I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite' as I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It is used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach of [[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
Thanks
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
"Joe Anderson" wrote
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
That you are.
Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It is used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
Well, your campaign has a long way to go.
IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach of [[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
It sounds timely, though. (Oh no, I'm about to type 'wake-up call', my second-most-hated cliche after 'defining moment.)
I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
Thank God for that. That would only be to call attention to yourself.
Charles
Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me, though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
Perhaps we could create a [civil] debate.
Also, if you think of my conduct as bad I ask you to comment at [[Wikipedia talk:Community Justice]], where the council has the power to remove me as chair if, I'm found to have done misconduct!
Once again, thanks.
Joe
On 5/2/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Joe Anderson" wrote
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
That you are.
Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It
is
used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
Well, your campaign has a long way to go.
IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach
of
[[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
It sounds timely, though. (Oh no, I'm about to type 'wake-up call', my second-most-hated cliche after 'defining moment.)
I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
Thank God for that. That would only be to call attention to yourself.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Joe wrote:
Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
Yes I thought Charles wasn't quite up to his usual high standards, but we''ll let him off this time.
I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me, though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
If its not clear that AfD is often an uncivil place (including using -cruft etc), then you've been there too long!
In an ideal wiki, editors taking part in AfD should be prepared for dealing with more than their fair share (bewildered, upset) newbies and should be extra specially careful not to bite them.
It is a great shame so many don't - It costs us content, and more importantly, new contributors.
Pcb21
----- Original Message ---- From: Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 4:21:19 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me, though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
Perhaps we could create a [civil] debate.
Also, if you think of my conduct as bad I ask you to comment at [[Wikipedia talk:Community Justice]], where the council has the power to remove me as chair if, I'm found to have done misconduct!
Once again, thanks.
Joe
On 5/2/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Joe Anderson" wrote
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
That you are.
Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It
is
used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
Well, your campaign has a long way to go.
IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach
of
[[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
It sounds timely, though. (Oh no, I'm about to type 'wake-up call', my second-most-hated cliche after 'defining moment.)
I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
Thank God for that. That would only be to call attention to yourself.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
The fact I do not find it uncivil does not make me a hypocrite.
I will be more careful using it in the future though.
I find it interesting how it isn't AfD which is under question, but me.
On 5/2/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
Joe wrote:
Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
Yes I thought Charles wasn't quite up to his usual high standards, but we''ll let him off this time.
I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling
something
cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me, though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
If its not clear that AfD is often an uncivil place (including using -cruft etc), then you've been there too long!
In an ideal wiki, editors taking part in AfD should be prepared for dealing with more than their fair share (bewildered, upset) newbies and should be extra specially careful not to bite them.
It is a great shame so many don't - It costs us content, and more importantly, new contributors.
Pcb21
----- Original Message ---- From: Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 4:21:19 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me, though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
Perhaps we could create a [civil] debate.
Also, if you think of my conduct as bad I ask you to comment at [[Wikipedia talk:Community Justice]], where the council has the power to remove me as chair if, I'm found to have done misconduct!
Once again, thanks.
Joe
On 5/2/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Joe Anderson" wrote
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
That you are.
Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It
is
used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as
uncivil!
Well, your campaign has a long way to go.
IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a
breach
of
[[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
It sounds timely, though. (Oh no, I'm about to type 'wake-up call', my second-most-hated cliche after 'defining moment.)
I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
Thank God for that. That would only be to call attention to yourself.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
Kelly
I was acting out of good faith, and I now admit listcruft was not the best term.
However, I refuse to admit I wasn't following [[WP:AGF]] or [[WP:CIVIL]].
Thanks.
On 5/2/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
Kelly
What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all, isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
John
John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
On 5/2/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
Kelly
What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all, isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
By saying Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace I was attempting to insert fact without opinion.
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
On 5/2/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
Kelly
What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all, isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
But, by inserting that fact, weren't you also trying to discredit that person's opinion as being a "newbie". When people do this on RfA or AfD, it really annoys me. I understand if the person is a suspected sock and you are trying to point them out as such. But, if we are a community that encourages people to "be bold", why do we also going around pointing at the newbies?
--- Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
By saying Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace I was attempting to insert fact without opinion.
Sue Anne User:Sreed1234
But, by inserting that fact, weren't you also trying to discredit that person's opinion as being a "newbie". When people do this on RfA or AfD, it really annoys me. I understand if the person is a suspected sock and you are trying to point them out as such. But, if we are a community that encourages people to "be bold", why do we also going around pointing at the newbies?
Very strong agreement with this.
Even worse is the "first to this namespace" bit. It implies that you have to make 10 delete votes or something before you are allowed to ask to keep an article!
The "spends too much time in the article namespace" criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.
The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of importance. If I observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.
On 5/2/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Pete Bartlett" wrote
The "spends too much time in the article namespace" criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.
That is definitely oppositioncruft.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Why is it important? Why should a first edit to the namespace be viewed any differently than a 100th edit to the namespace?
Sue Anne User:Sreed1234
--- Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of importance. If I observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.
In a decision it may have importance because there may be sockpuppetry. I was not accusing the user of sockpuppetry.
On 5/2/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
Why is it important? Why should a first edit to the namespace be viewed any differently than a 100th edit to the namespace?
Sue Anne User:Sreed1234
--- Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of importance. If I observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of importance. If I observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.
Why? Why is it of importance? My first post to the Wikipedia namespace was an VfD *nomination* [1], and nobody pointed *that* out. [2]
Kelly
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dave_Shea&diff=prev&oldid=8912818 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dave_Shea
On 02/05/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
Even worse is the "first to this namespace" bit. It implies that you have to make 10 delete votes or something before you are allowed to ask to keep an article!
The "spends too much time in the article namespace" criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.
IMHO these criticisms are really a way of forming an old boys' club, trying to keep newbies out by claims of "when you've passed your initiation, you too will have these wonderful privileges". And this is totally antithetical to the Wikipedia spirit.
If there is suspected sockpuppetry, we should *say so*. We should say, "I believe this user is a sockpuppet, as evidenced by recent account creation and very few edits. Could a bureaucrat check this please". None of this discounting opinions simply due to apparent newness, please.
Steve
Re: Listcruft
Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]]. The definition here is not at all uncivil, but actually a WikiEssay.
Thanks.
On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
Even worse is the "first to this namespace" bit. It implies that you have to make 10 delete votes or something before you are allowed to ask to keep an article!
The "spends too much time in the article namespace" criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.
