It seems that all people have to do is abuse a system for something it wasn't supposed to do to have it deleted. (WP:PAN, WP:ESP, etc) After trawling half the discussion I found the following exchange in the MFD.
We did discuss organizing articles around spoilers, and everyone thought it was a bad idea... It gives undue weight, it can restrict the format, etc. *A misuse of the spoiler template does not speak for the concept itself.* -- Ned Scott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why, notably, I nominated the policy instead of the template. There may well be something useful that can be done with a spoiler template, but a policy mandating that spoilers be hidden after templates, outside of section headers, etc. is a policy mandating that articles be written badly. Phil Sandiferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phil_Sandifer05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC) - But I'm pointing this out more in response to some of the other comments I've been reading, and not so much on the one you've brought up. And also, I have no problem with continued discussion. -- Ned Scotthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to wonder. Isn't Phil scared deleting the policy/guideline is going to open up the issue to more abuse? Instead of deleting what we have, I think it would make sense to attempt to alter the page. "Sensible lead writing thrumps protection against spoilers." should definitely be kept in there, but we should somehow list the useful uses of the template. Plot summaries are very likely to reveal important plot details, lists of characters less so, so those could use a warning template if those are included. Having them doesn't insult the reader if they're used correctly (as per my example) and it isn't censoring either. Instead of putting all of these possible examples in one pile, try finding proper uses and rewrite the guidelines around that.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It seems that all people have to do is abuse a system for something it wasn't supposed to do to have it deleted. (WP:PAN, WP:ESP, etc) After trawling half the discussion I found the following exchange in the MFD.
We did discuss organizing articles around spoilers, and everyone thought it was a bad idea... It gives undue weight, it can restrict the format, etc. *A misuse of the spoiler template does not speak for the concept itself.* -- Ned Scott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why, notably, I nominated the policy instead of the
template. There may well be something useful that can be done with a spoiler template, but a policy mandating that spoilers be hidden after templates, outside of section headers, etc. is a policy mandating that articles be written badly. Phil Sandiferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phil_Sandifer05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- But I'm pointing this out more in response to some of the other
comments I've been reading, and not so much on the one you've brought up. And also, I have no problem with continued discussion. -- Ned Scotthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to wonder. Isn't Phil scared deleting the policy/guideline is going to open up the issue to more abuse? Instead of deleting what we have, I think it would make sense to attempt to alter the page. "Sensible lead writing thrumps protection against spoilers." should definitely be kept in there, but we should somehow list the useful uses of the template. Plot summaries are very likely to reveal important plot details, lists of characters less so, so those could use a warning template if those are included. Having them doesn't insult the reader if they're used correctly (as per my example) and it isn't censoring either. Instead of putting all of these possible examples in one pile, try finding proper uses and rewrite the guidelines around that.
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There's a structural problem here. MfD is often 'misused' to create or change policy - ideally that wouldn't happen - we'd have a discussion somewhere.
However, in practice, a group of people go an do something. They talk to a limited section of the community who are interested in the idea, they arrive at 'consensus' and then they start enforcing their consensus. That's fine if the subject is Sweedish composers and the consensus is among those who work on those articles - and the consensus only relates to those articles.
The problem emerges when the small group are creating a stylistic rule that will then be presented as a norm over a whole set of articles - e.g. 'all biographies need infoboxes' 'all fictional plot summaries should have spoilers' - 'process x will now be used for personal attacks'. The group creates their policy and then the boy-scouts who like inflating edit counts go off and enforce it - and the small group of people working on on a particular article haven't a chance - their 'opposing consensus' and are told to come to the policy page and debate it there, where the inevitable clique will vote them down.
Ideally, this wouldn't happen as the whole community would be involved in every attempt at stylistic policy. But people working on Shakesphere and Jane Austen don't care what the buffyfans are talking about in some page on spoilers until it is too late.
MfD is crude - but at some level we need a community cluestick where a genuine cross-section of users can, without involving themselves in interminable policy discussion, approach the smaller in-group and scream "STOP IT!!! - NO NO NO!"
Sometimes a clear binary is needed.
On May 16, 2007, at 2:51 AM, doc wrote:
MfD is crude - but at some level we need a community cluestick where a genuine cross-section of users can, without involving themselves in interminable policy discussion, approach the smaller in-group and scream "STOP IT!!! - NO NO NO!"
Indeed. I tend to think that MfD is a very brutal way to change policy. On the other hand, if you can actually get a 2/3 or so consensus to delete the policy page on a highly visible and active MfD, I can think of few more resounding signs that the policy needs to be killed with a stick.
We don't have a good mechanism for policy creation - the process of getting something tagged a guideline tends to be "doing it in such a way that as few people notice and object as possible." (Lord knows I have no idea where most of our so-called guidelines come from.) MfD is an ugly way to affect policy, but I think MfDing the spoiler page has led to a better discussion of it than any other approach would have.
