One user boldly decided to move the [[WP:BOLD]] essay to a more restrictive title to imply that boldness should only be exercised in article space.
I don't know if anybody else sees the complete irony of performing an action which changes the guideline in such a way that the action being performed falls outside the guideline (read that until you understand the paradox) so I moved it back.
Of course my edits were rolled back by another user. So, um... thoughts?
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
One user boldly decided to move the [[WP:BOLD]] essay to a more restrictive title to imply that boldness should only be exercised in article space.
I don't know if anybody else sees the complete irony of performing an action which changes the guideline in such a way that the action being performed falls outside the guideline (read that until you understand the paradox) so I moved it back.
Of course my edits were rolled back by another user. So, um... thoughts?
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not sure that's a bad change, really. Being bold in updating policies or other people's user pages tends to get your hand slapped, as will being bold in refactoring someone else's comments on talk pages, and changes to templates and the like should be done with a -lot- of care and by people who know what they're doing.
On 6/6/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure that's a bad change, really. Being bold in updating policies or other people's user pages tends to get your hand slapped, as will being bold in refactoring someone else's comments on talk pages, and changes to templates and the like should be done with a -lot- of care and by people who know what they're doing.
True, but knowing what one is doing is already a general requisite. However, pages in auxillary namespaces are of minor importance compared to our alleged primary focus: actual articles.
—C.W.
On 6/6/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure that's a bad change, really. Being bold in updating policies or other people's user pages tends to get your hand slapped, as will being bold in refactoring someone else's comments on talk pages, and changes to templates and the like should be done with a -lot- of care and by people who know what they're doing.
Well, as for editing policy, I *always* make a bold edit and explain it on the talk page. It's a very successful method in my experience. If you look like you know what you're doing, and the change is reasonable and well explained, there seldom any problems.
On 6/6/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure that's a bad change, really. Being bold in updating policies or other people's user pages tends to get your hand slapped, as will being bold in refactoring someone else's comments on talk pages, and changes to templates and the like should be done with a -lot- of care and by people who know what they're doing.
People who do that are typically misunderstanding what "be bold" means.
It's reminding people that since Wikipedia is a wiki, they shouldn't ignore or complain about something when there's clearly a problem, but get in there and fix it. It doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you feel like".
The nutshell is pretty good: if it's broke, fix it. The part that people don't get is the implicit "if it might not be broke, ask someone else before you fix it".
On 6/6/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure that's a bad change, really. Being bold in updating policies or other people's user pages tends to get your hand slapped, as will being bold in refactoring someone else's comments on talk pages, and changes to templates and the like should be done with a -lot- of care and by people who know what they're doing.
People who do that are typically misunderstanding what "be bold" means.
It's reminding people that since Wikipedia is a wiki, they shouldn't ignore or complain about something when there's clearly a problem, but get in there and fix it. It doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you feel like".
The nutshell is pretty good: if it's broke, fix it. The part that people don't get is the implicit "if it might not be broke, ask someone else before you fix it".
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
I sometimes think there are quite a few policies that might work better if reduced entirely to their "nutshell" version.
InkSplotch
On 6/6/07, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
I sometimes think there are quite a few policies that might work better if reduced entirely to their "nutshell" version.
"Don't be a dick" comes to mind.
On 6/6/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It's reminding people that since Wikipedia is a wiki, they shouldn't ignore or complain about something when there's clearly a problem, but get in there and fix it. It doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you feel like".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold#Consensus_is_clearly_nee...
I guess if nobody else participates in this poll, it becomes a 1-0 victory.
—C.W.
On 6/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It's reminding people that since Wikipedia is a wiki, they shouldn't ignore or complain about something when there's clearly a problem, but get in there and fix it. It doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you feel like".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold#Consensus_is_clearly_nee...
I guess if nobody else participates in this poll, it becomes a 1-0 victory.
—C.W.
When did polls supersede actual discussion? I like words. I even like complete sentences. I didn't know the fate of WP:BOLD was so critical to the ongoing survival of Wikipedia that we had to abandon words for a more expedient form of...what? I'm not sure I can really call it consensus.
InkSplotch
On 6/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
One user boldly decided to move the [[WP:BOLD]] essay to a more restrictive title to imply that boldness should only be exercised in article space.
I don't know if anybody else sees the complete irony of performing an action which changes the guideline in such a way that the action being performed falls outside the guideline (read that until you understand the paradox) so I moved it back.
That is ironic. Being bold applies equally well to policy, project or whatever pages. Whatever is broken, wherever it is, fix it.
Of course the critical bit is, "if people don't like your fix, being bold is not a defence".
Steve
Holding a poll on "Be bold" doesn't strike me as particularly productive. So in the spirit of the guideline, I jumped in and rejigged it a bit, retaining the sense of the guideline but not making it so one-sided. Although special considerations do apply to templates and categories, these are covered by "don't be reckless", so there's no real need to have an artificial division, at least not to the extent that we have to say "Be bold in updating article", when really the guideline applies, with a very few exceptions which are usually fully protected from editing, to every page on the wiki.
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Holding a poll on "Be bold" doesn't strike me as particularly productive. So in the spirit of the guideline, I jumped in and rejigged it a bit, retaining the sense of the guideline but not making it so one-sided.
False. Try reading the early history of the page.
Although special considerations do apply to templates and categories, these are covered by "don't be reckless", so there's no real need to have an artificial division, at least not to the extent that we have to say "Be bold in updating article", when really the guideline applies, with a very few exceptions which are usually fully protected from editing, to every page on the wiki.
No it does not.
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No it does not.
Asserting something doesn't make it so. What is so different about templates that we should not be encouraging people to go ahead and correct problems when they see them, and instead discouraging from editing the templates at all?
On 6/7/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No it does not.
Asserting something doesn't make it so. What is so different about templates that we should not be encouraging people to go ahead and correct problems when they see them, and instead discouraging from editing the templates at all?