IMHO these criticisms are really a way of forming an old boys' club, trying to keep newbies out by claims of "when you've passed your initiation, you too will have these wonderful privileges". And this is totally antithetical to the Wikipedia spirit.
If there is suspected sockpuppetry, we should *say so*. We should say, "I believe this user is a sockpuppet, as evidenced by recent account creation and very few edits. Could a bureaucrat check this please". None of this discounting opinions simply due to apparent newness, please.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Re: Listcruft
Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]]. The definition here is not at all uncivil, but actually a WikiEssay.
One comment I'd like to make on this is that an essay is not a good reason to propose articles for deletion. In particular, while some poorly defined lists tend to be deleted, there is no consensus that lists *per se* are deletable.
I realise that Tony, I was simply providing that link for a description of Listcruft.
I have expanded my reasoning. IMO, you could say Delete as listcruft as (whatever).
On 5/2/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Re: Listcruft
Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]]. The definition here is not at
all
uncivil, but actually a WikiEssay.
One comment I'd like to make on this is that an essay is not a good reason to propose articles for deletion. In particular, while some poorly defined lists tend to be deleted, there is no consensus that lists *per se* are deletable. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On Tue, 2 May 2006 21:16:32 +0100, you wrote:
One comment I'd like to make on this is that an essay is not a good reason to propose articles for deletion. In particular, while some poorly defined lists tend to be deleted, there is no consensus that lists *per se* are deletable.
Indeed. The listcruft essay is a reasonable and quite calm discourse to explain to those whose pet list article has been nominated, why it might be considered unencyclopaedic by some. The problem is not with the term listcruft, or with its definition, but with the necessarily arbitrary definition of what constitutes listcruft. Which is no different from the problem of any other content of debatable encyclopaedic merit, which problem is of course the reason why we require a supermajority to delete. One man's list of arbitrary fictional objects selected by arbitrary criteria and sorted by other arbitrary criteria is another man's fascinating list of seen-once Star Trek sacrificial red shirt actors sorted by date of appearance. And who's to say who's right?
Vive la difference! Guy (JzG)
Jargon such as "-cruft" and "nn" is not helpful for newbies.
I think what gets peoples backs up more than that is the sight of 7 or 8 people all writing the same thing (*'''Strong delete'''. NN listcruft ~~~~) on nomination after nomination. We get the message after three, ok!
----- Original Message ---- From: Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 5:08:07 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
On 5/2/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
Kelly
What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all, isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree
On 5/2/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
Jargon such as "-cruft" and "nn" is not helpful for newbies.
I think what gets peoples backs up more than that is the sight of 7 or 8 people all writing the same thing (*'''Strong delete'''. NN listcruft
on nomination after nomination. We get the message after three, ok! ----- Original Message ---- From: Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@wikipedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 5:08:07 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant. On 5/2/06, John Lee <johnleemk@gawab.com> wrote: > > Kelly Martin wrote: > > >On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not. > >> > >> > > > >In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued > >contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that > >their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why > >can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due > >to limited scope of interest"? > > > >Kelly > > > > > What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all, > isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism? > > John > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- Joe Anderson [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
At the time, I didn't realise that.
On 5/2/06, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited
scope of
interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
Unfortunately, the original meaning of the hacker term "cruft" is (at its most polite) "undiscarded technical clutter".
-- Neil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Neil Harris wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
Unfortunately, the original meaning of the hacker term "cruft" is (at its most polite) "undiscarded technical clutter".
I started looking back into where this term comes from and Google Book Search gave me "...we meet with vaft galleries, along which, and out of which, the lava has flowed, leaving the cruft entire." They credit the extract to the "Transactions of the Royal Society of Edimburgh" without giving a date. They also give only snippets of the work. This is apparently out of respect for copyrights. The use of the long "S" in typography was abandoned rather abrubtly around the year 1800. Even admitting that a few of the Scots' southrrn neighbours would consider them a little backwards, this seems more like an example of Google-cruft.
Ec
On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of "cruft".
On 5/2/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of "cruft".
And "shit" can mean "fecal matter" or just "stuff I don't like". Doesn't mean calling something "shit" when you really mean "stuff I don't like" isn't incivil.
Kelly
On May 2, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of "cruft".
And "shit" can mean "fecal matter" or just "stuff I don't like". Doesn't mean calling something "shit" when you really mean "stuff I don't like" isn't incivil.
My point was that many people, including (apparently) myself and the person who started this entire thread, never knew that "cruft" had any meaning *apart from* "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"
On 02/05/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
My point was that many people, including (apparently) myself and the person who started this entire thread, never knew that "cruft" had any meaning *apart from* "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"
I know a certain racial epithet which is perfectly synonymous with some much nicer terms. You understand why we don't use the racial epithet. That's why certain people, myself included, discourage use of offensive terms such as "cruft".
And because some people *don't* actually know this more technical meaning of the term, so it's probably better to spell it out each time.
Steve
On May 2, 2006, at 2:14 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
My point was that many people, including (apparently) myself and the person who started this entire thread, never knew that "cruft" had any meaning *apart from* "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"
I know a certain racial epithet which is perfectly synonymous with some much nicer terms. You understand why we don't use the racial epithet.
Racial epithets, by definition, are *not* perfectly synonymous with nicer terms because they have unnecessarily negative connotations. Let's not mince words. If you call someone a nigger, you're implying that their race makes them less valuable as a human being. If you call someone black, all you're implying is that they happen to be of African descent.
The only connotation "cruft" has is that we take a dismissive view towards material that's not suitable for inclusion due to limited interest. But this dismissive attitude is already present because we're vouching for the deletion of this material in the first place.
According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular." Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something "extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully understand and only pick up the meaning via context.
"Cruft may also refer to useless junk or excess materials (including obsolete computer hardware) that build up over time and have no value." Cruft is also used in this sense, when we talk about cleaning cruft out of an article. Things like trivia sections and external links certainly display this property as well.
We delete things from Wikipedia because those things often are not suitable for inclusion due to limited interest, extraneous, low- quality, or because they build up over time and have no value. I'm a big fan of civility, but I'm an even bigger fan of honesty. Wikipedia has cruft, and when we delete it, we delete it because it is cruft. Calling it "cruft" is, at worst, question-begging (because cruft, by definition, is worthy of deletion--saying something's worthy of deletion as an argument for its deletion-worthiness is question- begging).
Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No offensive than vouching for its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
On 03/05/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
The only connotation "cruft" has is that we take a dismissive view towards material that's not suitable for inclusion due to limited interest. But this dismissive attitude is already present because we're vouching for the deletion of this material in the first place.
