I've just performed some radical surgery on an article called Bus Uncle. This unspeakable piece of shit somehow managed to make it to "Featured Article" status without anyone actually reading it. All references to names of private individuals have now been removed. I've also removed it from the Featured Article list.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I've just performed some radical surgery on an article called Bus Uncle. This unspeakable piece of shit somehow managed to make it to "Featured Article" status without anyone actually reading it.
Do you really think that something passed Featured Article review, a tremendously nitpicky and pedantic process IMO, without anyone "actually reading it"? Personally, I would think it much more likely that the FA reviewers simply disagreed with your rather extreme evaluation of the article's quality.
On 05/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I've just performed some radical surgery on an article called Bus Uncle. This unspeakable piece of shit somehow managed to make it to "Featured Article" status without anyone actually reading it. All references to names of private individuals have now been removed. I've also removed it from the Featured Article list.
I thought there was an established review process for featured articles - on what authority did you just remove it from the list? If there was a BLP violation, then remove it from the article, certainly, but there is no need to unilaterally remove its featured status when there is a perfectly good process for doing that.
On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I thought there was an established review process for featured articles - on what authority did you just remove it from the list? If there was a BLP violation, then remove it from the article, certainly, but there is no need to unilaterally remove its featured status when there is a perfectly good process for doing that.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
On 6/5/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
Just as an aside: is it absolutely necessary to be quite so abrasive?
Michel Vuijlsteke
On 6/5/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I thought there was an established review process for featured articles - on what authority did you just remove it from the list? If there was a BLP violation, then remove it from the article, certainly, but there is no need to unilaterally remove its featured status when there is a perfectly good process for doing that.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
So, what's wrong with going to [[Wikipedia:Featured article review]] and saying "this is a steaming pile of excrement"?
-- Jonel
On 05/06/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I thought there was an established review process for featured articles - on what authority did you just remove it from the list? If there was a BLP violation, then remove it from the article, certainly, but there is no need to unilaterally remove its featured status when there is a perfectly good process for doing that.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
So, what's wrong with going to [[Wikipedia:Featured article review]] and saying "this is a steaming pile of excrement"?
IDONTLIKEIT is presumably frowned upon at Featured Article Review.
On 6/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
IDONTLIKEIT is presumably frowned upon at Featured Article Review.
My understanding is that a)any article can be a featured article if it is good enough and that includes [[Lightsaber combat]]. Doesn't mean it will be considered suitable for being featured on the main page mind (much as we may love a highly technical maths article or the like). b)any objections have to be actionable. You can only object due to things that are possible to fix. So you can complain that an article on the Rolle canal does talk about the route of the canal but you couldn't complain that it didn't contain a photo of the canal in operation.
On 6/5/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I thought there was an established review process for featured articles - on what authority did you just remove it from the list? If there was a BLP violation, then remove it from the article, certainly, but there is no need to unilaterally remove its featured status when there is a perfectly good process for doing that.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
Yes, but your judgement is not perfect. *That's* why we have process. ~~~~
On 6/5/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
Well it's a funny process that they use there. You can either support or oppose the promotion of an article, but opposes will be ignored if they don't cite a specific failure of the [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]]. Also if your comments get a {{done}} template in the editor/nominator's reply, they are likely also to be disregarded.
—C.W.
On 6/5/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I thought there was an established review process for featured articles - on what authority did you just remove it from the list? If there was a BLP violation, then remove it from the article, certainly, but there is no need to unilaterally remove its featured status when there is a perfectly good process for doing that.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
I don't know about one of the best, but I found the article to be interesting and half-decent (though a little bit rambling), up until the "Social Impacts" section (which I skipped as it sounds like a boring topic).
Why do you think the article was a steaming pile of excrement? Had you ever seen the video before reading it? I've never seen it, nor did I read the transcript.
On 6/5/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/5/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I thought there was an established review process for featured articles - on what authority did you just remove it from the list? If there was a BLP violation, then remove it from the article, certainly, but there is no need to unilaterally remove its featured status when there is a perfectly good process for doing that.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
I don't know about one of the best, but I found the article to be interesting and half-decent (though a little bit rambling), up until the "Social Impacts" section (which I skipped as it sounds like a boring topic).
Why do you think the article was a steaming pile of excrement? Had you ever seen the video before reading it? I've never seen it, nor did I read the transcript. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Probably because here in the West, it sounds like an Internet Phenomenon. Problem is, while it might just have been one of those here, in Hong Kong, it may have had real cultural impact.