-Phil
On 5/16/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. I tend to think that MfD is a very brutal way to change policy. On the other hand, if you can actually get a 2/3 or so consensus to delete
2/3 is not a consensus. It's a supermajority.
On 5/16/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 5/16/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. I tend to think that MfD is a very brutal way to change policy. On the other hand, if you can actually get a 2/3 or so consensus to delete
2/3 is not a consensus. It's a supermajority.
However, a supermajority against something is proof there is not a consensus FOR it - even a rough one.
-Matt
On 5/16/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 16, 2007, at 2:51 AM, doc wrote:
MfD is crude - but at some level we need a community cluestick where a genuine cross-section of users can, without involving themselves in interminable policy discussion, approach the smaller in-group and scream "STOP IT!!! - NO NO NO!"
Indeed. I tend to think that MfD is a very brutal way to change policy. On the other hand, if you can actually get a 2/3 or so consensus to delete the policy page on a highly visible and active MfD, I can think of few more resounding signs that the policy needs to be killed with a stick.
We don't have a good mechanism for policy creation - the process of getting something tagged a guideline tends to be "doing it in such a way that as few people notice and object as possible." (Lord knows I have no idea where most of our so-called guidelines come from.) MfD is an ugly way to affect policy, but I think MfDing the spoiler page has led to a better discussion of it than any other approach would have.
-Phil
It's not a discussion, people are voting without actually addressing each other's concerns.
Mgm
On 5/17/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a discussion, people are voting without actually addressing each other's concerns.
Worshipping rules is stupid. That includes the endless "!vote" stupidness. :)
If you ask 1,000 people the question, "Is subject x stupid?" and 800 of 1000 say, "Why yes, yes it is quite stupid!" Odds are it's stupid. Slavishly insisting that each of them defend their opinions to discuss is just an excuse to discuss for the sake of discussing, and a waste of discussion and everyone's time. If something hurts the encyclopedia, what's there to discuss?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
That however encourages canvassing, and groups protecting unworthy articles, or even attacking things that group dislikes. People should judge carefully enough to be able to say why it's stupid. ~~~~
On 5/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a discussion, people are voting without actually addressing each other's concerns.
Worshipping rules is stupid. That includes the endless "!vote" stupidness. :)
If you ask 1,000 people the question, "Is subject x stupid?" and 800 of 1000 say, "Why yes, yes it is quite stupid!" Odds are it's stupid. Slavishly insisting that each of them defend their opinions to discuss is just an excuse to discuss for the sake of discussing, and a waste of discussion and everyone's time. If something hurts the encyclopedia, what's there to discuss?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 17/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a discussion, people are voting without actually addressing each other's concerns.
Worshipping rules is stupid. That includes the endless "!vote" stupidness. :) If you ask 1,000 people the question, "Is subject x stupid?" and 800 of 1000 say, "Why yes, yes it is quite stupid!" Odds are it's stupid. Slavishly insisting that each of them defend their opinions to discuss is just an excuse to discuss for the sake of discussing, and a waste of discussion and everyone's time. If something hurts the encyclopedia, what's there to discuss?
That however encourages canvassing, and groups protecting unworthy articles, or even attacking things that group dislikes. People should judge carefully enough to be able to say why it's stupid. ~~~~
The other problem is that it's pretty much never 1000. Almost all votelike things on Wikipedia have participation rates in the single digits for any individual discussion.
- d.
On 5/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The other problem is that it's pretty much never 1000. Almost all votelike things on Wikipedia have participation rates in the single digits for any individual discussion.
Well, a funny thought about that. RfAs from back in the day had what, 5-10 to pass? A bit more? 100+ supports now isn't uncommon, a couple of years later. A heated AfD might get 50-100 total nowadays. Policy discussions are limited to the cliques that want to enforce them for whatever (good or bad) reason, that are interested in that given one for some reason (badlydrawnjeff and notability/DRV stuff for example), and general policy wonks like Sidaway and Radiant.
Imagine how crazy it could be by 2010 if the participation continues to scale as it has. You might have AfD numbers (50-100) on a typical policy chat, and numbers like that ATT poll on RfA. At some tipping point, discussion in the sense it's known as now will become impractical and unrealistic, and the system will become geared to a vote-like mentality out of sheer practicality, which would devalue individual voices (not particularly a bad thing, but that's an old bone of mine) and enhance the value of community trends. I could be wrong, though.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/17/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
That however encourages canvassing, and groups protecting unworthy articles, or even attacking things that group dislikes. People should judge carefully enough to be able to say why it's stupid. ~~~~
True, but in some cases, it's overdone to throw out the "They're voting!" phrase. It was pretty clear from the WP:SPOIL MfD that most people were against it. If people are challenged in their statements, sure, they should be able to back them up with a reason. The problem will eventually happen when some troll dislikes a given set of opinions, and then sets himself to challenging them all, to make it look like any who don't return to defend their points aren't valid. Not saying any 'closing' types are that stupid, but it's the appearance of poisoning their "!vote" I suppose.