http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colorado_balloo...
Cheers to Bigtimepeace for this one. Read the detailed explanation.
- d.
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be "invoked", as its not a rule; IAR should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give props for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over.
- causa sui
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colorado_balloo...
Cheers to Bigtimepeace for this one. Read the detailed explanation.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be "invoked", as its not a rule; IAR should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give props for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over.
I disagree. Following rules should be the default. We should only ignore them if we have a good reason to do so. Otherwise, there is no point having rules at all.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be "invoked", as its not a rule; IAR should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give props for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over.
I disagree. Following rules should be the default. We should only ignore them if we have a good reason to do so. Otherwise, there is no point having rules at all.
I'm happy with that. As long as we agree that all rules should have a point, also. If a rule is arbitrary, it needs a specially good point (example, which side of the road to drive on).
Charles
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be "invoked", as its not a rule;
IAR
should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give
props
for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over.
I disagree. Following rules should be the default. We should only ignore them if we have a good reason to do so. Otherwise, there is no point having rules at all.
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added by saying "I am invoking IAR." The only defense is "I did this because X" where X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well skip to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because X", just say "I did this because X."
- causa sui
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added by saying "I am invoking IAR." The only defense is "I did this because X" where X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well skip to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because X", just say "I did this because X."
It's not a misunderstanding, it is an understanding of how things actually work in the real world. "X" will need to include an explanation of why the usual rules don't apply (that may be obvious from just explanation why what you did was a good idea), so it makes sense to acknowledge from the beginning that you aren't following the usual rules.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not
itself
a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added
by
saying "I am invoking IAR." The only defense is "I did this because X"
where
X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well
skip
to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because
X",
just say "I did this because X."
It's not a misunderstanding, it is an understanding of how things actually work in the real world. "X" will need to include an explanation of why the usual rules don't apply (that may be obvious from just explanation why what you did was a good idea), so it makes sense to acknowledge from the beginning that you aren't following the usual rules.
Do you think a reason X that persuaded you that A was the right thing to do despite rule R that seems to forbid A would cause you to believe that the rules didn't apply, or would you need to be specifically reminded of that fact every time?
- causa sui
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
Do you think a reason X that persuaded you that A was the right thing to do despite rule R that seems to forbid A would cause you to believe that the rules didn't apply, or would you need to be specifically reminded of that fact every time?
I would like the person ignoring the rules to make it clear they are aware of the rules and that it is a concious decision to ignore them because it is the right thing to do and no just someone not understanding why we usually do it another way. (Of course, that is for the "rules getting in the way" reason for invoking IAR, not the "policy pages are too long to read so I'll just do what seems right" reasons - admins should only be using the former reason, we expect them to already be familiar with policy.)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added by saying "I am invoking IAR." The only defense is "I did this because X" where X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well skip to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because X", just say "I did this because X."
And WP:IAR has said as much at various times; but such explanation tends to be unstable because it eventually leads to people attempting to codify rules regulating when it is permissible to IAR. O_o
That said, sometimes after you've said "I did this because it was the right thing to do caused no harm, and because failing to do this would cause harm and rules X,Y,Z were created without any consideration of this case, and ..." several times only be to be rebutted by some person who, without refuting any aspect of your position, keeps pointing out your flagrant violation of the strict letter of rule 27B/6 ... well, about the only thing to do is to cite back WP:IAR as a rule. At that moment the rule-pushers head will either explode, or he'll go burn himself out trying to edit war on WP:IAR, either way your problem is solved. (or so you hope!)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not
itself
a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added
by
saying "I am invoking IAR." The only defense is "I did this because X"
where
X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well
skip
to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because
X",
just say "I did this because X."
And WP:IAR has said as much at various times; but such explanation tends to be unstable because it eventually leads to people attempting to codify rules regulating when it is permissible to IAR. O_o
That said, sometimes after you've said "I did this because it was the right thing to do caused no harm, and because failing to do this would cause harm and rules X,Y,Z were created without any consideration of this case, and ..." several times only be to be rebutted by some person who, without refuting any aspect of your position, keeps pointing out your flagrant violation of the strict letter of rule 27B/6 ... well, about the only thing to do is to cite back WP:IAR as a rule. At that moment the rule-pushers head will either explode, or he'll go burn himself out trying to edit war on WP:IAR, either way your problem is solved. (or so you hope!)
