid, but to accuse people of "slavishly" applying policy at a place designed for the application of policy is unfair. That's what they're supposed to be doing there.
Are we really saying that *because we made up an arbitrary rule ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly
Kind of. Fix the policy.
Steve
On 05/06/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is *one* passing comment, made in response to my complaint, about a neutral article being a defensibly a "good thing", because then we get on top of the google results and it's better than the alternatives - I disagree with it, but it's a reasoned position. Otherwise... not a smidgen of editorial thought. Just an incantation of an article of faith, a slavish devotion to a meaningless line in the sand.
Your contention appears to be that every policy should be up for rediscussion and renegotiation on every single AfD?
Er, no. *Editorial judgement* should be used on every single AFD. There is a critical difference.
We're not talking "let's all decide to ignore the need for neutrality" or "let's all decide to ignore the need for sources" here. I do not see any policy that would be breached or redefined by deleting this article. We should *always* be able to use editorial judgement to decide on whether or not to include topics, save when doing so would cripple our mission to be neutral (but even then, editorial judgement on whether or not, etc, comes into play)
Wouldn't it be better to leave AfD for *application* of policy, and have the philosophising at some central location? I'm not saying your arguments aren't valid, but to accuse people of "slavishly" applying policy at a place designed for the application of policy is unfair. That's what they're supposed to be doing there.
The day that the policy says "we should have articles on high school athletes", then they will be slavishly applying policy. What they are doing now is slavishly quoting guidelines and construing them as inassailable and absolute, graven on tablets of stone handed down from the God Of Encyclopedicity. I don't know if the unspoken assumption is "we have a right to do this" or "we have a duty to do this", but either way it's wrong.
There is a reason we talk of "ignoring all rules" not of "ignoring all judgement".
On 6/5/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
...to accuse people of "slavishly" applying policy at a place designed for the application of policy is unfair. That's what they're supposed to be doing there.
Wikipedia is governed by policies and principles, not rules and regulations. They're treating a guideline like a statute.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stephen Bain's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/4/2007 7:48 PM:
On 6/5/07, Steve Bennett XXXXXXXXX@XXXXX.XXX wrote:
...to accuse people of "slavishly" applying policy at a place designed for the application of policy is unfair. That's what they're supposed to be doing there.
Wikipedia is governed by policies and principles, not rules and regulations. They're treating a guideline like a statute.
...and obviously a guideline can have an /occasional exception/. A policy should be treated like a statute, if not as one.
- -- Charli (vishwin60/zelzany) Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music. ~Marcus Brigstocke
Charli Li wrote:
Stephen Bain's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/4/2007 7:48 PM:
On 6/5/07, Steve Bennett XXXXXXXXX@XXXXX.XXX wrote:
...to accuse people of "slavishly" applying policy at a place designed for the application of policy is unfair. That's what they're supposed to be doing there.
Wikipedia is governed by policies and principles, not rules and regulations. They're treating a guideline like a statute.
...and obviously a guideline can have an /occasional exception/. A policy should be treated like a statute, if not as one.
That approach only encourages wikilawyering. Given the helter-skelter way in which policies are adopted and defended there are very few which should be applied to the letter.
Ec
Andrew Gray wrote:
Are we really saying that *because we made up an arbitrary rule ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly believe that this makes us an encyclopedia? A grand game of nomic over what does and doesn't constitute a topic, an endless series of rules on who we can and cannot write about, without any attempt to apply *judgement* to them? Without any attempt to say - hey, sometimes we have to make decisions on things?
Many of us are applying judgment; we just reach the opposite conclusions in some cases. I, for one, make the considered judgment that as an encyclopedia with thorough coverage, we would be remiss in failing to provide at least a short biography of a person who's received major coverage (including a front-page story) in large-circulation newspapers. Whether she *should* have received such coverage is another debate, but not one that's my decision, since I don't edit those newspapers. I would tend towards no, but then I would say that about [[Natalee Holloway]] too, and I don't plan to argue for her article to be deleted either.
-Mark