On 6/5/07, Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
I don't know about one of the best, but I found the article to be interesting and half-decent (though a little bit rambling), up until the "Social Impacts" section (which I skipped as it sounds like a boring topic).
Why do you think the article was a steaming pile of excrement? Had you ever seen the video before reading it? I've never seen it, nor did I read the transcript.
It has the makings of a good article. There were severe problems of tone, particularly the use of weasel words and use of what looks like some pretty ropey tabloid-style reporting and what appeared to be some rather nasty manipulation of people by journalists, as if it were reliably sourced and honest reporting. It was that part of the article that rang very loud alarm bells for me. I might expect children to fall for that kind of trick, but it was a shock to see that such material had been entered into an article, which had then been labelled one of our best.
I still don't like the fact that the guys' names are there. They are not relevant to the story. I've worked around that and pulled out some of the worst fangs of that nasty thing. It shouldn't be a featured article right now. There are still problems. This isn't what we want the world to thing we do.
On 6/5/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I still don't like the fact that the guys' names are there. They are not relevant to the story.
And I think the names are absolutely essential to the article. Until I saw the names I found myself thinking "how do we know this wasn't a staged incident". With the names, it's clear that if it was a hoax it was an elaborate one.
Could this have been presented without the names, in some kind of "we know the names, but we're not telling you them"? I guess, but then I would have found myself clicking on the references or googling the details and finding out the names anyway.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I might expect children to fall for that kind of trick, but it was a shock to see that such material had been entered into an article, which had then been labelled one of our best.
I take it you're implying that those who have disagreed with you on this matter are all "children"? Seems unlikely to me considering the amount of attention it's received now.
I still don't like the fact that the guys' names are there. They are not relevant to the story.
They're the guys that the story is _about_. In what way could they possibly not be relevant? I'm sorry, but this really seems to me like saying we shouldn't mention Lee Harvey Oswald's name in the article [[John F. Kennedy assassination]] (or perhaps even [[Assassination of the thirty-fifth President of the United States]]).
They're the guys who did the thing that the article is describing. The noteworthiness of the thing that the article is describing is well established, there's going to be an article about it, so given that there's reliable sources for the names why should we have to rely on circuitous nicknames instead? It's just silly.
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I've just performed some radical surgery on an article called Bus Uncle. This unspeakable piece of shit somehow managed to make it to "Featured Article" status without anyone actually reading it. All references to names of private individuals have now been removed. I've also removed it from the Featured Article list.
Raul seems to pretty squarely disagree with, as do others. If people do something--even something negative, which garners them notoriety--and then TALK about it, to the media, guess what? They've identified themselves to the world quite well, and no BLP concerns exist for the privacy of their names. The man went nuts; he was recorded going nuts; it got press; he garnered more press by going to the media about it to milk it for what it was worth. What privacy violations exist in regard to his name, and who made you the arbiter of anything? Your voice has no more weight than any other. That goes for all the recent self-appointed BLP Cops that are doing the equivalent of using Rodney King level arrest methods in enforcing what their personal opinion of BLP is.
I still assert quite well that the "old timers" going nuts of late, trying to forcefully close down discussion on various matters, is a *direct* reaction to the fact that Wikipedia has now grown beyond their perceived personal control, and the fact that any one individual or small clique each day, each week, and each passing month will grow ever more irrelevant and obscure. Where a lone senior editor or admin or three previously had tremendous power, that is no longer the case, and many people are willing to challenge them--and successfully. I saw that even a beaurocrat on the Armedblowfish RFA was reverted, and told to knock it off by a group of editors for overstepping the bounds of his role.
This is, overall, a good thing in the long term--the more the community collectively drives matters, the more irrational and extremist voices on any and all sides will be drowned out, swept away, and largely ignored as they gnash their teeth and wail at the walls. Within 1-3 years, the current 'leaders' of the community--no offense, guys, you brought us here, after all--will need to adjust to the fact that they're just "another user". I think the hyper-aggressive tone is evidence of this--the, "Discussion is over" sorts of proclamations and whatnot.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I still assert quite well that the "old timers" going nuts of late, trying to forcefully close down discussion on various matters, is a *direct* reaction to the fact that Wikipedia has now grown beyond their perceived personal control, and the fact that any one individual or small clique each day, each week, and each passing month will grow ever more irrelevant and obscure. Where a lone senior editor or admin or three previously had tremendous power, that is no longer the case, and many people are willing to challenge them--and successfully. I saw that even a beaurocrat on the Armedblowfish RFA was reverted, and told to knock it off by a group of editors for overstepping the bounds of his role.
