On 29 Jun 2006 at 14:14, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/29/06, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
Pending a properly controlled study of WikiPediatric epidemiology (Proposal Pending), it is this observer's estimation that the most prevalent IOP is the one that inverts the priorities of the superordinate policies cited above and the unofficial dictates of what is here nomenclated as "De Facto Consensus" (DFC). DFC must not be confused with Genuine Consensus -- defined as the absence of dissent -- DFC as it's currently observed in WP means that any three users, or evatars, coming to agreement in a half hour period, can impose their absolute dictatorship over the direction of an article.
You seem to be constantly inventing new terms. Why?
You seem to be constantly looking for things to talk about except what I'm saying. Why?
Maybe because people are having trouble figuring out just what you're saying? Perhaps your points would be more understandable if you spent more time giving specific examples of things that have happened on Wikipedia that are not to your liking, rather than talking in vague abstractions using lots of odd terminology?
My brain just exploded. Please don't try and use big words and acronyms to make yourself sound smart. Just talk regularly. We don't think any less of people who talk normal. Please! =D
thx, mboverload
On 6/29/06, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
Pending a properly controlled study of WikiPediatric epidemiology
(Proposal Pending),
it is this observer's estimation that the most prevalent IOP is the
one that inverts
the priorities of the superordinate policies cited above and the
unofficial dictates
of what is here nomenclated as "De Facto Consensus" (DFC). DFC must
not be confused
with Genuine Consensus -- defined as the absence of dissent -- DFC
as it's currently
observed in WP means that any three users, or evatars, coming to
agreement in a half
hour period, can impose their absolute dictatorship over the
direction of an article.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 29 Jun 2006 at 14:14, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/29/06, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
Pending a properly controlled study of WikiPediatric epidemiology (Proposal Pending), it is this observer's estimation that the most prevalent IOP is the one that inverts the priorities of the superordinate policies cited above and the unofficial dictates of what is here nomenclated as "De Facto Consensus" (DFC). DFC must not be confused with Genuine Consensus -- defined as the absence of dissent -- DFC as it's currently observed in WP means that any three users, or evatars, coming to agreement in a half hour period, can impose their absolute dictatorship over the direction of an article.
You seem to be constantly inventing new terms. Why?
You seem to be constantly looking for things to talk about except what I'm saying. Why?
Maybe because people are having trouble figuring out just what you're saying? Perhaps your points would be more understandable if you spent more time giving specific examples of things that have happened on Wikipedia that are not to your liking, rather than talking in vague abstractions using lots of odd terminology?
== Dan ==
Yes, that is a problem. I'm trying to summarize the types of things that I have seen happen repeatedly over the past six months, and I'm pretty much discounting the first month's experience when I was still learning the ropes.
I wouldn't be bothering about it if it were just a few isolated incidents, and when I have detailed a few of these, the response is always the "few bad apples" defense.
But these are persistent, recurrent, and systematic patterns of events that I've observed. The first dozen times you see things going haywire, and by that I mean people behaving contrary to the main Policies of Wikipedia, you think all you have to do is read them the policies and they will straighten up and fly right. But that is not what happens, and in my experience it only gets worse when you try to use WQAs, RFCs, and so on, and that is because the people who intervene do not bother to check the histories and do not care about the main policies either, but simply wing it on the basis of their own POVs and biases.
In trying to understand a systematic problem, you have to try and come up with systematic hypotheses as to why the same damn things keep happening.
I pointed to one sort of thing that I see happening over and over, and for ease of reference I gave it the name "priority inversion". A priority inversion is when people spend more time worrying over the dust under the couch than they do the elephant in the room.
One example of this is when 2 or 3 editors declare a consensus about an issue and use that to trump the major Policies of WP, namely NOR, NPOV, VERIFY, or the Guidelines that are listed under the Five Pillars.
There are two things that are wrong with this kind of tactic: (1) it is contrary to both the dictionary definition and the WP definition of consensus, which means absence of dissent, and (2) it violates the main [[WP:Policy]] pages that say that NOR, NPOV, and VERIFY are non-negotiable and cannot be trumped by other policies or by editors' consensus, even a geunine univesal consensus of local editors.
For example, under the proper ordering of priorities a statement that is relevant and sourced should not be deleted in favor of an opinion that is unsourced just because the source is not the favorite writer of 2 or 3 editors or because the sourced statement contradicts the personal POVs of 2 or 3 editors. But this is actually the routine way that things are done in WP.
Now, if you've never experienced a situation where the editors working on a given article engaged in this kind of conduct, then you have been very lucky, and you will not know what I mean. But I can only report my own observations that it happens quite a lot. What it means is that the quality of articles goes down in proportion to the non-compliance with the primary WP policies.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o