Fallacy of the excluded middle
Be bold has always been about articles right back to the first edits in the recorded history. In the case of templates the cost of getting things wrong can be rather higher (The job queue length is currently 366,759). Remeber just because you think you have spoted a mistake doesn't mean there is one.
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Be bold has always been about articles right back to the first edits in the recorded history.
That simply isn't true. You cited the earliest version on the talk page and even that referred to "be bold in updating pages". There is a lot of sense to saying "be bold, but don't be reckless" and then explaining how important it is to get template edits right.
Ironically the only effect of this artificial distinction is that old timers like us will buzz around just editing policy pages, templates, process pages and whatnot whenever we see something that needs to be fixed, and the poor newbies will be left sitting around scratching their heads and wondering why we're allowed to get away with it. Spreading that kind of ignorance really wouldn't be good for Wikipedia.
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
That simply isn't true. You cited the earliest version on the talk page and even that referred to "be bold in updating pages".
Then limits itself to talking about articles.
There is a lot of sense to saying "be bold, but don't be reckless" and then explaining how important it is to get template edits right.
Not really. With templates the correct advice is "be careful".
Ironically the only effect of this artificial distinction is that old timers like us will buzz around just editing policy pages, templates, process pages and whatnot whenever we see something that needs to be fixed, and the poor newbies will be left sitting around scratching their heads and wondering why we're allowed to get away with it.
Or destroy you.
Spreading that kind of ignorance really wouldn't be good for Wikipedia.
Not ignorance. Just the only rational way a project the size of wikipedia can be run. Can't rely on people knowing each so we fall back on them following broadly similar processes
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
That simply isn't true. You cited the earliest version on the talk page and even that referred to "be bold in updating pages".
Then limits itself to talking about articles.
There is a lot of sense to saying "be bold, but don't be reckless" and then explaining how important it is to get template edits right.
Not really. With templates the correct advice is "be careful".
"Be bold, but don't be reckless". Although I've never really thought of myself as a huge template editor, a look at my contributions shows that I've made a score of edits to templates in the past month or so. Every single edit, needless to say, was bold.
Ironically the only effect of this artificial distinction is that old timers like us will buzz around just editing policy pages, templates, process pages and whatnot whenever we see something that needs to be fixed, and the poor newbies will be left sitting around scratching their heads and wondering why we're allowed to get away with it.
Or destroy you.
There are lots and lots of us bestriding the wiki these days. I don't see any signs that the walls are crumbling and about to fall on us all just because we can't be bothered to fill in the "permission to make an edit" form.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Be bold has always been about articles right back to the first edits in the recorded history.
That simply isn't true. You cited the earliest version on the talk page and even that referred to "be bold in updating pages". There is a lot of sense to saying "be bold, but don't be reckless" and then explaining how important it is to get template edits right.
Ironically the only effect of this artificial distinction is that old timers like us will buzz around just editing policy pages, templates, process pages and whatnot whenever we see something that needs to be fixed, and the poor newbies will be left sitting around scratching their heads and wondering why we're allowed to get away with it. Spreading that kind of ignorance really wouldn't be good for Wikipedia.
There are a lot of old timers that don't spend a lot of time writing aor editing policies. They don't have time to deal with the mind fucking experience of arguing with policy hawks. The practical approach for them is to wait until they are personally affected by the policy in question before participating in the discussion.
Ec
On 6/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There are a lot of old timers that don't spend a lot of time writing aor editing policies. They don't have time to deal with the mind fucking experience of arguing with policy hawks. The practical approach for them is to wait until they are personally affected by the policy in question before participating in the discussion.
There's a lot to be said for that, but some of us don't get the choice. From the moment in January, 2005, when I thought "wouldn't it be a good idea if people reading this article could actually see a guy sucking his own cock, just the same as we've decided that a person visiting the clitoris article will see a clitoris", and boldly acted upon that thought, it was evident to me that even if I tried to run from policy, it was going to happen to me anyway.
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There's a lot to be said for that, but some of us don't get the choice. From the moment in January, 2005, when I thought "wouldn't it be a good idea if people reading this article could actually see a guy sucking his own cock, just the same as we've decided that a person visiting the clitoris article will see a clitoris", and boldly acted upon that thought, it was evident to me that even if I tried to run from policy, it was going to happen to me anyway.
Ironically you now oppose that principle when applied to Lolicon.
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There's a lot to be said for that, but some of us don't get the choice. From the moment in January, 2005, when I thought "wouldn't it be a good idea if people reading this article could actually see a guy sucking his own cock, just the same as we've decided that a person visiting the clitoris article will see a clitoris", and boldly acted upon that thought, it was evident to me that even if I tried to run from policy, it was going to happen to me anyway.
Ironically you now oppose that principle when applied to Lolicon.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, yes, fictional depictions of flat chested girls in sugestive poses are in no way comparable to pictures of real genitalia and people sucking their own cocks
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There's a lot to be said for that, but some of us don't get the choice. From the moment in January, 2005, when I thought "wouldn't it be a good idea if people reading this article could actually see a guy sucking his own cock, just the same as we've decided that a person visiting the clitoris article will see a clitoris", and boldly acted upon that thought, it was evident to me that even if I tried to run from policy, it was going to happen to me anyway.
Ironically you now oppose that principle when applied to Lolicon.
I always have and, most probably, I always shall. In fact I raised the unsuitability of the lolicon pictures when discussing the autofellatio picture, and questioned what I considered to be their inappropriate focus on a relatively unexceptional act, while (at the time) we had an article displaying a cartoon picture of an infant naked except for panties clutching a teddy bear equipped with a gigantic dildo. We've advanced from there, fortunately, so now we have a a discussion over whether the sexually titillating representative of prepubescent sexual victimhood is to be a free image with her legs akimbo or a non-free one with a phallic object stuck in her mouth.