Pinning this on "old timers" is a grossly offensive mischaracterization of the problem. We "old timers" became Wikipedians at a time when we could still be guided by philosophical principles. Many of us find the obsession of some editors to impose personal control just as objectionable as you. Also, do not assume that old-timers are synonymous with admins and bureaucrats; that has no basis in fact. There is no need for you to approach these serious problems with such a prejudicial attitude; that only puts you on the path to becoming a part of the problem.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Pinning this on "old timers" is a grossly offensive mischaracterization of the problem.
Indeed. I'm an "old timer" myself and I'm quite annoyed by stuff like this. Perhaps the real dividing line that's causing conflict is between unilateralists and collaborationists; it used to be that unilateral actions tended to be reverted without much fuss if large numbers of people disagreed with them but now there are an increasing number of policies and processes (BLP, DRV, etc.) that can be used as bludgeons to "enforce" decisions.
On 05/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I've just performed some radical surgery on an article called Bus Uncle. This unspeakable piece of shit somehow managed to make it to "Featured Article" status without anyone actually reading it. All references to names of private individuals have now been removed. I've also removed it from the Featured Article list.
Let me just check this: you unilaterally overruled consensus by stripping an article of Featured Article status?
Have Administrators always abused their power like this, or is it just in the last week?
On 6/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Let me just check this: you unilaterally overruled consensus by stripping an article of Featured Article status?
Have Administrators always abused their power like this, or is it just in the last week?
Tony is not an admin any more.
Eh level of admin abuse appears to be higher than normal but no higher than it has been during past events. Hasn't normally hit the article namspace though.
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Let me just check this: you unilaterally overruled consensus by stripping an article of Featured Article status?
Have Administrators always abused their power like this, or is it just in the last week?
Tony is not an admin any more.
Because of this incident, or something previous?
On 06/06/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Let me just check this: you unilaterally overruled consensus by stripping an article of Featured Article status? Have Administrators always abused their power like this, or is it just in the last week?
Tony is not an admin any more.
Because of this incident, or something previous?
Because he quit.
- d.
On 6/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Let me just check this: you unilaterally overruled consensus by stripping an article of Featured Article status? Have Administrators always abused their power like this, or is it just in the last week?
Tony is not an admin any more.
Because of this incident, or something previous?
Because he quit.
Indeed. Before it drove me mad (at least that's what my invisible pet aardvark told me)
But seriously, what's with all this "you mean you had the temerity to do something by yourself" stuff? Are there seriously people who have used Wikipedia long enough to find wikien-l but not found that if you discover a problem you fix it?
On 06/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
But seriously, what's with all this "you mean you had the temerity to do something by yourself" stuff? Are there seriously people who have used Wikipedia long enough to find wikien-l but not found that if you discover a problem you fix it?
There are limits to {{sofixit}}.
On 6/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
But seriously, what's with all this "you mean you had the temerity to do something by yourself" stuff? Are there seriously people who have used Wikipedia long enough to find wikien-l but not found that if you discover a problem you fix it?
There are limits to {{sofixit}}.
Removing an article from a list is not difficult work by Wikipedia standards.
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
But seriously, what's with all this "you mean you had the temerity to do something by yourself" stuff? Are there seriously people who have used Wikipedia long enough to find wikien-l but not found that if you discover a problem you fix it?
FA has a very solid process. There are reasons for this.
On 6/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
But seriously, what's with all this "you mean you had the temerity to do something by yourself" stuff? Are there seriously people who have used Wikipedia long enough to find wikien-l but not found that if you discover a problem you fix it?
FA has a very solid process. There are reasons for this.
Fuck process. There are reasons for saying this.
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
FA has a very solid process. There are reasons for this.
Fuck process. There are reasons for saying this.
Not really
And even if you do want to step outside process it is import to first understand why the process is there.
On 6/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
FA has a very solid process. There are reasons for this.
Fuck process. There are reasons for saying this.
Not really
And even if you do want to step outside process it is import to first understand why the process is there.
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button is for.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
FA has a very solid process. There are reasons for this.
Fuck process. There are reasons for saying this.
Not really
And even if you do want to step outside process it is import to first understand why the process is there.
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button is for.
I'm not a fan of the overly legalistic and rigid interpretation of policy that often seems to occur, but come on. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If an admin had responded to your edit by blocking you for vandalism, would you think he was also simply being bold and consider that reasonable? It's what the "block user" button is for, after all.
On 6/6/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button is for.
I'm not a fan of the overly legalistic and rigid interpretation of policy that often seems to occur, but come on. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If an admin had responded to your edit by blocking you for vandalism, would you think he was also simply being bold and consider that reasonable? It's what the "block user" button is for, after all.
