Andrew Gray wrote:
Clearly you didn't get the memo. [[Wikipedia:Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful]] (Next up: someone to argue speeding laws don't count because they were passed by people who were stationary at the time.)
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html
"Because "considered harmful" essays are, by their nature, so incendiary, they are counter-productive both in terms of encouraging open and intelligent debate, and in gathering support for the view they promote. In other words, "considered harmful" essays cause more harm than they do good."
"Typically, "considered harmful" essays gets written because someone has an axe to grind, and they feel like making that grinding process both public and dogmatic. This is a form of grandstanding, of course, but it is done with a purpose beyond simple publicity seeking. Usually such "considered harmful" essays are intended to draw attention to a little-known subject about which the author is passionate, or to highlight what the author feels to be a poor decision by someone else. In addition, there are those "considered harmful" essays that are written as part of a long-running argument that has gradually escalated."
(and yes, I put that on the wiki too)
- d.
I don't want to start a bug argument or anything, but their point is a fair one.
It's impossible to expect that everyone should be subscribed to the mailing list, which means that not everyone can participate in debate here. While a "... considered harmful" essay is a bit over the top, it's only fair that the main discussion of a specific issue should be carried out at the appropriate page, so everyone can be a part of it. The mailing list is only for a very few dedicated users (or users like me, who really have no life and needs something to fill his inbox with).
As I understand it (and there's a good chance I got this all wrong, if I did, please forgive me) this whole thing started with some discussion of [[Gazeebow Unit]] at WP:ANI, and Tony said "This issue has been discussed on wikien-I". Some people then said (I'm paraphrasing here) "Well, we weren't a part of that discussion, could we please bring it up in a forum which everyone is happy with". The response (again, paraphrasing) "Hey, if you don't want to subscribe that's your problem", and that got the snowball rolling.
Another thing, when asked for a link to the relevant post (which is really quite reasonable, everyone always produces diffs in a second), David Gerard said "It's a long-running discussion. Check the January archive and start middle-clicking". That is something really tactless to say. It might take a wikien subscriber a couple of minutes at most to find a link to a post in the archive (especially since Gmail has that wonderful little search engine), but for someone who never reads the list, it might take a ½ hour or more.
The link, by the way is http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/038459.html which to me less than a minute to find.
I'm not saying that policy discussion shouldn't occur at the mailinglist. Policy discussion can occur here, at #wikipedia, at your local pub for all I care. I'm just saying that when people has díscussed something at a different location than the main wiki, it's not so insane that people feel a little left out (oh, god that sounded corny, you get my point). In my opinion, all of this could have been avoided if everyone paid a little more attention to [[WP:CIVIL]], that's all.
--Oskar
PS. You know, I hear all the time on this list people saying that the AfD is some sort of inbred group that don't let any outside opinions in. Well, they probably think that the mailinglist is a bunch of people that all agree with eachother that discusses issues in a semi-closed enviroment, and don't want to let anyone in. I'm just saying, maybe we are a little bit guilty of what we accuse them of. A little self-reflection never hurt anyone (with the obvious exception of Kafka).
On 2/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Clearly you didn't get the memo. [[Wikipedia:Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful]] (Next up: someone to argue speeding laws don't count because they were passed by people who were stationary at the time.)
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html"Because "considered harmful" essays are, by their nature, so incendiary, they are counter-productive both in terms of encouraging open and intelligent debate, and in gathering support for the view they promote. In other words, "considered harmful" essays cause more harm than they do good."
"Typically, "considered harmful" essays gets written because someone has an axe to grind, and they feel like making that grinding process both public and dogmatic. This is a form of grandstanding, of course, but it is done with a purpose beyond simple publicity seeking. Usually such "considered harmful" essays are intended to draw attention to a little-known subject about which the author is passionate, or to highlight what the author feels to be a poor decision by someone else. In addition, there are those "considered harmful" essays that are written as part of a long-running argument that has gradually escalated."
(and yes, I put that on the wiki too)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/3/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand it (and there's a good chance I got this all wrong, if I did, please forgive me) this whole thing started with some discussion of [[Gazeebow Unit]] at WP:ANI, and Tony said "This issue has been discussed on wikien-I". Some people then said (I'm paraphrasing here) "Well, we weren't a part of that discussion, could we please bring it up in a forum which everyone is happy with". The response (again, paraphrasing) "Hey, if you don't want to subscribe that's your problem", and that got the snowball rolling.
Not really. The thing had already been discussed on WP:DRV. In both places there was a lot of positive response, and in any case this wasn't exactly a revolutionary move or a policy change. It was just a personal decision.
But it's nice to get stuff known and discussed widely, rather than just in one place--that is a very big wiki and many people don't seem to have heard of deletion review.
So wikien-l is a good place to announce it, too.
On 2/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/3/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand it (and there's a good chance I got this all wrong, if I did, please forgive me) this whole thing started with some discussion of [[Gazeebow Unit]] at WP:ANI, and Tony said "This issue has been discussed on wikien-I". Some people then said (I'm paraphrasing here) "Well, we weren't a part of that discussion, could we please bring it up in a forum which everyone is happy with". The response (again, paraphrasing) "Hey, if you don't want to subscribe that's your problem", and that got the snowball rolling.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not really. The thing had already been discussed on WP:DRV. In both places there was a lot of positive response, and in any case this wasn't exactly a revolutionary move or a policy change. It was just a personal decision.
While this is no doubt true, that's not what offended people. It was not very "diplomatic" to just go out and say that it's already been discussed on wikien, what I'm saying is that all this could have een avoided if all parties had had a more civil tone.
On 2/3/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
It was not very "diplomatic" to just go out and say that it's already been discussed on wikien, what I'm saying is that all this could have een avoided if all parties had had a more civil tone.
Well if I said that, or gave the impression that the discussion had solely been on wikien-l, then yes, I could have handled it much better. I don't think it's wrong to discuss things on this mailing list, though of course it should also be discussed on the wiki. Where a discussion takes place in more than one place, I think it's appropriate to refer to both discussions. I avoid discussing DRV-related things solely there because few people seem to be aware of the page or involved in it so it's difficult to get a valid consensus view by discussion solely on that page.