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We've advanced from there, fortunately, so now we have a a discussion over whether the sexually titillating representative of prepubescent sexual victimhood is to be a free image with her legs akimbo or a non-free one with a phallic object stuck in her mouth.
If we are to make the (probably unwarranted) assumption that these are the only two choices, the free image should win based on licensing status alone. Of course the best solution would be to find or create a free image that everyone can agree on, but I don't see that happening.
—C.W.
On 6/8/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We've advanced from there, fortunately, so now we have a a discussion over whether the sexually titillating representative of prepubescent sexual victimhood is to be a free image with her legs akimbo or a non-free one with a phallic object stuck in her mouth.
If we are to make the (probably unwarranted) assumption that these are the only two choices, the free image should win based on licensing status alone. Of course the best solution would be to find or create a free image that everyone can agree on, but I don't see that happening.
Well those were the two choices on offer. The free image raised eyebrows, not because of its sexual suggestiveness, but because it was an image of wikipe-tan, who is apparently regarded as a kind of Wikipedia mascot.
I've proposed alternatives that were less in-your-face (and were also free) but they were rejected. In particular, a bookstore montage which show, with range and perspective that lends distance, books for sale that included those with covers depicting busty teenaged schoolgirls--certainly lolicon but not so dodgy as flat-chested little girls with huge phalluses stuck in their mouths.
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Ironically the only effect of this artificial distinction is that old timers like us will buzz around just editing policy pages, templates, process pages and whatnot whenever we see something that needs to be fixed, and the poor newbies will be left sitting around scratching their heads and wondering why we're allowed to get away with it. Spreading that kind of ignorance really wouldn't be good for Wikipedia.
You an old timer?
Heh.
Also, all old timers know that there are no "old timers like us" because we all have nothing in common.
Not that any old timers would agree with me.
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No it does not.
Asserting something doesn't make it so. What is so different about templates that we should not be encouraging people to go ahead and correct problems when they see them, and instead discouraging from editing the templates at all?
Fallacy of the excluded middle
Be bold has always been about articles right back to the first edits in the recorded history. In the case of templates the cost of getting things wrong can be rather higher (The job queue length is currently 366,759). Remeber just because you think you have spoted a mistake doesn't mean there is one.
You are incorrect. Being bold has been about policy as well.
On 6/7/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
You are incorrect. Being bold has been about policy as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=169077...
? That's from 2003.
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
You are incorrect. Being bold has been about policy as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=169077...
-- geni
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 6/7/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
? That's from 2003.
Yes. I haven't finnished digging though the history yet but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=367906... "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=773310...
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=102578...
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."
So over a range of sereval years WP:BOLD has only been about articles.
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
? That's from 2003.
Yes. I haven't finnished digging though the history yet but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=367906... "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=773310...
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=102578...
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."
So over a range of sereval years WP:BOLD has only been about articles.
Yup. I'm not disputing that. I'm telling you what the reality was Way Back When. A number of contretemps I had with Larry Sanger in 2001-2002 were about by whom, where, and how policy should be written.
Being bold used to be about everything.
I'm not even saying it's bad that policy has firmed up / ossified.
I'm just saying the claims that "Nah be bold has always been a lot more timid than certain people appear to think (hasn't mattered for the most part since most people only edit articles)." and the more extreme claim "Be bold has always been about articles right back to the first edits in the recorded history" aren't true. Or at least they're misleading unless we admit that recorded history doesn't begin consistently until late 2002.
So I won't necessarily dispute "Be bold has been about articles since late 2002".
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Holding a poll on "Be bold" doesn't strike me as particularly productive. So in the spirit of the guideline, I jumped in and rejigged it a bit, retaining the sense of the guideline but not making it so one-sided. Although special considerations do apply to templates and categories, these are covered by "don't be reckless", so there's no real need to have an artificial division, at least not to the extent that we have to say "Be bold in updating article", when really the guideline applies, with a very few exceptions which are usually fully protected from editing, to every page on the wiki.
I'd like to know why it was ever limited to "updating pages" as that could be interpreted as dealing with outdated information, and nothing else... like "creating pages", "significantly rewriting pages", "removing crap from pages", "FINDING SOURCES for pages", etc.
Sometimes it seems miraculous that we aren't stuck with a useless and redundant guideline telling us to "be bold in your edits, but only if your edits are specifically prescribed by the maintenance banner templates at the top of the page, and only if the placement of the templates is supported by 2/3 of talk page voters."
—C.W.
On 07/06/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes it seems miraculous that we aren't stuck with a useless and redundant guideline telling us to "be bold in your edits, but only if your edits are specifically prescribed by the maintenance banner templates at the top of the page, and only if the placement of the templates is supported by 2/3 of talk page voters."
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
- d.
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
Would I be right in guessing that anyone who understands either of these pages is not going to check them for asterisks before performing an action, or possibly ever?
—C.W.
On 6/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
Would I be right in guessing that anyone who understands either of these pages is not going to check them for asterisks before performing an action, or possibly ever?
You could delete both those rules by general acclaim, and they'd still be there. They're only on the wiki so the newbies know about them.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
Would I be right in guessing that anyone who understands either of these pages is not going to check them for asterisks before performing an action, or possibly ever?
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think you necessarily are. I've had -plenty- of people cite both BOLD and IAR for breaking the three-revert rule after I blocked them. "But I was improving the article, and not being able to revert the 6 idiots who disagreed with me was preventing me from doing it, so I ignored the rule! I can do that, right?" People need to comprehend "be bold" doesn't mean "put the match to the gunpowder to see what happens", and "ignore the rules" doesn't mean "do whatever you damn well want".
Unfortunately, some people don't get that, so we need to spell it out-"Be bold, but don't be a flaming moron about it" and "Ignore the rules if you need to, but you better have a damn good reason for doing it and be ready to accept the consequences if you screwed up." Bureaucracy we may not be, but we're also not an anarchy, and the rules generally are there for good reason. If you need to break them, you better think carefully about whether the need really is so pressing, and if it really is, how you're going to explain yourself once you do.