This isn't the place for discussing the basics of Wikipedia editing, but I have to say that there seems to be an appalling display of ignorance in this thread. As I say, this isn't the place, so I'll leave it there.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/6/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button is for.
I'm not a fan of the overly legalistic and rigid interpretation of policy that often seems to occur, but come on. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If an admin had responded to your edit by blocking you for vandalism, would you think he was also simply being bold and consider that reasonable? It's what the "block user" button is for, after all.
This isn't the place for discussing the basics of Wikipedia editing, but I have to say that there seems to be an appalling display of ignorance in this thread. As I say, this isn't the place, so I'll leave it there.
But it's not about the basics of editing or answering FAQs on that. It's about policy interpretation; that strikes me as perfectly appropriate. When others disagree with your interpretations it does not imply that they are ignorant.
Ec
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button is for.
"be bold in updating articles". FA stuff is not in the article namespace. In addition the "… but don't be reckless." cautions against such edits to FAs.
On 6/5/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button
is for.
"be bold in updating articles". FA stuff is not in the article namespace. In addition the "… but don't be reckless." cautions against such edits to FAs.
Oh c'mon, removing the featured article status of a single article is "reckless"? It's a simple change that anyone who disagrees with can easily revert. It's not at all reckless.
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Oh c'mon, removing the featured article status of a single article is "reckless"? It's a simple change that anyone who disagrees with can easily revert. It's not at all reckless.
It's also pointless. If you really think that an article should lose its FA status then you take it to [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Featured_article_removal_candidates]] which will also give you a chance to explain in detail what you think is broken which will allow others to fix it should they wish to do so.
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Oh c'mon, removing the featured article status of a single article is "reckless"? It's a simple change that anyone who disagrees with can easily revert. It's not at all reckless.
It's also pointless. If you really think that an article should lose its FA status then you take it to [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Featured_article_removal_candidates]] which will also give you a chance to explain in detail what you think is broken which will allow others to fix it should they wish to do so.
Amen.
I think the FA status of this article would have been removed quickly if the regular process had been followed, so there was no real need to act unilaterally. But frankly I share Tony's amazement that something as problematic as this was ever promoted. It shows a continued high level of childishness.
Articles on star athletes are examples of good WP coverage we should be proud of; articles like this are a disgrace--the inclusion is necessary, but the photographs and the tone were tabloid journalism, not encyclopedic treatment. We show authenticity by attribution, not by names and photographs of the unfortunate. We maintain the right to deal with the unpleasant but necessary by using discretion and objectivity, not sensationalism.
DGG
On 6/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Oh c'mon, removing the featured article status of a single article is "reckless"? It's a simple change that anyone who disagrees with can easily revert. It's not at all reckless.
It's also pointless. If you really think that an article should lose its FA status then you take it to [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Featured_article_removal_candidates]] which will also give you a chance to explain in detail what you think is broken which will allow others to fix it should they wish to do so.
Amen.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Oh c'mon, removing the featured article status of a single article is "reckless"? It's a simple change that anyone who disagrees with can
easily
revert. It's not at all reckless.
It's also pointless. If you really think that an article should lose its FA status then you take it to [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Featured_article_removal_candidates]] which will also give you a chance to explain in detail what you think is broken which will allow others to fix it should they wish to do so.
Actually, if quick removal was really necessary, one could always have just asked Raul. I don't know about things today, but I know there was a time a few years ago when Raul unilaterally removed obviously non-FA standard articles from [[WP:FA]].
If really absolutely necessary even, Tony could have removed it himself and posted to Raul's talk explaining the situation, and that if Raul disagreed, he could revert and put it on FAR.
At least, that's how I would have done it. Extreme immediatism, especially when unilateral without even recourse to an authority (perception is everything; at the very least, it reduces the uproar generated, which saves everyone's time, effort and nerves) is generally not a good idea; I doubt significant damage would have been done to anyone if the article remained listed on FA for a day or even a week more.
As for the FA process, I agree that it's quite borked right now, but that's an issue for another day.
Johnleemk
On 06/06/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, if quick removal was really necessary, one could always have just asked Raul. I don't know about things today, but I know there was a time a few years ago when Raul unilaterally removed obviously non-FA standard articles from [[WP:FA]].
That was when it was converted from "Brilliant prose", which was a list anyone could put anything they quite liked on.
- d.
On 06/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, if quick removal was really necessary, one could always have just asked Raul. I don't know about things today, but I know there was a time a few years ago when Raul unilaterally removed obviously non-FA standard articles from [[WP:FA]].
