You're right, it IS insane. But according to community
consensus, due
process is all that matters. Content be damned, we're here
to run an
internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
Alphax | /"\
I'm not sure you're being sarcastic here, or whether you really mean it... Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.
--Mgm
I think the word you're looking for is "irony". Alphax was making the ironic observation that an overwhelming number of Wikipedians are more concerned with consensus than with quality.
Or maybe I'm making this observation and crediting it to Alphax? No matter: it's been said many times before.
Let's not confuse means with ends. Our GOAL is to write an encyclopedia. It shall consist of many articles which refer to each other (often by [[links like this]]). These articles describe the world outside of Wikipedia and rely on sources such as common knowledge, expert scholars, and frequently just "your average joe who happens to know something".
Our method has been to allow everyone in the world to participate.
GOAL - the "end" we have in mind. METHOD - the "means" by which we intend to achieve this end
The question I wish to address is what method or "means" will best help us achieve our goal. Anything which has worked so far, but is now proving an obstacle should be re-examined.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I think the word you're looking for is "irony". Alphax was making the ironic observation that an overwhelming number of Wikipedians are more concerned with consensus than with quality.
Not only that but they misunderstand the nature of consensus. Effective consensus depends on having effective community. Consensus that is motivated by being right and winninbg your point is not much of a consensus.
The question I wish to address is what method or "means" will best help us achieve our goal. Anything which has worked so far, but is now proving an obstacle should be re-examined.
Certainly! There is the old saw, "Patience is a virtue." Most of the disputes concerning deletions could easily be defused if those seeking deletions showed a little patience, and weren't so convinced that they are right or that a deletion can only be reversed with great difficulty.
Maintaining deletion discussions actively open after something is deleted would probably have the counter-intuitive result that fewer would be undeleted. At the very least, the heat would be reduced.
Ec
Maintaining deletion discussions actively open after something is deleted would probably have the counter-intuitive result that fewer would be undeleted. At the very least, the heat would be reduced.
Ec
I'm not so sure about that. Wouldn't it just attract people unhappy with the result piling up votes and requesting a recount of the original result? Having stuff undeleted isn't a bad thing, as long as there's a proper reason behind overruling the original AFD debate (new info, faulty closure, or lots of blanket votes).
On 10/19/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Having stuff undeleted isn't a bad thing, as long as there's a proper reason behind overruling the original AFD debate (new info, faulty closure, or lots of blanket votes).
Or, heaven forbid that we should ever admit it, an article that was actually jolly good to begin with! :)
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Maintaining deletion discussions actively open after something is deleted would probably have the counter-intuitive result that fewer would be undeleted. At the very least, the heat would be reduced.
Ec
I'm not so sure about that. Wouldn't it just attract people unhappy with the result piling up votes and requesting a recount of the original result? Having stuff undeleted isn't a bad thing, as long as there's a proper reason behind overruling the original AFD debate (new info, faulty closure, or lots of blanket votes).
Let's assume that up until the point of deletion things pretty well proceed as they do now. Some minimum number of people ask to delete over a specified time, and no-one votes to keep. So the article is deleted. Someone comes along (It can even be the article's original writer, who didn't know about the deletion while the AfD was open), receives support from someone else, and the article is undeleted. Any sysop can do this without fear of a firestorm of protest. As *new* faces arrive on the scene there may indeed by a long cycle of deletions and undeletions on some articles, but only a limited number of articles will face that level of attention. Fair standards can be established that will allow for this. The heat will be less because the attention will have been drawn away from broad policies that some see as unjust. Most deletions will then, as now, probably go unnoticed in plain view.
Quite apart from the specific issues connected with a particular article, the irritant is the finality of deletions. There is, to be sure, an available undeletion process but it is seen by many as cumbersome and ineffective. It is a long standing principle that contributors should be prepared to have their writing severely edited, and that they should avoid taking personal ownership of an article. Should a deletion be any different? Those who work to clean things up by deleting articles should not feel the need to protect their deletions; that's the mindset that fuels disputes. If an article really should be kept deleted they should have the confidence that other new editors will come along to support that view. If there really is a deletionist clique they will be automatically marginalized by the process.
To be clear, I am referring to general deletion policy. This does not obviate the need for special policies to deal with such legal issues as copyright violation or defamation.
Beyond a limited number of core policy principles, static policies are inconsistent with the wiki. This is sure to discomfit those individuals who like certainty with their rules. Surely, there are many (possibly most) policies which are so well accepted that they will never change, but that doesn't mean that changes must not be proposed. It's just that such proposals won't get anywhere. If the wiki is going to belong to everybody then everybody must feel they have a hand in its policies, including and especially those who were not there when those policies were first codified. I think it's important to learn to live with that kind of uncertainty and insecurity.
Ec.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I think the word you're looking for is "irony". Alphax was making the ironic observation that an overwhelming number of Wikipedians are more concerned with consensus than with quality.
Not only that but they misunderstand the nature of consensus. Effective consensus depends on having effective community. Consensus that is motivated by being right and winninbg your point is not much of a consensus.
I'm not sure what you mean by "winning your point", but why is being right NOT a good motivation? I'm having a hard time thinking of a better one.
G'day Jeff,
Ray Saintonge wrote:
<snip />
Effective consensus depends on having effective community. Consensus that is motivated by being right and winninbg your point is not much of a consensus.
I'm not sure what you mean by "winning your point", but why is being right NOT a good motivation? I'm having a hard time thinking of a better one.
I can't really speak for Ray on this one --- but I'll try to adopt a Canadian accent and give it a jolly good burl. (Ray's Canadian, right?)
By "motivated by being right and winninbg your point" heI doesn't mean "Person X is motivated because he's right", eh. Rather, heI means that Person X believes that, if she can just swing enough votes towards her argument through whatever means she can effect, then that's as good as having been right in the first place, eh.
Assuming that Ihe means what Ihe think heI means, Ihe reckons it's a beaut point. Over to you, Ray --- was I close?
Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I think the word you're looking for is "irony". Alphax was making the ironic observation that an overwhelming number of Wikipedians are more concerned with consensus than with quality.
Not only that but they misunderstand the nature of consensus. Effective consensus depends on having effective community. Consensus that is motivated by being right and winning your point is not much of a consensus.
I'm not sure what you mean by "winning your point", but why is being right NOT a good motivation? I'm having a hard time thinking of a better one.
Yeah! Maybe I should stop accidentally watching Dr. Phil on TV. Damn radical Texans! Just before I wrote the above he was talking about "rights warriors" in a marriage. Some of them can end up "right" in Divorce Court.
Being right is wrong when the wrong person also thinks he's as right. Who has the monopoly on objectivity?
Ec
I think the word you're looking for is "irony". Alphax was making the ironic observation that an overwhelming number of Wikipedians are more concerned with consensus than with quality.
Maybe, but there are also those of us who believe that in the long run reaching consensus is the way to achieve quality. In fact, reaching consensus and reaching an NPOV in many ways go hand in hand, and NPOV is a "non-negotiable" qualitative measure.
Of course, I'm not sure the majority of Wikipedians care that much about consensus. In fact, I'd say the majority of vocal Wikipedians don't even know what consensus means (or intentionally abuse the term). When conflict rolls around it's more often solved by voting and other forms of the majority forcing its opinion on the minority (such as that enacted by the three revert rule), rather than being solved through compromise and consensus decision-making.