If you're taking a dismissive view, then perhaps you haven't given the article the due consideration that it deserves. Before nominating an article, we should really try and rationalise its place in the encyclopaedia, and only if it really has no place, nominate it. Saying "sorry, but we just can't make this topic work in Wikipedia" is not the same as being dismissive. At all.
According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular." Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something "extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully understand and only pick up the meaning via context.
I'm not a fan of inflicting hacker jargon on newbies. Why not just tell them in plain English that we have plenty of Pokemon articles, and we don't need any more random lists, but we'd love them to categorise some of the hundreds of articles in need of it.
"Cruft may also refer to useless junk or excess materials (including obsolete computer hardware) that build up over time and have no value." Cruft is also used in this sense, when we talk about cleaning cruft out of an article. Things like trivia sections and external links certainly display this property as well.
And if it's genuinely used in this sense, that's one thing. But not on a newly written article. And again, not dismissively.
Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than vouching for its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries connotations that a simple act does not. And even the act can be done in a way without causing harm. You can ask someone to leave your house, or you can physically push him out the door. Or even better, use some tact.
Steve
On May 2, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular." Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something "extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully understand and only pick up the meaning via context.
I'm not a fan of inflicting hacker jargon on newbies. Why not just tell them in plain English that we have plenty of Pokemon articles, and we don't need any more random lists, but we'd love them to categorise some of the hundreds of articles in need of it.
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than vouching for its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries connotations that a simple act does not.
Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
This is the same reasoning behind not using "janitor" or "secretary" as job titles. I'd rather not participate in this sort of euphemization*.
*A portmanteau of "euphemism" and "euthanization", defined by me as "putting meaning to death by means of euphemisms".
On 5/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 2, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular." Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something "extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully understand and only pick up the meaning via context.
I'm not a fan of inflicting hacker jargon on newbies. Why not just tell them in plain English that we have plenty of Pokemon articles, and we don't need any more random lists, but we'd love them to categorise some of the hundreds of articles in need of it.
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
Not everyone thinks of Wikipedia as a "Hacker-type" community. I feel that it should be relevant to anyone. AfD is no exception to this. Especially as this is where newbies get their first taste of wikipedia bureaucracy. We should be especially careful not to bite the newbies in this or any other encounter they may have.
Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than vouching for its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries connotations that a simple act does not.
Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
This is the same reasoning behind not using "janitor" or "secretary" as job titles. I'd rather not participate in this sort of euphemization*.
*A portmanteau of "euphemism" and "euthanization", defined by me as "putting meaning to death by means of euphemisms".
If the meaning of the word cruft is simply used by people on AfD, whether nominators or others, because they lack respect for newbies, then it possibly has become a euphemism for something entirely different. And the new meaning would not be either civil, or nice. I am not advocating that AfD's stop, just that nominators particularly, and others, clearly state in plain english what the reason is, and what the person could do instead, as was said before.
Peter Ansell
On May 2, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
Not everyone thinks of Wikipedia as a "Hacker-type" community.
Yeah, me neither. But we got the word "cruft" from the hacker community, so we might as well use it. "Cruft" is a word in the Wikipedia community lexicon as well.
I feel that it should be relevant to anyone. AfD is no exception to this. Especially as this is where newbies get their first taste of wikipedia bureaucracy. We should be especially careful not to bite the newbies in this or any other encounter they may have.
Not using the word "cruft" isn't going to fix our newbie-biting problems. Using the word "cruft" isn't really going to hurt things, either. What would help is if we told newbies, "Okay, the article you contributed isn't quite what we're looking for. We think it's a bit extraneous, and it tends to build up. We call it "cruft", and generally we tend to delete it. If you're looking for a place you can help, however..."
Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
If the meaning of the word cruft is simply used by people on AfD, whether nominators or others, because they lack respect for newbies, then it possibly has become a euphemism for something entirely different.
Again, I see no indication that this is even the case.
Philip Welch wrote:
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
The risk is too high that if they knew about these discussions they might have a different opinion.
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
Yes, communities do have their jargon, but a welcoming community helps guide the newbie through the jargon. In the absence of a welcome they just go away.
Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than vouching for its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries connotations that a simple act does not.
Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
The connotation that anything contributed by the person who put the material there is worthless.
Ec
On May 2, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
Yes, communities do have their jargon, but a welcoming community helps guide the newbie through the jargon. In the absence of a welcome they just go away.
Okay, so we tell newbies what "cruft" means and that we don't mean it as an insult to them.
Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
The connotation that anything contributed by the person who put the material there is worthless.
How? "Cruft" refers to the content in question. I've contributed cruft. I have never taken it to have that connotation, and unlike many of us here, I have participated in AfD quite a bit in the past.
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 2, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
The connotation that anything contributed by the person who put the material there is worthless.
How? "Cruft" refers to the content in question. I've contributed cruft. I have never taken it to have that connotation, and unlike many of us here, I have participated in AfD quite a bit in the past.
That kind of literalism allows me to be as stupid as the circumstances require. It's a fine rhetorical tactic.
Using a more common example: The literal approach is that if I say that a comment you have made is a lie it is not the same as calling you a liar. The connotation that you are a liar is there but not the denotation.
Ec
On May 3, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The connotation that anything contributed by the person who put the material there is worthless.
How? "Cruft" refers to the content in question. I've contributed cruft. I have never taken it to have that connotation, and unlike many of us here, I have participated in AfD quite a bit in the past.
That kind of literalism allows me to be as stupid as the circumstances require. It's a fine rhetorical tactic.
Ah, you bastion of civility!
Using a more common example: The literal approach is that if I say that a comment you have made is a lie it is not the same as calling you a liar. The connotation that you are a liar is there but not the denotation.
That's a remarkably poor analogy. The term "lie", by denotation, means that whoever made the statement did so knowing it was false. You cannot call one of my statements a "lie" without directly and literally calling me a liar.
On the other hand, if you say that a comment I have made is simply untrue, you are not saying anything about my motivations or good faith. This is more analogous to referring to content as "cruft".
On May 2, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions.
Yes, we are, every time we nominate one of their articles.
No, we're not. They're the ones who choose to keep revisiting the page they made (or, if they're quick learners, put it on their watchlist) and they're the ones who go out of their way to protect the page as if they owned it. Lots of people make an edit (or an article) and then leave it to the rest of us to handle. Some people choose to stay and stand guard. That's their choice--we're not forcing them to do that.
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions.
Yes, we are, every time we nominate one of their articles.