That was when it was converted from "Brilliant prose", which was a list anyone could put anything they quite liked on.
Back when it was Good Articles, shurely? ;-)
Maybe it's time to turn the wheel full circle and have a *third* attempt at a lightweight rating structure...
On 06/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's time to turn the wheel full circle and have a *third* attempt at a lightweight rating structure...
Presumably that'd be the wikiproject-based "quality" ratings. Not so much "lightweight" as "could actually scale", which FA/GA don't (and don't seem intended to do).
- d.
Andrew Gray wrote:
Back when it was Good Articles, shurely? ;-)
Maybe it's time to turn the wheel full circle and have a *third* attempt at a lightweight rating structure...
A number of months back, there was a lengthy GA-listed article on a fictional device from a long-running science fiction series. It was heavily referenced, and of course due to the nature of the topic a lot of the citations were for particular episodes of the series. The template {{cite episode}} was used for these, and for convenience the templates were all wikilinked to the Wikipedia articles on those particular episodes.
An editor came along and saw what he thought were dozens of citations referencing _Wikipedia articles_ rather than referencing the episodes that those articles were about. Since referencing Wikipedia as a source is unacceptable and most of the article seemed to be doing that, he went over to GA and de-listed the article. A simple misunderstanding, should be easy to just explain what the citations actually referred to and revert the delisting, right?
No, had to take the article through the whole GA re-listing procedure all over again. The original de-lister recognized his mistake but by then it was too late, the gears of the process were grinding away.
Guh. Can we perhaps call it [[Wikipedia:Adequate Articles]] for our third attempt? Maybe just as how we called Bureaucrats "bureaucrats" to lessen the mystique, a name like that might stave off the standard creep for a while longer this time.
Or just implement version flagging and hopefully skip the process bloat entirely.
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, if quick removal was really necessary, one could always have
just
asked Raul. I don't know about things today, but I know there was a time
a
few years ago when Raul unilaterally removed obviously non-FA standard articles from [[WP:FA]].
That was when it was converted from "Brilliant prose", which was a list anyone could put anything they quite liked on.
No, it was quite a while after that. IIRC what I'm thinking of occurred in 2004 or 2005.
Johnleemk
On 6/5/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"be bold in updating articles". FA stuff is not in the article namespace. In addition the "… but don't be reckless." cautions against such edits to FAs.
I have reverted last week's page move which you are probably alluding to in the first half of your objection.
—C.W.
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button is for.
BOLD is not meant to be used for going against established consensus. If it was an FA, then there was, at some point, consensus to promote it. While consensus can change, it is not your job to unilaterally ignore a previous discussion. If you think a previous discussion reached the wrong conclusion, then you start a new discussion.
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button
is for.
BOLD is not meant to be used for going against established consensus. If it was an FA, then there was, at some point, consensus to promote it.
Three people saying that they like an article is not "established consensus". Moreover, Tony's concerns show that there *isn't* a consensus that this article should be FA.
Three people saying that they like an article is not "established consensus". Moreover, Tony's concerns show that there *isn't* a consensus that this article should be FA.
Three people saying they like an article *and no-one saying they don't* is consensus. Generally, it is only necessary to speak up if you disagree with something. Yes-men serve little purpose in consensus driven decision making.
There is a difference between consensus and unanimous assent. One person objecting, without discussion, does not destroy consensus.
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is a difference between consensus and unanimous assent. One person objecting, without discussion, does not destroy consensus.
Exactly. Tony has no 'authority' nor the right to single handedly take away Featured Article status, nor to grant it. Sure, he can tap his button as much as he wants, in a repetative fashion, as fast as his wrist will work the motion. But that's all it is; clicking off.
For that matter, it's curiously wrong, isn't it, that any one sole person (Raul) gets to be final arbiter of what is and isn't FA quality? Why is every other aspect of WP driven upwards from the community, but he is sole person there?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/6/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is a difference between consensus and unanimous assent. One person objecting, without discussion, does not destroy consensus.
Exactly. Tony has no 'authority' nor the right to single handedly take away Featured Article status, nor to grant it.
Why not? It's a wiki. We give people the 'authority' to single handedly call articles "stubs", to single handedly claim that an article needs cleanup, and to single handedly remove those distinctions.
For that matter, it's curiously wrong, isn't it, that any one sole person
(Raul) gets to be final arbiter of what is and isn't FA quality?
Yes, it is.
Why is
every other aspect of WP driven upwards from the community, but he is sole person there?