This is an important point. A proper application of IAR should go unnoticed -- at least, by everyone except the "rules are rules" folks who memorize the laws and are ready to deliver citations for all your transgressions whenever you step a quarter inch out of line. If what you did was a good idea and everyone agrees it was a good idea, nobody should even notice that it was against the rules or that IAR was necessary. Explicitly announcing that you are invoking IAR rarely accomplishes more than triggering "rules are rules" responses and starting up another round of the perennial IAR interpretation debates. (See what has happened in this very thread?)
-causa sui
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
This is an important point. A proper application of IAR should go unnoticed -- at least, by everyone except the "rules are rules" folks who memorize the laws and are ready to deliver citations for all your transgressions whenever you step a quarter inch out of line. If what you did was a good idea and everyone agrees it was a good idea, nobody should even notice that it was against the rules or that IAR was necessary. Explicitly announcing that you are invoking IAR rarely accomplishes more than triggering "rules are rules" responses and starting up another round of the perennial IAR interpretation debates. (See what has happened in this very thread?)
In an ideal world, that is how things would work. We don't live in an ideal world. What actually happens is people complain that you having followed the rules and never get as far as reading your explanation.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
This is an important point. A proper application of IAR should go
unnoticed
-- at least, by everyone except the "rules are rules" folks who memorize
the
laws and are ready to deliver citations for all your transgressions
whenever
you step a quarter inch out of line. If what you did was a good idea and everyone agrees it was a good idea, nobody should even notice that it was against the rules or that IAR was necessary. Explicitly announcing that
you
are invoking IAR rarely accomplishes more than triggering "rules are
rules"
responses and starting up another round of the perennial IAR
interpretation
debates. (See what has happened in this very thread?)
In an ideal world, that is how things would work. We don't live in an ideal world. What actually happens is people complain that you having followed the rules and never get as far as reading your explanation.
You're right-- we don't live in an ideal world, and people often do insist on inappropriately citing policy as a response to a reasoned argument. You might notice that usually the people who do this do it on the basis of arguments rather like the ones you are making in this thread.
-- causa sui
2009/10/21 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
You're right-- we don't live in an ideal world, and people often do insist on inappropriately citing policy as a response to a reasoned argument. You might notice that usually the people who do this do it on the basis of arguments rather like the ones you are making in this thread.
I don't see the connection between blindly applying policy and observing that things don't always work the way we would like them to...
We have policies for a reason - they tend to work well and it helps us be consistent, which is usually desirable. There is no point having those policies if we don't consider them the default way to make decisions, so it makes perfect sense to me that a person deciding to go against policy should have a duty to explain why (at least if somebody asks them to - if there are no objections then obviously no explanation is needed, but there usually are objections so many people choose to pre-empt them). That explanation could take many forms, but the simplest way would usually be to explain why the situation in question is substantially different from the situations the people that wrote the policy had in mind. Then, once you've established that existing policy should be disregarded, you can explain why a particular course of action in the best idea. If you try and explain that before establishing that the policy shouldn't apply then you are essentially contesting the policy and that requires a much bigger discussion than is required to just decide what to do in a specific situation.
On 10/20/09, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com:
This is an important point. A proper application of IAR should go unnoticed -- at least, by everyone except the "rules are rules" folks who memorize the laws and are ready to deliver citations for all your transgressions whenever you step a quarter inch out of line.
In an ideal world, that is how things would work. We don't live in an ideal world. What actually happens is people complain that you having followed the rules and never get as far as reading your explanation.
What I gather just from a glance is that its not so much an IAR argument as it is a VIE (voting is evil) argument, and he evokes IAR just as a procedural justification.
He's right - not that voting itself is evil, but in our context we need and want to make intelligent editorial decisions. That means making qualitative discernements about the voting arguments - not just quantifying votes into a running count. Formally, we don't currently discern according to editor "quality" - we just don't have the means to do so. But we also don't formally make efforts to discern the quality of arguments, and that's why - in spite of it being "evil" - the formal method is still just basic quantification.
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than "IAR" that is?
-Steven
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than "IAR" that is?
Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box.
2009/10/22 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikipedian@googlemail.com:
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than "IAR" that is?
Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box.
You mean refactoring? Refactoring an ongoing discussion is usually very controversial and not worth the drama. Refactoring a closed discussion might make a more useful archive, particularly I'm not sure archives get read enough to be worth the effort.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/10/22 Surreptitiousness:
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than "IAR" that is?
Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box.
You mean refactoring? Refactoring an ongoing discussion is usually very controversial and not worth the drama. Refactoring a closed discussion might make a more useful archive, particularly I'm not sure archives get read enough to be worth the effort.
Ooops! You're right; it should have been "refactoring", and I should have responded accordingly.
Ec
Surreptitiousness wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than "IAR" that is?
Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box.
Refactoring talk pages being one of those things that work in theory but not in practice, I can see why it became less popular (perhaps is extinct). These days some pages with many talk archives could probably do with their own FAQ.
Charles
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than "IAR" that is?
Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box.
Refactoring talk pages being one of those things that work in theory but not in practice, I can see why it became less popular (perhaps is extinct). These days some pages with many talk archives could probably do with their own FAQ.
Indeed. There is a bot that can help index talk page archives. I'll give details below.
The best talk page archives ones are accessible both chronologically, and by topic, and have a well-organised FAQ to pick out the main points for people new to the article. This does, of course, presume that lengthy talk page archives are needed for all articles (some need very little talk page discussion at all). Some subject are genuinely controversial (i.e. in the real-world as well as here) and need discussion. Others are more cranks or obsessives arguing back and forth endlessly. Or politically-active people soapboxing. Wikipedia deals with that very poorly.
The best articles, unsurprisingly, are where a good team of editors and writers (and not too large a team either) work together to produce a great article. It would be great if that sort of teamwork happened on some of the messy articles, but the very existence of highly-charged emotions puts off some of the people that could help fix things. And some people are happy to just argue incessantly, rather than move forward and end up with a better article.
Details are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Cas...
More links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Read_the_archives
Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/FAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/FAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/FAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/FAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
Search for talk page FAQs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&...
Search for indexed archives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns1=1&redir...
Talk page archive indexing bot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HBC_Archive_Indexerbot
Examples of bot-generated indexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran/Archive_index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_index
Example of manually maintained talk page archive index:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_index
How successful these approaches are, does need some looking at.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Indeed. There is a bot that can help index talk page archives. I'll give details below.
Well, while I see the value in raising indexing as a process, I still have to point out that we aren't talking about talk pages and organizing them topically for later ease of reference (ie. WP:OBT) , but the "refactoring" of actual "vote" discussions wherein we have to make collective qualitative discernments about the merit of individual arguments.
In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution, and we are now starting to talk about process methods for dealing with discussions in a meta way. At this point it requires mentioning that what we are really talking about is in part a rating system for comments integrated into talk pages, similar to a Scoop or Slash system. I'm not certain this is a current or even planned functionality in Liquid Threads, but in any case it seems that the LT project (or some better-thought out derivation) should be regarded as a high-priority ("usability") project that we need to put more coders to work on. AIUI, keeping things still "wiki" - such that discussions still have basic wiki re-factoring capability seems (typically enough) to be both a high principle, and an obstruction.
Aside from the rating component, we should consider comment length as a factor in how sub-comments are nested - some comments are just short votes of support for an above argument. Nesting those beneath a main argument seems necessary. In the wild, typically see four basic dimensions within a discussion: 1) long posts with lots of substance 2) short posts with lots of substance 3) long posts with little substance 4) short posts with little substance
Simplistic, true, and its often hard to atomize long posts - substantive or not (which is why I like line-by-line replies). But ranking helps get rid of the bottom two kinds of posts. Proper nesting can deal with how the first two interrelate. After that, its possible to use the tool improperly, where ranking *can indicate which of the substantive arguments are dominant, but reliance on this can raise the voting fallacy issue all over again. But what of it? At least 3 and 4 are disposed of, and 1 and 2 are put in place.
-Steven
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Indeed. There is a bot that can help index talk page archives. I'll give details below.
Well, while I see the value in raising indexing as a process, I still have to point out that we aren't talking about talk pages and organizing them topically for later ease of reference (ie. WP:OBT) , but the "refactoring" of actual "vote" discussions wherein we have to make collective qualitative discernments about the merit of individual arguments.
In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution,
I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing deletion discussions?
- causa sui
Note: Please excise quotes properly - the below quote looked as if it belonged to Charcaroth.
Stevertigo wrote:
In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution,
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote: I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing deletion discussions?