I know we already put {{afd}} tags on pages, but I think it should be mandatory to alert article creators on their talk page that an afd has been started on their article. It is amazing how often AfD debates do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
Pete
On May 3, 2006, at 12:18 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions.
Yes, we are, every time we nominate one of their articles.
I know we already put {{afd}} tags on pages, but I think it should be mandatory to alert article creators on their talk page that an afd has been started on their article.
Er. [[WP:OWN]]? Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the work of one or two people at most. Articles are not. Articles can, and often are, watched. Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.
It is amazing how often AfD debates do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
It is not amazing. Most people do not feel the need to continue to respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they have contributed them. This is unsurprising.
I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed (through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue discussing their contributions.
Jesse Weinstein
Jesse W wrote:
On May 3, 2006, at 12:18 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions.
Yes, we are, every time we nominate one of their articles.
I know we already put {{afd}} tags on pages, but I think it should be mandatory to alert article creators on their talk page that an afd has been started on their article.
Er. [[WP:OWN]]? Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the work of one or two people at most. Articles are not. Articles can, and often are, watched. Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.
More often than not, people who have made major contributions to an aritcle will have some knowledge on the subject, and their input will be helpful.
It is amazing how often AfD debates do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
It is not amazing. Most people do not feel the need to continue to respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they have contributed them. This is unsurprising.
I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed (through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue discussing their contributions.
How many articles are on your watchlist? Do /you/ check every edit that appears on your watchlist?
On May 3, 2006, at 12:54 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
On May 3, 2006, at 12:18 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
I know we already put {{afd}} tags on pages, but I think it should be mandatory to alert article creators on their talk page that an afd has been started on their article.
Er. [[WP:OWN]]? Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the work of one or two people at most. Articles are not. Articles can, and often are, watched. Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.
More often than not, people who have made major contributions to an aritcle will have some knowledge on the subject, and their input will be helpful.
Sometimes, and in that case, dropping a note on the talk page of *those* people (whether they *started* the article or not) is a good and useful thing that a prospective nominator, or interested voter on AfD should do. Other times, quite often, the article will only *consist* of minor contributions (i.e. a stub) and/or the content of the article will demonstrate the contributor's lack of knowledge of the subject.
It is amazing how often AfD debates do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
It is not amazing. Most people do not feel the need to continue to respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they have contributed them. This is unsurprising.
I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed (through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue discussing their contributions.
How many articles are on your watchlist? Do /you/ check every edit that appears on your watchlist?
As of now: 482 items with 78 changes in the last 3 days. Do I check all the contributions that include an edit summary like "{subs:afd}", "nomiating for deletion", or something like that? Yes, and I don't think that's too much to ask. If you have so much on your watchlist that you can't do that - take some things off your watchlist.
Jesse Weinstein
On 03/05/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
As of now: 482 items with 78 changes in the last 3 days. Do I check all the contributions that include an edit summary like "{subs:afd}", "nomiating for deletion", or something like that? Yes, and I don't think that's too much to ask. If you have so much on your watchlist that you can't do that - take some things off your watchlist.
IMHO, that's a lot more to ask of a lot more people than, for example, the simple courtesy of dropping a single message on the single talk page of the single user who created the page which you're nominating for deletion.
But this isn't my argument.
Steve
On 03/05/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
appears on your watchlist?
As of now: 482 items with 78 changes in the last 3 days. Do I check all the contributions that include an edit summary like "{subs:afd}", "nomiating for deletion", or something like that? Yes, and I don't think that's too much to ask. If you have so much on your watchlist that you can't do that - take some things off your watchlist.
But a large number of articles put on AFD are done so without a clear edit summary. (I try to remember to use "DELETE", which is eye-catching, but I often forget). Even if this is done, if someone reads the discussion, looks at the article, and helpfully copyedits it ten minutes later... the watchlist is useless.
I use my watchlist regularly. I've still had situations where I look on AFD and think "hey, didn't I just rewrite that article last week"? It's a good-sounding theory, but it falls apart in contact with normal use.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Er. [[WP:OWN]]? Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the work of one or two people at most. Articles are not. Articles can, and often are, watched. Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.
The vast majority of AfDed articles are very new and have just one author.
It is amazing how often AfD debates do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
It is not amazing. Most people do not feel the need to continue to respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they have contributed them. This is unsurprising.
I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed (through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue discussing their contributions.
That is breathtaking arrogant Jesse. A sizeable proportion of AfDed articles are written by anonymous contributors. They don't even have watchlists!
Are you frightened that if contributors get involved we might actually have to keep some of the articles?!
Pcb21
On May 3, 2006, at 1:27 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
It is not amazing. Most people do not feel the need to continue to respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they have contributed them. This is unsurprising.
I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed (through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue discussing their contributions.
That is breathtaking arrogant Jesse.
I apologize for coming across as arrogant. Reading it over, I can see how it can be read that way, and I'll try to be more humble in my comments in the future.
A sizeable proportion of AfDed articles are written by anonymous contributors.
Even though creating articles without logging in has been disallowed for months now? How is this possible? Do the few articles made through [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] get nominated to AfD so often?
Are you frightened that if contributors get involved we might actually have to keep some of the articles?!
No, actually, I'm not. Thanks for asking, though. In fact, many contributors to AfD'd articles *do* get involved in AfD, and many articles listed at AfD *are* kept, already. As for my personal views, I'm quite a strong inclusionist, myself.
Thanks for the discussion, and I look forward to further replies,
Jesse Weinstein
Even though creating articles without logging in has been disallowed for months now? How is this possible? Do the few articles made through [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] get nominated to AfD so often?
Oops I apologise to you and am just going to have to look stupid. I am clearly way behind the times. Bit stupid of me to call someone arrogant when it was me being arrogant to assume I knew it all!
Are you frightened that if contributors get involved we might actually have to keep some of the articles?!
No, actually, I'm not. Thanks for asking, though. In fact, many contributors to AfD'd articles *do* get involved in AfD, and many articles listed at AfD *are* kept, already. As for my personal views, I'm quite a strong inclusionist, myself.
Sorry that was me flying off the handle when I shouldn't have done, as a result of the watchlist thing. I aplogise.
Yes contributors do get involved in some AfDs. And for me they tend to be the most useful AfDs because some content often gets redistributed that would otherwise been deleted. But you would have thought that they would get involved in almost all discussions.
Given the existence of automated listing tools, adding a note to a creator's talk page might not be a heavy burden and can only be helpful for those who are not heavy watchlist users.
PEte
On May 3, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
Given the existence of automated listing tools, adding a note to a creator's talk page might not be a heavy burden and can only be helpful for those who are not heavy watchlist users.