Some people thought it was important to have a single person choosing which articles are featured on the front page. Those of us who disagreed and thought that it should instead be chosen by a collaborative process were outvoted, and conceded. Mark was named "featured article dictator", then it was changed to "featured article director", and proceeded to extend his powers to what they are now. No one really challenged him, because those of us who wanted the process to be community pretty much stopped participating altogether in the whole featured article mess.
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Exactly. Tony has no 'authority' nor the right to single handedly take away Featured Article status, nor to grant it.
Why not? It's a wiki. We give people the 'authority' to single handedly call articles "stubs", to single handedly claim that an article needs cleanup, and to single handedly remove those distinctions.
My point was that clicking the edit button to take it away isn't the same as taking it away. I can go make a random sock account, edit some old FA from 2004, and take away the pretty Gold Star, and note that fact both here and on the Talk page. That doesn't make it not an FA. :) It just means I flung my mouse about spastically, hoping my decision would be accepted.
Some people thought it was important to have a single person choosing which
articles are featured on the front page. Those of us who disagreed and thought that it should instead be chosen by a collaborative process were outvoted, and conceded. Mark was named "featured article dictator", then it was changed to "featured article director", and proceeded to extend his powers to what they are now. No one really challenged him, because those of us who wanted the process to be community pretty much stopped participating altogether in the whole featured article mess.
I never messed around much with FA during my time. Who on earth made that dumb decision to give him (or anyone) alone such power? And why on Earth hasn't it be undone in the name of common sense?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/6/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Some people thought it was important to have a single person choosing which
articles are featured on the front page. Those of us who disagreed and thought that it should instead be chosen by a collaborative process were outvoted, and conceded. Mark was named "featured article dictator",
then
it was changed to "featured article director", and proceeded to extend his powers to what they are now. No one really challenged him, because
those
of us who wanted the process to be community pretty much stopped participating altogether in the whole featured article mess.
I never messed around much with FA during my time. Who on earth made that dumb decision to give him (or anyone) alone such power? And why on Earth hasn't it be undone in the name of common sense?
I believe it was User:Zocky that came up with the idea, and the vast majority of people who commented supported it.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zocky/FA_Tomorrow * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/archi...
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/6/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Some people thought it was important to have a single person choosing which
articles are featured on the front page. Those of us who disagreed
and
thought that it should instead be chosen by a collaborative process
were
outvoted, and conceded. Mark was named "featured article dictator",
then
it was changed to "featured article director", and proceeded to extend
his
powers to what they are now. No one really challenged him, because
those
of us who wanted the process to be community pretty much stopped participating altogether in the whole featured article mess.
I never messed around much with FA during my time. Who on earth made that dumb decision to give him (or anyone) alone such power? And why on Earth hasn't it be undone in the name of common sense?
I believe it was User:Zocky that came up with the idea, and the vast majority of people who commented supported it.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zocky/FA_Tomorrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/archi...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/archive_2#A_simple_proposal
While reading this I see there is need for some more background. If you recall, the original front page of Wikipedia was just a list of categories, similar to [[Wikipedia:Categorical_index]] but in black and white text without the pretty icons and with fewer categories. (Actually I don't know if this was the "original" front page but it was the one there when I got there.) Then the page was prettified with "in the news" and "featured article" and all that other stuff. I'm not sure exactly when the page protection was on or off but eventually a system was devised where the main page consisted solely of templates and the main page was protected but the templates weren't. Featured articles was one of these templates. Mark (User:Raul###) was the one who pretty much always updated the featured article template, daily.
Back in 2004 the use of so called "fair use" images was rampant. I was one of the big proponents of the idea that these images should not be used at all in a free encyclopedia, and that to the extent they are used it should be a very rare occurrence. Anyway, one thing I had a huge problem with was the use of non-free images on the front page of the project. My feeling was that even if we are going to have such images in the encyclopedia, we shouldn't be featuring them on the front page. One such image was put into a featured article blurb, and I got into an edit war on that template page over the inclusion of the image. That template was declared untouchable by anyone but Mark and his minions, and I was temporarily banned from the site for edit warring on the main page.
So that's the background of the situation, and what is meant by "wishing to decrease the likelihood unfortunate incidents occuring again".
Anthony
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I never messed around much with FA during my time. Who on earth made that dumb decision to give him (or anyone) alone such power? And why on Earth hasn't it be undone in the name of common sense?
Mainly because he does a good job of it and very few people see a need to complain. I don't necessarily see a reason to rock the boat, being involved with the FA process, but it is one of those Wikipedia oddities, for sure.