Its not IAR that helps "administrators" 'use their own judgment' - its BRAINS. And resting an idea of proper action on IAR alone is doing nothing else other than saying BRAINS is a policy called "IAR." Which isn't true. We may not like the idea that RULES > BRAINS, but we already know that the BRAINS > RULES conjecture doesn't fly. Even Einstein, aside from the being-off-planet thing, could not post any new insights into a Wikipedia article without violating NOR. NOR is one of those rules we are suppose to 'not ignore.'
So while this BRAINS policy is a nice idea, without actually making any qualitative discernments about what's in those BRAINS, it just doesn't mean anything other than to exist as a BRAINY way to say that some people have them and others don't. It may seem ironic that a BRAINS policy would itself be quite uselessly simplistic and applicable in only a binary, one-dimensional way, but not really. Not if you think about it. So I prefer that we just stick to the arguments, and let the issue of BRAINS just sort of sort itself out.
In reality the context here is not the success of IAR, but the simple fact that someone made an editorial decision and explained themselves in an detailed way that gave good faith to the arguments of the opposing side. In that context, the opposing side just let the issue go.
I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later?
-Stevertigo
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Note: Please excise quotes properly - the below quote looked as if it belonged to Charcaroth.
Stevertigo wrote:
In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution,
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote: I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing deletion discussions?
Its not IAR that helps "administrators" 'use their own judgment' - its BRAINS. And resting an idea of proper action on IAR alone is doing nothing else other than saying BRAINS is a policy called "IAR." Which isn't true. We may not like the idea that RULES > BRAINS, but we already know that the BRAINS > RULES conjecture doesn't fly. Even Einstein, aside from the being-off-planet thing, could not post any new insights into a Wikipedia article without violating NOR. NOR is one of those rules we are suppose to 'not ignore.'
I have to say, I kind of love this thread. So old-school Wikipedia!
In my own head, I've always sorted out Wikipedia guidelines, rules, and policies into two types: principles and procedures.
Principles are things like: we're an encyclopedia and therefore don't publish original research; we're open to new contributors and are therefore nice to them; we want to give people correct, unbiased information therefore content should be neutral and factual. There are not many principles. They are pretty basic and intrinsic to what the site is.
Procedures are things like: when you nominate an article for AfD, you should apply the right template, take a look around for sources and past AfDs, notify the lead author(s), give a good reason for deletion, and expect that if several people agree with you, the article will get deleted, and if they don't, it won't. There are a zillion procedures. They are responsible for most of the traffic of this mailing list, most of the Wikipedia: namespace pages, and a whole lot of our collective time.
If there's confusion about IAR, I think it helps a lot to think of it as Ignore All Procedures. IAR doesn't get you off the hook for a non-NPOV article; it does mean that you can ignore whatever crazy procedures there are to fix this problem if they are unhelpful to you. (But if they are helpful, or you're not sure what to do, then by all means use them).
My favorite version of IAR is the earliest one on en: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."
-- phoebe
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
If there's confusion about IAR, I think it helps a lot to think of it as Ignore All Procedures. IAR doesn't get you off the hook for a non-NPOV article; it does mean that you can ignore whatever crazy procedures there are to fix this problem if they are unhelpful to you. (But if they are helpful, or you're not sure what to do, then by all means use them).
My problem with arguments critical of IAR is that they usually follow this formula:
1. Implicitly assume on the basis of a few one-off cases where IAR was invoked abusively that IAR is in any sense a "get out of jail free" card for abusive behavior, or that it's a free pass for anyone to do whatever he or she wants without having to explain why that was better for the encyclopedia or to ignore mounting consensus that what he or she did was in fact a Bad Idea(tm)
2. Reiterate the blindingly obvious and never contested fact that people need to make editorial decisions on the basis of good reasons instead of "willy nilly"
3. Conclude on the above basis that IAR should itself be ignored and that the only solution to the pressing problem of human autonomy and the inevitability of mistakes and disagreements is not discussion and dispute resolution, but instead a rigid formalized approach to policy that emphasizes firm rules that are to be followed at all times on pain of Death.
Anybody who thinks that IAR is going to get them off the hook for abusive editing is a fool. We all know that. If there is someone out there who thinks they can invoke IAR to ignore social feedback from peers who are telling them that they should stop doing what they are doing, I'll be there to repudiate that. But what I can't grok is why this obvious fact is so often the basis for criticisms of an interpretation of IAR that is totally out of alignment with its fundamental message, and why we therefore lose sight of that message. The real message of IAR is fundamental to this project as it's covered in the fifth pillar: mistakes will be made, but they're mostly easy to fix; contributing to Wikipedia should be easy and fun; and so we don't need a rule to cover every possible eventuality.