People who have that mystical attribute of actually what they're doing will properly implement BOLD and IAR anywhere they go, whether it's written down or not, and will generally do it well. The problem comes when someone without the first clue tries to emulate them (or even when someone smart happens to screw up, it does happen...)
G'day Todd,
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Would I be right in guessing that anyone who understands either of these pages is not going to check them for asterisks before performing an action, or possibly ever?
I don't think you necessarily are. I've had -plenty- of people cite both BOLD and IAR for breaking the three-revert rule after I blocked them. "But I was improving the article, and not being able to revert the 6 idiots who disagreed with me was preventing me from doing it, so I ignored the rule! I can do that, right?" People need to comprehend "be bold" doesn't mean "put the match to the gunpowder to see what happens", and "ignore the rules" doesn't mean "do whatever you damn well want".
That is a misunderstanding of BOLD and IAR, so I think Charlotte is still right: he who understands them won't read them, and probably not anything else in project space, until he runs into trouble (and, if that editor is a bit of an arrogant prick of times, he still won't look at policy after that ...)
Unfortunately, some people don't get that, so we need to spell it out-"Be bold, but don't be a flaming moron about it" and "Ignore the rules if you need to, but you better have a damn good reason for doing it and be ready to accept the consequences if you screwed up." Bureaucracy we may not be, but we're also not an anarchy, and the rules generally are there for good reason. If you need to break them, you better think carefully about whether the need really is so pressing, and if it really is, how you're going to explain yourself once you do.
I think you're going a bit far there, but that's okay. Lots of people don't understand IAR, and for them, process works fine 60% of the time.
Policy doesn't and can't prescribe the Right Thing all of the time. The spirit of IAR is: it doesn't even try. Policy is: "This is what we've done in the past, and generally what we want to do in the future"; it's a guideline (I use that word deliberately) for editors who may not know exactly what the Right Thing is. Those of us who *do* know what the Right Thing is will go ahead and do it, whether policy supports us or not; and on those occasions when we don't know what it is (nobody knows the Right Thing 100% of the time, though some claim they do), we need to refer to policy, or step back and let other experts have a look.
What IAR is for is to a) tell the policy wonks to back the heck off, and b) tell newbies that they don't have to let their Wikipedia experience be corrupted by policy wonks. Those of us who strive to do the Right Thing, policy or no, do not need IAR. It's not for us. It's for those of you who tell us not to.
An extension of this is: if you have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong. If I do something against policy, but my reasoning is sounder than that of those supporting policy, then I don't need to cite IAR --- I just have to cite my own reasoning. If I do something against policy, and all I have to offer in support is "IAR", then it's pretty clear I haven't thought things through. Of course, this applies to all policies and process: if you want to rigidly enforce process, you'd better have a damn good reason, too. Policy is not an excuse to renounce our responsibility to *think*.
People who have that mystical attribute of actually what they're doing will properly implement BOLD and IAR anywhere they go, whether it's written down or not, and will generally do it well. The problem comes when someone without the first clue tries to emulate them (or even when someone smart happens to screw up, it does happen...)
It strikes me that this last paragraph is a very good one, and, incidentally, restates exactly what Charlotte was trying to say.
It's good to know I'm not the only one with a tendency to agree violently.
Cheers,
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Mark Gallagher wrote:
An extension of this is: if you have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong.
Sorry, I don't buy this one bit.
If you have to cite IAR to a reasonable person, you're doing it wrong.
But if someone says "I don't care how much sense violating that policy makes, we cannot violate policy, period. Policies must not be violated under any circumstances", then you really do have to cite IAR to them.
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept behind it (at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve the encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the rules), there is a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it does not meet our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is another matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent rational behind why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to justify should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a particular rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net benefit is to the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know ;) ) then its likely a useful action (edit whatever).
Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid codifying how to ignore all rules ;).
----
-- Cheers!, Eagle 101
On 6/18/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Mark Gallagher wrote:
An extension of this is: if you have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong.
Sorry, I don't buy this one bit.
If you have to cite IAR to a reasonable person, you're doing it wrong.
But if someone says "I don't care how much sense violating that policy makes, we cannot violate policy, period. Policies must not be violated under any circumstances", then you really do have to cite IAR to them.
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 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept behind it (at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve the encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the rules), there is a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it does not meet our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is another matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent rational behind why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to justify should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a particular rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net benefit is to the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know ;) ) then its likely a useful action (edit whatever). Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid codifying how to ignore all rules ;).
Let me pimp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO once more.
- d.
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept behind it (at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve the encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the rules), there is a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it does not meet our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is another matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent rational behind why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to justify should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a particular rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net benefit is to the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know ;) ) then its likely a useful action (edit whatever). Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid codifying how to ignore all rules ;).
Let me pimp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO once more.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
Being bold does not require anyone to be stubborn. It allows people to try something different, but if that stirs up a firehose of protests you need to know when to cut your losses.
Ec
MediaWiki has this nice thing called a "revert button", which makes boldness not harmful in any way. How else do you want to keep Wikipedia's open spirit and anti-elitism? The power of wiki's is that anyone can edit anything and, most importantly, can revert anything, so boldness should be encouraged. If something is done against consensus "per WP:BOLD", who cares, revert it and discuss. WP:BRD.
-Salaskan
2007/6/21, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept
behind it
(at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve the encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the rules),
there is
a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it does
not meet
our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is
another
matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent rational
behind
why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to justify should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a
particular
rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net benefit is
to
the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know ;) )
then
its likely a useful action (edit whatever). Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid
codifying how
to ignore all rules ;).
Let me pimp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO once more.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Except... WP:BOLD has been interpreted to apply to such actions as deletion, which are not so easily reversed (the phrase 'wheel-warring' starts occurring if you just hit 'revert').