I mean, at the end of the day, it is a meta process. It has the benefit of making a core group of excellent articles, but the designation is simply a designation, which is probably why it's not as big a deal as other processes.
Let me put it another way, though - he's kept up with it for as long as I can remember, and doesn't give the impression of being burned out. There's nothing saying that anyone else wouldn't act the same way, but there's no reason to risk burnout with someone else at this stage, either.
-Jeff
I never messed around much with FA during my time. Who on earth made that dumb decision to give him (or anyone) alone such power? And why on Earth hasn't it be undone in the name of common sense?
Mainly because he does a good job of it and very few people see a need to complain. I don't necessarily see a reason to rock the boat, being involved with the FA process, but it is one of those Wikipedia oddities, for sure.
I've always thought it an odd decision, but he does seem to do a good job. I'm sure as soon as he makes a controversial decision he will be removed and replaced by a more community driven system. Even if that doesn't happen, the fact that one person doesn't scale will result in a change being required. I'm surprised that hasn't happened already - does he never go on holiday?
On 06/06/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Even if that doesn't happen, the fact that one person doesn't scale will result in a change being required. I'm surprised that hasn't happened already - does he never go on holiday?
Decisions for front-page articles are made a few days in advance (which also allows people to try and spot embarrasing mishaps with a few days warning, like the day we ran [[Turkish literature]] on Armenian Genocide Memorial Day and didn't notice until afterwards...)
As for FAC, well, it's always worked on a somewhat loose timescale...
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I've always thought it an odd decision, but he does seem to do a good job. I'm sure as soon as he makes a controversial decision he will be removed and replaced by a more community driven system. Even if that doesn't happen, the fact that one person doesn't scale will result in a change being required. I'm surprised that hasn't happened already - does he never go on holiday?
One person doesn't scale but our standards do. Overall, only about one FA is promoted each day. This rate has maintained itself despite the very significant uptick in users and overall content. That's because the standards are constantly rising. As an example, check out almost any of the surviving featured articles Lord Emsworth wrote. Of the five I checked, only one would pass today.
FA's are promoted on a very long timescale. Several weeks might pass between submission and promotion. Raul could go on a vacation and no-one would notice. He probably queues up FA's for the front page with a script.
On 06/06/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
For that matter, it's curiously wrong, isn't it, that any one sole person (Raul) gets to be final arbiter of what is and isn't FA quality? Why is every other aspect of WP driven upwards from the community, but he is sole person there?
Historic reasons; he started doing it a long time ago, and has kept doing it since. There have been periodic attempts to change this situation, which have either been voted down or fizzled out, and there has been little urgency to Do Something About It, My God, because - well, it works, broadly speaking. When the community decides it is doing more harm than good, we'll find a different solution.
[cf/ the reason we don't elect a replacement for Jimmy...]
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
For that matter, it's curiously wrong, isn't it, that any one sole person (Raul) gets to be final arbiter of what is and isn't FA quality? Why is every other aspect of WP driven upwards from the community, but he is sole person there?
That really depends on how much importance you attach to FA status. I don't care if anything that I do ever reaches FA status; it has no bearing on what or how I edit. I consider the Featured Article a nice PR link from the Main Page for visitors. The role that Raul has taken on does need a certain amount of management to ensure that there is a constant supply of fresh material. If there is a better way of managing this it should probably be discussed among those who are regularly involved.
Ec
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Three people saying that they like an article is not "established consensus". Moreover, Tony's concerns show that there *isn't* a
consensus
that this article should be FA.
Three people saying they like an article *and no-one saying they don't* is consensus.
It's consensus among those three people, maybe, but it's hardly an established consensus among Wikipedians.
Generally, it is only necessary to speak up if
you disagree with something. Yes-men serve little purpose in consensus driven decision making.
And that's exactly what Tony is doing. He's speaking up, because he disagrees with something.
There is a difference between consensus and unanimous assent. One
person objecting, without discussion, does not destroy consensus.
Tony has both objected and started this discussion. To say that these articles have a consensus of support for FA status is nonsense. Three people agreeing on something doesn't automatically bind the rest of us to refrain from correcting their mistake.
Three people saying they like an article *and no-one saying they don't* is consensus.
It's consensus among those three people, maybe, but it's hardly an established consensus among Wikipedians.
No, you haven't understood my point. It's a consensus among those three people AND everyone that read the page and decided there was no need to comment, which is probably much larger than just 3 people.
Generally, it is only necessary to speak up if
you disagree with something. Yes-men serve little purpose in consensus driven decision making.