- causa sui
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later?
-Stevertigo
It's hard for me to even answer this question, since it assumes a perspective to editing Wikipedia that I don't subscribe to, and don't want to. Why on earth would you even approach editing on Wikipedia in terms of "making" the "losers" "capitulate" to us so that we don't get "screwed"? I really would encourage you to rethink this, because you seem to think that policy ought to be written to accommodate this paranoid attitude that other people here don't share.
- causa sui
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later?
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard for me to even answer this question, since it assumes a perspective to editing Wikipedia that I don't subscribe to, and don't want to. Why on earth would you even approach editing on Wikipedia in terms of "making" the "losers" "capitulate" to us so that we don't get "screwed"? I really would encourage you to rethink this, because you seem to think that policy ought to be written to accommodate this paranoid attitude that other people here don't share.
I was being facetious. Sort of. The term "notes of capitulation" should have been a giveaway (though I probably could have capitalized it to be clearer).
In point of fact though, we do sometimes have to employ the [[adversarial system]] to dealing with other editors. Not always, but sometimes. In such cases its still necessary to be clear with one another. So, if someone misrepresents my argument (as with your usage of "paranoid attitude" above), I have to point this problem out, and as a consequence their argument is weaker, and they lose a certain point within the overall debate. Some people do like to Wikilawyer people to death just by saying things like "POINT," "IAR" or even "DISRUPT," but that doesn't change the fact if their arguments are in substance, weaker.
Granted, there is some ambiguity about which policies trump which that need discernment and Arbcom to sort out. But language is still nevertheless atomic: Debates can be broken down into arguments, arguments can be broken down into points, points can be broken down into statements, statements can be examined for logic and terminological accuracy... In that context of logical, rational, argument - just as its quite honorable for one to admit making a mistake - conceding a point and then re-examining one's own argument is an essential aspect of a civil editorial discussion.
-Stevertigo "Make me a deal, and make it straight...
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later?
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard for me to even answer this question, since it assumes a perspective to editing Wikipedia that I don't subscribe to, and don't
want
to. Why on earth would you even approach editing on Wikipedia in terms of "making" the "losers" "capitulate" to us so that we don't get "screwed"?
I
really would encourage you to rethink this, because you seem to think
that
policy ought to be written to accommodate this paranoid attitude that
other
people here don't share.
I was being facetious. Sort of. The term "notes of capitulation" should have been a giveaway (though I probably could have capitalized it to be clearer).
In point of fact though, we do sometimes have to employ the [[adversarial system]] to dealing with other editors. Not always, but sometimes. In such cases its still necessary to be clear with one another. So, if someone misrepresents my argument (as with your usage of "paranoid attitude" above), I have to point this problem out, and as a consequence their argument is weaker, and they lose a certain point within the overall debate. Some people do like to Wikilawyer people to death just by saying things like "POINT," "IAR" or even "DISRUPT," but that doesn't change the fact if their arguments are in substance, weaker.
Granted, there is some ambiguity about which policies trump which that need discernment and Arbcom to sort out. But language is still nevertheless atomic: Debates can be broken down into arguments, arguments can be broken down into points, points can be broken down into statements, statements can be examined for logic and terminological accuracy... In that context of logical, rational, argument - just as its quite honorable for one to admit making a mistake - conceding a point and then re-examining one's own argument is an essential aspect of a civil editorial discussion.
-Stevertigo "Make me a deal, and make it straight...
Obviously, pursuing this further isn't a good use of either of our time.
- causa sui
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, pursuing this further isn't a good use of either of our time.
Well I appreciate the concession - it takes a serious amount of integrity to acknowledge that previous arguments were "not a good use of our time," and I commend you for it.
Boldly moving on to deal with the issue at hand about IAR now means just agreeing on some simple and basic facts: Sanger wrote BOLD in 10-01, and Crocker wrote IAR five months later in 03-02. Due to the former's issues of stature here, and the latter's status as a techno-savior of the project, I understand that there may be some lingering geek preference for the latter. But of the two BOLD is far more fitting of the title of "pillar."