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 6/21/07, Skander - shinywater@gmail.com wrote:
MediaWiki has this nice thing called a "revert button", which makes boldness not harmful in any way. How else do you want to keep Wikipedia's open spirit and anti-elitism? The power of wiki's is that anyone can edit anything and, most importantly, can revert anything, so boldness should be encouraged. If something is done against consensus "per WP:BOLD", who cares, revert it and discuss. WP:BRD.
-Salaskan
2007/6/21, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept
behind it
(at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve the encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the rules),
there is
a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it does
not meet
our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is
another
matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent rational
behind
why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to justify should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a
particular
rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net benefit is
to
the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know ;) )
then
its likely a useful action (edit whatever). Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid
codifying how
to ignore all rules ;).
Let me pimp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO once more.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WP:BOLD has got nothing to do with administrative actions, which anyone should bloody well know. Slap anyone who applies the policy for things like deleting a page with a very, very wet trout.
-Salaskan (P.S. I went bold at the "be bold" article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&diff=1397699... )
2007/6/22, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com:
Except... WP:BOLD has been interpreted to apply to such actions as deletion, which are not so easily reversed (the phrase 'wheel-warring' starts occurring if you just hit 'revert').
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 6/21/07, Skander - shinywater@gmail.com wrote:
MediaWiki has this nice thing called a "revert button", which makes
boldness
not harmful in any way. How else do you want to keep Wikipedia's open
spirit
and anti-elitism? The power of wiki's is that anyone can edit anything
and,
most importantly, can revert anything, so boldness should be encouraged.
If
something is done against consensus "per WP:BOLD", who cares, revert it
and
discuss. WP:BRD.
-Salaskan
2007/6/21, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept
behind it
(at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve
the
encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the
rules),
there is
a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it
does
not meet
our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is
another
matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent
rational
behind
why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to
justify
should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a
particular
rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net
benefit is
to
the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know
;) )
then
its likely a useful action (edit whatever). Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid
codifying how
to ignore all rules ;).
Let me pimp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO once more.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious Editing Club of Wikipedia.
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 21/06/07, Skander - shinywater@gmail.com wrote:
WP:BOLD has got nothing to do with administrative actions, which anyone should bloody well know.
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
On 22/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
Perhaps admins should be encouraged to revert the article to whatever state it was in before the edit war started before protecting it. That would give the article a clean start and let the changes be made more constructively.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
Perhaps admins should be encouraged to revert the article to whatever state it was in before the edit war started before protecting it. That would give the article a clean start and let the changes be made more constructively.
There is much to be said for that approach as an initial finding. Nevertheless those who are resistant to change are as much a part of the problem as those making the changes. Remember too that the purpose of 3RR is to calm down the debate not to settle it. We want the combattants to settle their differences on the talk page. If the person supporting the existing refuses to even discuss the changes on the talk page no matter what reasons are given to make the change then perhaps the new version should be the one supported.
Ec
Agreed, 3RR exists for discouraging edit wars, not for deciding their outcome.
2007/6/22, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
Perhaps admins should be encouraged to revert the article to whatever state it was in before the edit war started before protecting it. That would give the article a clean start and let the changes be made more constructively.
There is much to be said for that approach as an initial finding. Nevertheless those who are resistant to change are as much a part of the problem as those making the changes. Remember too that the purpose of 3RR is to calm down the debate not to settle it. We want the combattants to settle their differences on the talk page. If the person supporting the existing refuses to even discuss the changes on the talk page no matter what reasons are given to make the change then perhaps the new version should be the one supported.
Ec
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 22/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
The solution there is for editors to get the hint and be more patient in editing. The article doesn't have to be perfect in the next hour.
- d.
G'day David Gerard,
On 22/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
The solution there is for editors to get the hint and be more patient in editing. The article doesn't have to be perfect in the next hour.
Indeed. If edit warriors are blocked for edit warring (four reverts, five reverts, two reverts ...) and the page is locked in The Wrong Version for 24 hours, *it doesn't matter*. Bloody well *get over yourselves* and *have a nice sleep* and maybe *feed the birds at the park down the road* or *read a good book* or *post something with lots of bold emphasis*, but for 24 hours at least *stop bloody fretting about the article*.
*That* is the spirit of 3RR, and indeed of The Wrong Version.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Indeed. If edit warriors are blocked for edit warring (four reverts,
five reverts, two reverts ...) and the page is locked in The Wrong Version for 24 hours, *it doesn't matter*. Bloody well *get over yourselves* and *have a nice sleep* and maybe *feed the birds at the park down the road* or *read a good book* or *post something with lots of bold emphasis*, but for 24 hours at least *stop bloody fretting about the article*.
Sending some of these guys to the park to feed the birds may be a bad idea. We all know what [[Tom Lehrer]] did to the pigeons there. :-)
Ec
G'day The Mangoe,
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
This shows a major misunderstanding of 3RR, BOLD, and The Wrong Version (although you may have been ironic with that last one). I'm not, however, surprised.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day The Mangoe,
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
This shows a major misunderstanding of 3RR, BOLD, and The Wrong Version (although you may have been ironic with that last one). I'm not, however, surprised.
The danger with being bold in policy lies in the inability to distinguish between a proposal and an accepted policy. It also brings us to that grey area where a seasoned policy wonk's bold policy change can be explained as clarification, and a newbie's bold clarification can be condemned as a radical policy change. This is precisely an area that is in serious need of review.
3RR has never been anything but a short term emergency solution to a problem.
If there is such a thing as a "Wrong Version", perhaps it could be considered in contrast with "Stable versions" if that long awaited idea ever gets off the ground.
Ec
On 6/23/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day The Mangoe,
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
This shows a major misunderstanding of 3RR, BOLD, and The Wrong Version (although you may have been ironic with that last one). I'm not, however, surprised.