That gives me an idea - what about a bot, that would go through AfD's, identify the "major contributors" (somehow) and, unless they had already commented on the page, drop a short note on their talk page. I would have not objections to that. (Except for the minor sadness of having *even more* bot-created talk page messages, but that's not really an objection... ;-) ).
Jesse Weinstein
That gives me an idea - what about a bot, that would go through AfD's, identify the "major contributors" (somehow) and, unless they had already commented on the page, drop a short note on their talk page. I would have not objections to that. (Except for the minor sadness of having *even more* bot-created talk page messages, but that's not really an objection... ;-) ).
Yes I think something like that could really help. And if we cut out the garish colours and unnecessary pictures then it won't even be that annoying from the "talk page spam" point of view.
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:27:09AM -0700, Pete Bartlett wrote:
Er. [[WP:OWN]]? Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the work of one or two people at most. Articles are not. Articles can, and often are, watched. Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.
The vast majority of AfDed articles are very new and have just one author.
Indeed and it is likely that they are put off by having their gems described as "cruft". However, I think people are put off more by other things:-
1. General jargon of which cruft is just one. 2. Being put to AfD within hours or sometimes minutes of starting the article. I think this is most offensive. New editors are finding their way. They are not obsessed with WP. They have a life. They will take time to develop the article. If someone thinks the article is bad, they make a note of it and follow it for a week or so, talk to the editor on his talk page and perhaps the article talk page. It is sheer bad manners and certainly biting the newbie to push something to Afd so quickly. There is no hurry. WP is not going to be perfect tomorrow if you speedy delete a few articles. 3. Comments on Afd like, "looks non-verifiable to me", "seems non-notable" and other comments that show the nominator has not done enough homework before jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few AfDs withdrawn recently after the nom realises that the debate is showing they were quite wrong. Nominating something for deletion has its responsabilities. 4. Nominations which are basically "I do not understand this, so lets see whether people want to delete it". We should want to improve and keep stuff, noit delete it.
I could go on. AfD depresses me for several reasons and the fact that most of the articles are so bad they deserve deletion is only one of them. It is the others that could be improved that leads to so much trouble.
It is amazing how often AfD debates do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
They may not have set their preferences so articles they edit automatically go on their watchlist. They probably do not yet understand the watchlist system. Welcome messages should advise newbies on the watchlist.
Brian. [[Bduke]]
It is not amazing. Most people do not feel the need to continue to respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they have contributed them. This is unsurprising.
I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed (through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue discussing their contributions.
That is breathtaking arrogant Jesse. A sizeable proportion of AfDed articles are written by anonymous contributors. They don't even have watchlists!
Are you frightened that if contributors get involved we might actually have to keep some of the articles?!
Pcb21
On 03/05/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@octa4.net.au wrote:
- General jargon of which cruft is just one.
- Being put to AfD within hours or sometimes minutes of starting the
article. I think this is most offensive. New editors are finding their way. They are not obsessed with WP. They have a life. They will take time to develop the article. If someone thinks the article is bad, they make a note of it and follow it for a week or so, talk to the editor on his talk page and perhaps the article talk page. It is sheer bad manners and certainly biting the newbie to push something to Afd so quickly. There is no hurry. WP is not going to be perfect tomorrow if you speedy delete a few articles. 3. Comments on Afd like, "looks non-verifiable to me", "seems non-notable" and other comments that show the nominator has not done enough homework before jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few AfDs withdrawn recently after the nom realises that the debate is showing they were quite wrong. Nominating something for deletion has its responsabilities. 4. Nominations which are basically "I do not understand this, so lets see whether people want to delete it". We should want to improve and keep stuff, noit delete it.
To me, all of this strongly points to the fact that we need an intermediate step before the voting phase. If I come across an article that I think should probably be deleted, quite a lot is expected of me - I have to become "the nominator", effectively leading the campaign to delete the article, take into account the background of the user who created it, doing homework on it and so on.
I suggest we should have a simple template along the lines of prod, which would add a discreet label along the lines of "This topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia - can someone check it out?" or "There may be copyright issues in this article - verify please" or whatever.
AfD is a nasty process, and there is no need to subject a well meaning newbie to it. But there is also a need for experienced editors to tactfully remove unwelcome articles from Wikipedia. At all costs, save AfD for the actual disputes where people are already in conflict, and a vote is really called for.
Steve
I agree with Steve.
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@octa4.net.au wrote:
- General jargon of which cruft is just one.
- Being put to AfD within hours or sometimes minutes of starting the
article. I think this is most offensive. New editors are finding their way. They are not obsessed with WP. They have a life. They will take time to develop the article. If someone thinks the article is bad, they make a note of it and follow it for a week or so, talk to the editor on his talk page and perhaps the article talk page. It is sheer bad manners and certainly biting the newbie to push something to Afd so quickly.
There
is no hurry. WP is not going to be perfect tomorrow if you speedy delete a few articles. 3. Comments on Afd like, "looks non-verifiable to me", "seems non-notable" and other comments that show the nominator has not done enough homework before jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few AfDs withdrawn recently after the nom realises that the debate is showing they were quite wrong. Nominating something for deletion has its responsabilities. 4. Nominations which are basically "I do not understand this, so lets see whether people want to delete it". We should want to improve and keep stuff, noit delete it.
To me, all of this strongly points to the fact that we need an intermediate step before the voting phase. If I come across an article that I think should probably be deleted, quite a lot is expected of me
- I have to become "the nominator", effectively leading the campaign
to delete the article, take into account the background of the user who created it, doing homework on it and so on.
I suggest we should have a simple template along the lines of prod, which would add a discreet label along the lines of "This topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia - can someone check it out?" or "There may be copyright issues in this article - verify please" or whatever.
AfD is a nasty process, and there is no need to subject a well meaning newbie to it. But there is also a need for experienced editors to tactfully remove unwelcome articles from Wikipedia. At all costs, save AfD for the actual disputes where people are already in conflict, and a vote is really called for.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On #wikipedia last night, a user pointed out I may be in violation of [[m:Don't be a dick]]. This is most probably true.
This whole thing has gone out of proportion, and I accept that both of my actions maybe seen as incivil (albeit in good faith).
I still, however, think the term hypocrite was unneccessarily harsh and I think the fact I am chair of [[WP:CJ]] is irrelevant.
Thanks,
Joe
On 5/3/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I agree with Steve.
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@octa4.net.au wrote:
- General jargon of which cruft is just one.