The problem seems to be that Crocker wrote IAR at a time when we only had "rules." I did not rip off Anthere's "Uncivility" essay from meta to create "Civility" just to be a "rule" - I created it to be a 'statement of principle,' and a good one - one that stands as our re-conceptualization of the Golden Rule. It became obvious somewhere around 10-03 that, in spite of our geek-utopian conceptions of "wiki" and openness, we needed an actual moral and social principle. (In addition to the editorial principle of Objectivity/NPOV).
So just as no amount of nihilism or atheism can negate the Golden Rule, no abundance of IAR-droids can ever negate Civility. If Civility is to continue to be regarded as a "pillar," second only to Objectivity/Neutrality, then IAR, clever though it claims to be (apparently hard to understand too), is simply not on the same level as Civility or any other "pillar."
Regards, -Stevertigo
Carcharoth wrote:
The best articles, unsurprisingly, are where a good team of editors and writers (and not too large a team either) work together to produce a great article. It would be great if that sort of teamwork happened on some of the messy articles, but the very existence of highly-charged emotions puts off some of the people that could help fix things. And some people are happy to just argue incessantly, rather than move forward and end up with a better article.
It's not uncommon for a wrong article to be viewed as a lesser evil than engaging idiots in persistent drama.
Ec
Surreptitiousness wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than "IAR" that is?
Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box.
Yes, we did use to reformat discussions. I tried it a long time ago when en-wp still had less than 100k articles. It was more work than it was worth, especially if you are trying to deal with all comments fairly.
Ec
Ryan Delaney wrote:
[...] Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added by saying "I am invoking IAR." The only defense is "I did this because X" where X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well skip to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because X", just say "I did this because X."
Are folks here familiar with the shu ha ri model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuhari http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ShuHaRi.html
You can think of it as roughly equivalent to apprentice, journeyman, and master. This division has been useful to me in my work, helping people adopting software development methods. In particular, I end up explaining things differently.
People at the shu level are very focused on rules and rituals. People at the ri level have transcended them. In that framework, IAR is an explicit shu-level indicator that there are other levels to work at, and that rule-followers should honor that.
Given that, I think shu-level participants can sometimes use an explicit mention that IAR is being invoked, even if it is almost insultingly obvious to the ri-level participants. In other contexts, IAR is unnecessary; power structures lets masters do what they want anyhow. But as in so many other ways, Wikipedia is different.
William
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
[...] Since IAR is not itself a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added
by
saying "I am invoking IAR." The only defense is "I did this because X"
where
X is the reason that what you did was a good idea, so you might as well
skip
to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because
X",
just say "I did this because X."
Are folks here familiar with the shu ha ri model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuhari http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ShuHaRi.html
You can think of it as roughly equivalent to apprentice, journeyman, and master. This division has been useful to me in my work, helping people adopting software development methods. In particular, I end up explaining things differently.
People at the shu level are very focused on rules and rituals. People at the ri level have transcended them. In that framework, IAR is an explicit shu-level indicator that there are other levels to work at, and that rule-followers should honor that.
Given that, I think shu-level participants can sometimes use an explicit mention that IAR is being invoked, even if it is almost insultingly obvious to the ri-level participants. In other contexts, IAR is unnecessary; power structures lets masters do what they want anyhow. But as in so many other ways, Wikipedia is different.
William
This is definitely an interesting way of looking at it. I'd heard of this before but didn't think to apply it to this situation. I'll give it more thought, and definitely consider appealing to it in the inevitable future IAR debates.
Thanks.
- causa sui
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because X", just say "I did this because X."
Disagree. The response to "I did this because X" is, "But there's rule Y, which you should have followed." Explicitly evoking IAR makes it clear that you know about Y, and have a reason for ignoring it.
That said, surely the original AfD closer should have invoked WP:SNOW, not WP:IAR. That's what he was really doing: saying there was no chance at all of consensus, therefore speedying the decision.
Steve
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
to the end. Rather than saying "I am invoking IAR and I did this because
X",
just say "I did this because X."
Disagree. The response to "I did this because X" is, "But there's rule Y, which you should have followed." Explicitly evoking IAR makes it clear that you know about Y, and have a reason for ignoring it.
It would be context-dependent, but it would not be an response to say "You should have followed rule Y" without a reason to follow the rule. The fact that the policy implies that it is a rule is not in itself any reason to follow it.
- causa sui