It's hard to say that it's misunderstood when established admins are using in that manner. But in any case, 3RR only kicks in when people don't participate in the "edit/revert/discuss" cycle. I think it's fairly common that people "understand" what they are doing perfectly well, and that they understand that if they make a "bold" change (that is, one which they don't worry about any consensus for) they can make it stick as long they don't get banned. Or maybe they don't, and believe that they are authorized to make bigger changes than they really are. Either way, a policy that is generally misunderstood by those unfamiliar with it is by its nature problemaitc.
Because regular users cannot undo these actions, which creates a difference of power. Admin actions should only be done within consensus or compliant to policies like CSD, and not out of boldness.
-Salaskan
2007/6/22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 21/06/07, Skander - shinywater@gmail.com wrote:
WP:BOLD has got nothing to do with administrative actions, which anyone should bloody well know.
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, unfortunately, the editor who gets reverted tends not to like it very much, and generally regards it as the first step in a personally intended campaign against his honor, and sometimes against his ethnicity, religion and politics as well. The more experienced the person is at Wikipedia, the better they know how to bite. The reaction I received as a newbie taught me to stay away from any subject that I really cared about. I want to edit cooperatively, but I remember such occurrences as rare highlights. Even in a place where I've just wandered in to improve things, my first reaction to an opposing edit is a desire for revenge.
I exaggerate, but only slightly.
On 6/21/07, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
Except... WP:BOLD has been interpreted to apply to such actions as deletion, which are not so easily reversed (the phrase 'wheel-warring' starts occurring if you just hit 'revert').
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 6/21/07, Skander - shinywater@gmail.com wrote:
MediaWiki has this nice thing called a "revert button", which makes boldness not harmful in any way. How else do you want to keep Wikipedia's open spirit and anti-elitism? The power of wiki's is that anyone can edit anything and, most importantly, can revert anything, so boldness should be encouraged. If something is done against consensus "per WP:BOLD", who cares, revert it and discuss. WP:BRD.
-Salaskan
2007/6/21, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept
behind it
(at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve the encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the rules),
there is
a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it does
not meet
our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is
another
matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent rational
behind
why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to justify should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a
particular
rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net benefit is
to
the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know ;) )
then
its likely a useful action (edit whatever). Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid
codifying how
to ignore all rules ;).
Let me pimp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO once more.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious Editing Club of Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. [...] Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether [...]
I think its failures are loud but its successes quiet. It was very important to me starting out, and I use it a lot in encouraging non-participants to join us. Coming across this giant enterprise, it's easy for cautious or shy people to not make changes or to just make quiet suggestions on the talk page. We want those people to just jump in and participate, even though it's scary for them.
Of course, the [[Dunning-Kruger effect]] means that [[WP:BOLD]] will never be an unmixed good.
William
From: William Pietri william@scissor.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A narrower concept of boldness Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:53:59 -0700
David Goodman wrote:
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. [...] Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether [...]
I think its failures are loud but its successes quiet. It was very important to me starting out, and I use it a lot in encouraging non-participants to join us. Coming across this giant enterprise, it's easy for cautious or shy people to not make changes or to just make quiet suggestions on the talk page. We want those people to just jump in and participate, even though it's scary for them.
Of course, the [[Dunning-Kruger effect]] means that [[WP:BOLD]] will never be an unmixed good.
William
BOLD is completely necessary.I'm always amazed how many people get stuck in a mentality of "Must...discuss...everything...on..talk page...before...I fix the grammar". I rather feel like wanting to block them for a couple of hours with the block summary "It's a wiki, damnit"...but that would probably be excessively bold.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
On 6/22/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
BOLD is completely necessary.I'm always amazed how many people get stuck in a mentality of "Must...discuss...everything...on..talk page...before...I fix the grammar". I rather feel like wanting to block them for a couple of hours with the block summary "It's a wiki, damnit"...but that would probably be excessively bold.
Believe me, I feel the same way. If one's time on Wikipedia is limited, they will spend more of it editing and less of it engaging in unproductive rants and spats on talk pages.
—C.W.
G'day David,
(I will *pay you* to learn to post correctly ...)
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
Not long after I attained adminship, I was cruising with my homies and homiettes at #moseisleycantina (since renamed to #wikipedia), when a user came in requesting urgent assistance of the sort only a newish admin could provide.
It seemed a newbie had come across a long and popular but ultimately poorly-written article, and was making copyedits, replacing the headings with decent phrases, and other nefarious improvements that only newbies seem able to make.
Our friend, the #wikipedia worrier, had reverted his edits and left a note on his talkpage saying, "Don't make major improvements to articles without first discussing them on the talkpage." He was, however, worried that the newbie might re-offend, and wanted me to help keep him in line.
"Be bold!" was written for that newbie, and that user. In the world of our friend, and other editors who would interfere with WP:BOLD, it is more difficult for a Broken Telephone process wonk to pass through the eye of a needle than for a helpful newbie to summon up the courage to improve our encyclopaedia. That's a grim world, and I want no part of it.
"Be bold!" is a worthy, nay sacred, guideline, and it is not to be trifled or tampered with. Shame be upon those who would ignore it, twist it, misuse it, dilute it, ruin it, in the name of improving our encyclopaedia!
on 6/23/07 10:52 AM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
(I will *pay you* to learn to post correctly ...)
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
Not long after I attained adminship, I was cruising with my homies and homiettes at #moseisleycantina (since renamed to #wikipedia), when a user came in requesting urgent assistance of the sort only a newish admin could provide.
It seemed a newbie had come across a long and popular but ultimately poorly-written article, and was making copyedits, replacing the headings with decent phrases, and other nefarious improvements that only newbies seem able to make.
Our friend, the #wikipedia worrier, had reverted his edits and left a note on his talkpage saying, "Don't make major improvements to articles without first discussing them on the talkpage." He was, however, worried that the newbie might re-offend, and wanted me to help keep him in line.