- Being put to AfD within hours or sometimes minutes of starting the
article. I think this is most offensive. New editors are finding their way. They are not obsessed with WP. They have a life. They will take time to develop the article. If someone thinks the article is bad,
they
make a note of it and follow it for a week or so, talk to the editor
on
his talk page and perhaps the article talk page. It is sheer bad
manners
and certainly biting the newbie to push something to Afd so quickly.
There
is no hurry. WP is not going to be perfect tomorrow if you speedy
delete
a few articles. 3. Comments on Afd like, "looks non-verifiable to me", "seems non-notable" and other comments that show the nominator has not done enough homework before jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few AfDs withdrawn recently after the nom realises that the debate is showing they were quite wrong. Nominating something for deletion has
its
responsabilities. 4. Nominations which are basically "I do not understand this, so lets see whether people want to delete it". We should want to improve and keep stuff, noit delete it.
To me, all of this strongly points to the fact that we need an intermediate step before the voting phase. If I come across an article that I think should probably be deleted, quite a lot is expected of me
- I have to become "the nominator", effectively leading the campaign
to delete the article, take into account the background of the user who created it, doing homework on it and so on.
I suggest we should have a simple template along the lines of prod, which would add a discreet label along the lines of "This topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia - can someone check it out?" or "There may be copyright issues in this article - verify please" or whatever.
AfD is a nasty process, and there is no need to subject a well meaning newbie to it. But there is also a need for experienced editors to tactfully remove unwelcome articles from Wikipedia. At all costs, save AfD for the actual disputes where people are already in conflict, and a vote is really called for.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 03/05/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
On #wikipedia last night, a user pointed out I may be in violation of [[m:Don't be a dick]]. This is most probably true.
This whole thing has gone out of proportion, and I accept that both of my actions maybe seen as incivil (albeit in good faith).
I still, however, think the term hypocrite was unneccessarily harsh and I think the fact I am chair of [[WP:CJ]] is irrelevant.
The what of the what?
"Last night in #wikipedia-en, I formed a new wiki project with seven members or so. In the absence of an interim leader, I appointed me as overlord general and appointed two others as general advisors, or councillors.
Formal elections, with election co-ordinators, to be held in six months. We haven't decided what to call it; but don't panic, we've got a councillor for Naming, and s/he is going to set up a committee to help decide. I expect we'll vote on it.
Next, we'll get a bot to spam people with links to it, set up a newsletter (councillor for Publishing, methinks - and a press crew) and hold regular meetings.
We start the actual work in 2008. This is all preparation."
Sound familiar?
Rob Church
Me or General Eisenhower :P
On 5/3/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
On #wikipedia last night, a user pointed out I may be in violation of [[m:Don't be a dick]]. This is most probably true.
This whole thing has gone out of proportion, and I accept that both of
my
actions maybe seen as incivil (albeit in good faith).
I still, however, think the term hypocrite was unneccessarily harsh and
I
think the fact I am chair of [[WP:CJ]] is irrelevant.
The what of the what?
"Last night in #wikipedia-en, I formed a new wiki project with seven members or so. In the absence of an interim leader, I appointed me as overlord general and appointed two others as general advisors, or councillors.
Formal elections, with election co-ordinators, to be held in six months. We haven't decided what to call it; but don't panic, we've got a councillor for Naming, and s/he is going to set up a committee to help decide. I expect we'll vote on it.
Next, we'll get a bot to spam people with links to it, set up a newsletter (councillor for Publishing, methinks - and a press crew) and hold regular meetings.
We start the actual work in 2008. This is all preparation."
Sound familiar?
Rob Church _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 5/3/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote: ...
"Last night in #wikipedia-en, I formed a new wiki project with seven members or so. In the absence of an interim leader, I appointed me as overlord general and appointed two others as general advisors, or councillors.
Formal elections, with election co-ordinators, to be held in six months. We haven't decided what to call it; but don't panic, we've got a councillor for Naming, and s/he is going to set up a committee to help decide. I expect we'll vote on it.
Next, we'll get a bot to spam people with links to it, set up a newsletter (councillor for Publishing, methinks - and a press crew) and hold regular meetings.
We start the actual work in 2008. This is all preparation."
Sound familiar?
Rob Church
Hmm. Your ideas intrigue me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
~maru
Rob Church wrote:
Sound familiar?
The stabbing will continue until morale improves :-)
"Philip Welch" wrote
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
No they don't. You're describing rude, myopic communities with little real interest in outreach. Not a global voluntary organisation.
Charles
On May 3, 2006, at 1:33 AM, charles matthews wrote:
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
No they don't. You're describing rude, myopic communities with little real interest in outreach. Not a global voluntary organisation.
Only rude, myopic communities have their own jargon? Are you saying that (for instance) the hacker community, academics, and professionals all belong to "rude, myopic communities"? Are you saying that baseball fans are a "rude, myopic community" because they use terms unfamiliar to newbies like "strikeout", "walk", and "infield fly rule"?
The purpose of jargon is to make communication easier within a group. Everyone here knows what "cruft" is. In AfD contexts, it's extraneous content not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. We're all willing to explain that to newbies. And anyone who's offended by the word "cruft" needs to grow a thicker skin, because once we start making up euphemisms for it, we'll end up with even more impenetrable jargon than we have now.
"Philip Welch" wrote
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
No they don't. You're describing rude, myopic communities with little real interest in outreach. Not a global voluntary organisation.
Only rude, myopic communities have their own jargon?
Not at all. Medical doctors have jargon, for example. But only certain people actually do expect what you say, that is, to join the community you must immerse yourself in the jargon. The analogy here is not with becoming a doctor, but in taking part in a discussion with one .
Are you saying that (for instance) the hacker community, academics, and professionals all belong to "rude, myopic communities"?
Those groups can certainly come across that way. My point is that Wikipedians, at their best, do _not_ snow people with jargon, but speak to them using the usual English language.
Are you saying that baseball fans are a "rude, myopic community" because they use terms unfamiliar to newbies like "strikeout", "walk", and "infield fly rule"?
Now you mention it, I have noticed that certain baseball articles have some of the worst lead sections I have seen.
The purpose of jargon is to make communication easier within a group. Everyone here knows what "cruft" is.
Actually, the thread demonstrates the precise opposite: it is used by people who have really no idea of its denotation and connotations. The essay at [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]] gives numerous possible readings. People use it not with full knowledge, but because they think buzzwords have power that rational argument lacks.
In AfD contexts, it's extraneous content not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Well, the actual usage is as a pejorative-type suffix; what you are smuggling there into 'extraneous'.