"Be bold!" was written for that newbie, and that user. In the world of our friend, and other editors who would interfere with WP:BOLD, it is more difficult for a Broken Telephone process wonk to pass through the eye of a needle than for a helpful newbie to summon up the courage to improve our encyclopaedia. That's a grim world, and I want no part of it.
"Be bold!" is a worthy, nay sacred, guideline, and it is not to be trifled or tampered with. Shame be upon those who would ignore it, twist it, misuse it, dilute it, ruin it, in the name of improving our encyclopaedia!
Yes!!! Self-confidence is the result of a successfully survived risk.
Marc
on 6/23/07 3:54 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Self-confidence is the result of a successfully survived risk.
Is this original? Is it copyright? Can we quote you in the real world?
Ray,
I read this phrase somewhere some time ago. To the best of my recollection it could possibly be something Jack Gibb said; but I wasn't certain enough to credit him.
Marc
Mark Gallagher wrote:
"Be bold!" was written for that newbie, and that user. In the world of our friend, and other editors who would interfere with WP:BOLD, it is more difficult for a Broken Telephone process wonk to pass through the eye of a needle than for a helpful newbie to summon up the courage to improve our encyclopaedia. That's a grim world, and I want no part of it.
"Be bold!" is a worthy, nay sacred, guideline, and it is not to be trifled or tampered with. Shame be upon those who would ignore it, twist it, misuse it, dilute it, ruin it, in the name of improving our encyclopaedia!
Well said. The most recent interchange about WP:BOLD left me concerned. Somehow we have drifted from "Be bold," to "Be bold in editing," to "Be bold in editing articles."
While the first migration may have had some sense to it, the second one takes it too far. Policies relating to blocking people or taking other quasi-disciplinary steps may very well follow from the "Code-of-conduct" pillar; they are not about editing. "Be bold" derives from the no firm rules pillar. I take exception to the limitation that would restrict being bold on templates or categories.
I do recognize that some caution may be needed when editing templates; changes to templates can be just as damaging as the templates themselves. Most of these have attained a level of geekishness that make them incomprehensible to normal people. But when that complexity is used as a tool to establish an unchangeable vision then it has gone beyond what we are trying to do. It makes a certain Point of View implicit. When that happens there is all the more reason to be bold in editing the template.
Restricting boldness in categories is even less warranted. Lumping categories in the same breath with templates appears to give them a technical aura beyond their reality. How one person categorizes things is as reflective of that person's world view as the way he edits. Being bold here is warranted, because it allows us to make new connections beween ideas. It is misleading to lump categories with templates. Categories are not likely to have the same technical consequences as templates.
Ec
On 6/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Well said. The most recent interchange about WP:BOLD left me concerned. Somehow we have drifted from "Be bold," to "Be bold in editing," to "Be bold in editing articles."
If you think that I suggest you pay more attention to the exchange. The guideline from it's inception has talked about articles and specified outright that it was only talking about "updating articles" in late 2003.
So when exactly did this drift take place?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Mark Gallagher wrote:
An extension of this is: if you have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong.
Sorry, I don't buy this one bit.
If you have to cite IAR to a reasonable person, you're doing it wrong.
But if someone says "I don't care how much sense violating that policy makes, we cannot violate policy, period. Policies must not be violated under any circumstances", then you really do have to cite IAR to them.
Yours is a more meta-level observation than Mark's.. I suppose it's even an example of applyiug IAR to his IAR statement. I support the Zen spirit of his comment.
Ec
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
Ignore all rules regularly fills up with useless encrustations of rubbish and needs emptying out. You too can help with this. The only wording you need is that it's Wikipedia policy and it goes something like "If the rules stop you improving Wikipedia, ignore them." Just toss all the rest out.
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
Ignore all rules regularly fills up with useless encrustations of rubbish and needs emptying out. You too can help with this. The only wording you need is that it's Wikipedia policy and it goes something like "If the rules stop you improving Wikipedia, ignore them." Just toss all the rest out.
I preferred the blank version, myself. Possibly a category link to Wikipedia policy.
(I started a straw poll on whether all Wikipedia policy pages should be blanked, in order to reduce confusion, figuring a 7-3 [[WP:CONSENSUS]] on a talk page was probably enough to swing it. But it was removed. Bah!)
- d.
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ignore all rules regularly fills up with useless encrustations of rubbish and needs emptying out. You too can help with this. The only wording you need is that it's Wikipedia policy and it goes something like "If the rules stop you improving Wikipedia, ignore them." Just toss all the rest out.
This fails utterly. The usual method of abuse is for someone to say "that doesn't count as improving Wikipedia". Usually this means someone claims that 1) some other rule defines what it means to improve Wikipedia (at which point IAR becomes useless, of course), or 2) external considerations like not harming BLP subjects don't "improve Wikipedia" since they don't help readers of Wikipedia articles.
On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ignore all rules regularly fills up with useless encrustations of rubbish and needs emptying out. You too can help with this. The only wording you need is that it's Wikipedia policy and it goes something like "If the rules stop you improving Wikipedia, ignore them." Just toss all the rest out.
This fails utterly. The usual method of abuse is for someone to say "that doesn't count as improving Wikipedia". Usually this means someone claims that
- some other rule defines what it means to improve Wikipedia (at
which point IAR becomes useless, of course), or 2) external considerations like not harming BLP subjects don't "improve Wikipedia" since they don't help readers of Wikipedia articles.
It sounds like you're trying to find a way to mechanically apply IAR.
Don't do that.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ignore all rules regularly fills up with useless encrustations of rubbish and needs emptying out. You too can help with this. The only wording you need is that it's Wikipedia policy and it goes something like "If the rules stop you improving Wikipedia, ignore them." Just toss all the rest out.
This fails utterly. The usual method of abuse is for someone to say "that doesn't count as improving Wikipedia". Usually this means someone claims that
- some other rule defines what it means to improve Wikipedia (at
which point IAR becomes useless, of course), or 2) external considerations like not harming BLP subjects don't "improve Wikipedia" since they don't help readers of Wikipedia articles.