We're all willing to explain that to newbies. And anyone who's offended by the word "cruft" needs to grow a thicker skin, because once we start making up euphemisms for it, we'll end up with even more impenetrable jargon than we have now.
As I say, myopic rude jargon-using people miss the point of the Wikipedia mission; which is not to send people away seething. Hacker mentality must die.
Charles
On May 3, 2006, at 1:47 PM, charles matthews wrote:
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
No they don't. You're describing rude, myopic communities with little real interest in outreach. Not a global voluntary organisation.
Only rude, myopic communities have their own jargon?
Not at all. Medical doctors have jargon, for example. But only certain people actually do expect what you say, that is, to join the community you must immerse yourself in the jargon. The analogy here is not with becoming a doctor, but in taking part in a discussion with one
Exactly. People who become Wikipedians should learn the jargon, and it's quite clear that at AfD, the opinions of *wikipedians* are the opinions that matter. Not the opinions of every anonymous contributor who comes in a vain ballot-stuffing attempt.
The purpose of jargon is to make communication easier within a group. Everyone here knows what "cruft" is.
Actually, the thread demonstrates the precise opposite: it is used by people who have really no idea of its denotation and connotations.
The explication I read at [[Cruft]] and at the Jargon File's entry for "cruft" fit well within what I understood the meaning of "cruft" to be on Wikipedia.
In AfD contexts, it's extraneous content not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Well, the actual usage is as a pejorative-type suffix; what you are smuggling there into 'extraneous'.
That's not what I'm smuggling there, that's what the word means, and that's what I and many others have always understood it to mean. The fact that large numbers of people don't know that only reiterates my point that we should educate Wikipedians about the jargon.
"Listcruft" is cruft in the form of a list. "Fancruft" is cruft of interest only to fans of the topic in question.
We're all willing to explain that to newbies. And anyone who's offended by the word "cruft" needs to grow a thicker skin, because once we start making up euphemisms for it, we'll end up with even more impenetrable jargon than we have now.
As I say, myopic rude jargon-using people miss the point of the Wikipedia mission; which is not to send people away seething. Hacker mentality must die.
Once again: you deride "myopic rude jargon-using people" for their incivility, not realizing that calling people "myopic" and "rude" just because they use technical jargon is in itself uncivil.
"Philip Welch" wrote
Exactly. People who become Wikipedians should learn the jargon, and it's quite clear that at AfD, the opinions of *wikipedians* are the opinions that matter. Not the opinions of every anonymous contributor who comes in a vain ballot-stuffing attempt.
Ah, cruft is some sort of shibboleth then. You don't know what cruft is, you must be an outsider.
The fact that large numbers of people don't know that only reiterates my point that we should educate Wikipedians about the jargon.
Oh, but then it turns out that far to many insiders are really outsiders.
Once again: you deride "myopic rude jargon-using people" for their incivility, not realizing that calling people "myopic" and "rude" just because they use technical jargon is in itself uncivil.
People who draw these kinds of distinctions about other editors of Wikipedia are certainly myopic. You can be a very good Wikipedian without succumbing to the lure of jargon. As for the hat, wear it only if it fits. I happen to think your whole line of argument fits into what Wikipedia is not.
Charles
On May 3, 2006, at 2:14 PM, charles matthews wrote:
Exactly. People who become Wikipedians should learn the jargon, and it's quite clear that at AfD, the opinions of *wikipedians* are the opinions that matter. Not the opinions of every anonymous contributor who comes in a vain ballot-stuffing attempt.
Ah, cruft is some sort of shibboleth then. You don't know what cruft is, you must be an outsider.
You're doing a remarkably good job at misunderstanding my posts today.
On 5/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
The explication I read at [[Cruft]] and at the Jargon File's entry for "cruft" fit well within what I understood the meaning of "cruft" to be on Wikipedia.
In AfD contexts, it's extraneous content not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Well, the actual usage is as a pejorative-type suffix; what you are smuggling there into 'extraneous'.
That's not what I'm smuggling there, that's what the word means, and that's what I and many others have always understood it to mean. The fact that large numbers of people don't know that only reiterates my point that we should educate Wikipedians about the jargon.
"Listcruft" is cruft in the form of a list. "Fancruft" is cruft of interest only to fans of the topic in question.
I still don't understand the point of the term. If all "cruft" means is something not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, isn't it redundant?
Does "delete, bandcruft" really mean the same as "delete, deletable article about a band"? Why not just say "delete"?
Anthony
On May 3, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
"Listcruft" is cruft in the form of a list. "Fancruft" is cruft of interest only to fans of the topic in question.
I still don't understand the point of the term. If all "cruft" means is something not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, isn't it redundant?
You're right, it is question-begging to say "delete this article because it is cruft". But sometimes an article is just so obviously cruft that identifying it as such is all that's worth doing.
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 3, 2006, at 1:47 PM, charles matthews wrote: Exactly. People who become Wikipedians should learn the jargon, and it's quite clear that at AfD, the opinions of *wikipedians* are the opinions that matter. Not the opinions of every anonymous contributor who comes in a vain ballot-stuffing attempt.
So the principle of "not biting the newbie" fits into this schema where exactly?
"What? You dare to infest our beautiful encyclopedia with your filthy cruft? You disgust me with your nasty IP and your misbegotten excuse for a user-page! Be cast out into the darkness until you can learn better!"
Oh, yes: I'd be signing up for an account like a shot...if I got my kicks being insulted by some rude bastard who hadn't understood word one of what I written, assuming he even bothered to read one word...
HTH HAND
On May 4, 2006, at 6:50 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
On May 3, 2006, at 1:47 PM, charles matthews wrote: Exactly. People who become Wikipedians should learn the jargon, and it's quite clear that at AfD, the opinions of *wikipedians* are the opinions that matter. Not the opinions of every anonymous contributor who comes in a vain ballot-stuffing attempt.
So the principle of "not biting the newbie" fits into this schema where exactly?
Providing a helping hand to teach them the jargon and a friendly way to initiate them into the community.
"What? You dare to infest our beautiful encyclopedia with your filthy cruft? You disgust me with your nasty IP and your misbegotten excuse for a user-page! Be cast out into the darkness until you can learn better!"
You know, I think we actually *needed* that straw for something...
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/2/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of "cruft".
And "shit" can mean "fecal matter" or just "stuff I don't like". Doesn't mean calling something "shit" when you really mean "stuff I don't like" isn't incivil.
Context can be everything. Cheech and Chong enjoyed having really good "shit" go [[Up in Smoke]]. :-)
Ec
On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.