It sounds like you're trying to find a way to mechanically apply IAR.
Don't do that.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If you ever have to explicitly invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong. If you're doing it right, there's such a clear need for what you did that you can just state that, never having to mention IAR at all. If you're -really- doing it right, then what you're doing is so blazingly obvious no one will even think to question it at all. (If you're running into pretty stiff resistance while using it, you're probably doing it wrong too-ignoring the rules is not license to ignore other people!)
On Jun 7, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
If you ever have to explicitly invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong. If you're doing it right, there's such a clear need for what you did that you can just state that, never having to mention IAR at all. If you're -really- doing it right, then what you're doing is so blazingly obvious no one will even think to question it at all. (If you're running into pretty stiff resistance while using it, you're probably doing it wrong too-ignoring the rules is not license to ignore other people!)
This would be true if we did not have a substantial number of robotic process monkeys who seem unwilling to advance their thought processes beyond "but the guideline says..." In these cases, it is often helpful to mention in passing that [[WP:IAR | ignoring]] the guideline is in fact fair play.
-Phil
On 07/06/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
If you ever have to explicitly invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong. If you're doing it right, there's such a clear need for what you did that you can just state that, never having to mention IAR at all. If you're -really- doing it right, then what you're doing is so blazingly obvious no one will even think to question it at all. (If you're running into pretty stiff resistance while using it, you're probably doing it wrong too-ignoring the rules is not license to ignore other people!)
This would be true if we did not have a substantial number of robotic process monkeys who seem unwilling to advance their thought processes beyond "but the guideline says..." In these cases, it is often helpful to mention in passing that [[WP:IAR | ignoring]] the guideline is in fact fair play.
[[WP:PRO]] has guides to dealing with both excessive process following and a lack of process following; please let me know if these are any help either way.
- d.
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
If you ever have to explicitly invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong.
Oh, come on. If someone tells you "I don't care how much sense that makes, you're violating the rules, and you can't do that, period", you're going to have to invoke IAR explicitly.
G'day Ken,
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
If you ever have to explicitly invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong.
Oh, come on. If someone tells you "I don't care how much sense that makes, you're violating the rules, and you can't do that, period", you're going to have to invoke IAR explicitly.
Indeed, and we have users that do this. There are two things about such people that may shock list readers:
1) They're wrong
2) Even if they were right about "you can't do that, period", they probably understand policy less than you do, and are utterly wrong about it in this instance. See: Broken Telephone Effect.
"These things are sent to try us."
On 6/7/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
If you ever have to explicitly invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong. If you're doing it right, there's such a clear need for what you did that you can just state that, never having to mention IAR at all. If you're -really- doing it right, then what you're doing is so blazingly obvious no one will even think to question it at all. (If you're running into pretty stiff resistance while using it, you're probably doing it wrong too-ignoring the rules is not license to ignore other people!)
Semi-true. If you can't explain why your edit improved the encyclopedia, citing "Ignore all rules" won't help you. If you can, then it will be seen by others as a valid application of the principle.
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Phil Sandifer wrote:
It sounds like you're trying to find a way to mechanically apply IAR.
Don't do that.
I don't want to mechanically apply things. But IAR is my only defense against other people who do. It needs to be worded well enough to be useful for this purpose. And it really isn't; in the name of keeping it short, we've put in a loophole a mile wide, and anyone who wants to use it against a rules lawyer has much more trouble than if it was worded better.
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
Nah be bold has always been a lot more timid than certain people appear to think (hasn't mattered for the most part since most people only edit articles).
Subclauses on IAR are irrelevant since there should never be any need to cite IAR.
On 07/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Subclauses on IAR are irrelevant since there should never be any need to cite IAR.
If only people understood it was more of a law of physics than a Wikimedia process ... sort of like "don't be a dick."
- d.
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
Nah be bold has always been a lot more timid than certain people appear to think (hasn't mattered for the most part since most people only edit articles).
Subclauses on IAR are irrelevant since there should never be any need to cite IAR.
Huh? Then why do we have IAR in the first place? Citing it is terribly useful when confronted with people who follow policies to the letter without using their good judgment.
Johnleemk
On 6/7/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Huh? Then why do we have IAR in the first place? Citing it is terribly useful when confronted with people who follow policies to the letter without using their good judgment.
Johnleemk
Ok you are trying to defend something that appears to violate policy. There are three options: 1)You are a competent rule lawyer and decide to use this fact.- You show how what you've done doesn't technically break policy (even if you had to take the Square root of a negative number to do it) 2) You are an incompetent rule lawyer.- You cite IAR 3)You are not a rule lawyer or decide you don't want to rule lawyer.- You make a solid logical evidence based case as to why in this case going against policy is the correct thing to do. You may wish to bring more people into the debate.
G'day John,
On 6/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Subclauses on IAR are irrelevant since there should never be any need to cite IAR.
Huh? Then why do we have IAR in the first place? Citing it is terribly useful when confronted with people who follow policies to the letter without using their good judgment.
IAR does not exist for you or me. It's there to tell the policy wonks to get off our backs.
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Holding a poll on "Be bold" doesn't strike me as particularly productive. So in the spirit of the guideline, I jumped in and rejigged it a bit, retaining the sense of the guideline but not making it so one-sided. Although special considerations do apply to templates and categories, these are covered by "don't be reckless", so there's no real need to have an artificial division, at least not to the extent that we have to say "Be bold in updating article", when really the guideline applies, with a very few exceptions which are usually fully protected from editing, to every page on the wiki.
And I forgot to mention the depth of irony of voting on an issue like this. Protracted discussion and polling on this guideline grossly violates the spirit of the guideline being discussed and voted upon.
—C.W.
I'm surprised the double redirect it created was missed. I'm also surprised I forgot the "Wikipedia" part when I fixed it :(