Reductio ad absurdum time:
"In my opinion, nominating content contributed by our valued contributors is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless."
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
My opinion on this is that, in general, if a significant number of people are offended by a term, to knowingly use it and risk offending them should be taken as uncivility.
It's not clear to me that this is what happened here. You weren't deliberately uncivil as far as I can see.
The fact I do not find it uncivil does not make me a hypocrite.
I will be more careful using it in the future though.
Well, that's a very Wikipedian way to take it. Thanks.
G'day Joe,
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
The fact I do not find it uncivil does not make me a hypocrite.
I will be more careful using it in the future though.
I find it interesting how it isn't AfD which is under question, but me.
Fair enough, fair enough. By the way, you might've noticed that those of us on the list who want to be considerate and all that have (in addition to not calling one another hypocrites or cruft-mongers ;-)) adopted a policy of interleaving our replies below each point of the previous post, and deleting any points not responded to or irrelevant (heh) cruft, like old .sig blocks and so on. It would be really quite bonza if you'd follow suit.
Cheers,
Joe Anderson wrote:
I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me, though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
I consider "-cruft" to be highly uncivil and IMO it also tends to be a good indicator that whoever's using the term doesn't have a strong argument to support his case for deletion beyond a personal lack of interest in the subject matter. I'm not an AfDer, though, and I suspect this philosophy is one of the reasons _why_ I'm not.
As said, I did not realise the term could be seen as uncivil, perhaps you could assume good faith in not only the new member but in me?
On 5/2/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling
something
cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me, though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
I consider "-cruft" to be highly uncivil and IMO it also tends to be a good indicator that whoever's using the term doesn't have a strong argument to support his case for deletion beyond a personal lack of interest in the subject matter. I'm not an AfDer, though, and I suspect this philosophy is one of the reasons _why_ I'm not.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Joe Anderson wrote:
On 5/2/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling
something
cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me, though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
I consider "-cruft" to be highly uncivil and IMO it also tends to be a good indicator that whoever's using the term doesn't have a strong argument to support his case for deletion beyond a personal lack of interest in the subject matter. I'm not an AfDer, though, and I suspect this philosophy is one of the reasons _why_ I'm not.
As said, I did not realise the term could be seen as uncivil, perhaps you could assume good faith in not only the new member but in me?
Firstly, you found an organisation called "Community Justice", which you are the chairman of, and claim to be "promoting civility". Then, you go and nominate an article for deletion (http://tinyurl.com/numt2) with the declaration that the article is "listcruft". Then, you dismiss the creator's objection with the terse statement "Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace" (http://tinyurl.com/rega7).
I called you a hypocrite because you founded an organisation to promote civility, and then you use that to defend your behaviour. It's pretty hard to assume good faith on your part.
Joe Anderson wrote:
As said, I did not realise the term could be seen as uncivil, perhaps you could assume good faith in not only the new member but in me?
You said "I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something cruft is uncivil", so I gave my opinion on the matter. I even quoted your request for opinions and had an "IMO" in my answer for good measure. I don't see a problem here, what other sort of response were you looking for?
How about a RfC in cruft in general?
On 5/2/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Joe Anderson" wrote
Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
Actually it wasn't. It was pulling your leg a bit.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Joe Anderson wrote:
How about a RfC in cruft in general?
"Removal of Cruft" is a Frequently Proposed Policy, and usually boils down to "get rid of all this stupid popular culture...Wikipedia should be a serious encyclopedia talking about serious stuff" by which the proposed almost always means *their* stuff.
I have a mantra which I feel might be helpful here: you don't visit an encyclopedia to find out about stuff you already knew, you go to find out about stuff you DIDN'T already know.
Given that some of the AfD regulars make themselves out to be experts on just about every subject under the sun, that might be a tall order, but we should make it our mission to make it possible :-)
Joe Anderson wrote:
I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite' as I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
Personally I have come to strongly dislike the use of the word 'cruft' on Wikipedia, particularly in AFD debates, because for most of the people that use it it seems to mean essentially 'I'm not interested in this topic, therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia' (or, the more extreme cases, 'I don't know anything about this topic, therefore I've jumped to the conclusion that it's non-notable').
Either way it's unhelpful.
Best wishes,
N.
Perhaps I should withdraw the AfD over the fact I made a bad nomination.
On 5/2/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite'
as
I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
Personally I have come to strongly dislike the use of the word 'cruft' on Wikipedia, particularly in AFD debates, because for most of the people that use it it seems to mean essentially 'I'm not interested in this topic, therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia' (or, the more extreme cases, 'I don't know anything about this topic, therefore I've jumped to the conclusion that it's non-notable').
Either way it's unhelpful.
Best wishes,
N.
-- Nicholas Boalch School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Joe Anderson wrote:
I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
[...]
Personally I have come to strongly dislike the use of the word 'cruft' on Wikipedia, particularly in AFD debates, because for most of the people that use it it seems to mean essentially 'I'm not interested in this topic, therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia' (or, the more extreme cases, 'I don't know anything about this topic, therefore I've jumped to the conclusion that it's non-notable').
Either way it's unhelpful.
Perhaps I should withdraw the AfD over the fact I made a bad nomination.
Well, the fact that you perhaps expressed yourself poorly (I say 'perhaps' because people to lean either way on the usefulness of 'cruft' as a descriptive term) doesn't mean the nomination itself was bad, or made in bad faith.
Cheers,
N.
Thanks Nick!
On 5/2/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
[...]
Personally I have come to strongly dislike the use of the word 'cruft' on Wikipedia, particularly in AFD debates, because for most of the people that use it it seems to mean essentially 'I'm not interested in this topic, therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia' (or, the more extreme cases, 'I don't know anything about this topic, therefore I've jumped to the conclusion that it's non-notable').
Either way it's unhelpful.
Perhaps I should withdraw the AfD over the fact I made a bad nomination.
Well, the fact that you perhaps expressed yourself poorly (I say 'perhaps' because people to lean either way on the usefulness of 'cruft' as a descriptive term) doesn't mean the nomination itself was bad, or made in bad faith.
Cheers,
N.
-- Nicholas Boalch School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Joe Anderson wrote:
Perhaps I should withdraw the AfD over the fact I made a bad nomination.
That would be your choice, a right neighbourly way to behave IMHO, and entirely consistent with your stated intention of promoting civility.
I would be honoured to honour such an honourable request.
Joe Anderson wrote:
I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite' as I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It is used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach of [[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
The length of the thread that followed suggests that the result was contrary to your interest. :-)
Ec