And that's exactly what Tony is doing. He's speaking up, because he disagrees with something.
No, he made a unilateral decision. He just happened to inform the mailing list afterwards, he didn't do so in order to get a review of his decision.
Tony has both objected and started this discussion. To say that these articles have a consensus of support for FA status is nonsense. Three people agreeing on something doesn't automatically bind the rest of us to refrain from correcting their mistake.
The discussion should have come first. "Bold-revert-discuss" only applies when there hasn't been a discussion before hand.
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Three people saying they like an article *and no-one saying they don't* is consensus.
It's consensus among those three people, maybe, but it's hardly an established consensus among Wikipedians.
No, you haven't understood my point. It's a consensus among those three people AND everyone that read the page and decided there was no need to comment, which is probably much larger than just 3 people.
OK, I understand your terminology. Of course, then you should agree that every sentence of every article is a consensus among everyone who has read that sentence. So that pretty much makes the comment useless, doesn't it?
Generally, it is only necessary to speak up if
you disagree with something. Yes-men serve little purpose in consensus driven decision making.
And that's exactly what Tony is doing. He's speaking up, because he disagrees with something.
No, he made a unilateral decision. He just happened to inform the mailing list afterwards, he didn't do so in order to get a review of his decision.
He made an edit. And I don't know why he informed the mailing list, but it certainly shows that he wasn't trying to be sneaky or hide anything. Surely he informed the mailing list knowing full well that if the community disagrees with his edit they will reverse it.
Tony has both objected and started this discussion. To say that these
articles have a consensus of support for FA status is nonsense. Three people agreeing on something doesn't automatically bind the rest of us
to
refrain from correcting their mistake.
The discussion should have come first. "Bold-revert-discuss" only applies when there hasn't been a discussion before hand.
That's at least an assertion which is reasonable, though not one I agree with.
OK, I understand your terminology. Of course, then you should agree that every sentence of every article is a consensus among everyone who has read that sentence. So that pretty much makes the comment useless, doesn't it?
That's the whole principle behind "stable versions". Once people stop editing something, it means there is a consensus on it. However, the consensus derived from an active discussion (even if people don't comment) is stronger than the consensus derived from passive reading. You don't look at an FAC request without thinking about whether it would make a good FA, you do often read an article without thinking about every sentence.
Thanks for clearing up the history between Mark and the FAC system, everyone, and it's historic context. I'm not saying "Fire Raul"--I hope no one got that from what I wrote. I was just baffled why that one system of all was basically ran by one person like that. :)
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I understand your terminology. Of course, then you should agree
that
every sentence of every article is a consensus among everyone who has
read
that sentence. So that pretty much makes the comment useless, doesn't
it?
That's the whole principle behind "stable versions". Once people stop editing something, it means there is a consensus on it.
But surely you wouldn't apply you comment that "BOLD is not meant to be used for going against established consensus" to that.
However, the
consensus derived from an active discussion (even if people don't comment) is stronger than the consensus derived from passive reading. You don't look at an FAC request without thinking about whether it would make a good FA, you do often read an article without thinking about every sentence.
Agreed, a few people discussing something makes for a stronger consensus. But once Tony came along, saw the result, and so vehemently disagreed with it, that consensus was broken. At that point the notion of BOLD and consensus decision making really take a back seat to the issue of how Featured Articles in particular should be chosen. On that part of the discussion I'm going to bow out, because I think the entire system of choosing featured articles is completely broken, and has been for years.
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No, he made a unilateral decision. He just happened to inform the mailing list afterwards, he didn't do so in order to get a review of his decision.
He made an edit. And I don't know why he informed the mailing list, but it certainly shows that he wasn't trying to be sneaky or hide anything. Surely he informed the mailing list knowing full well that if the community disagrees with his edit they will reverse it.
This very odd debate about whether I have the right to remove an item from a list on the wiki strikes me as a sideshow. The fact that ti's happening at all suggests to me that there are a lot of editors who have deliberately and knowingly disenfranchised themselves by abrogating the right to edit the wiki, and expect others to follow the.
Anthony is right, of course. I removed an item from the list, and posted on the talk page of the article, and on this mailing list, signalling my alarm that the item, in its present state, had been on the list in the first place.
This is how things are supposed to happen. It's why we call it a wiki. It's said to be a Hawaian word meaning "quick".
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony is right, of course. I removed an item from the list, and posted on the talk page of the article, and on this mailing list, signalling my alarm that the item, in its present state, had been on the list in the first place.
This is how things are supposed to happen.
Wrong.
The process for the removal of featured article status is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review - you do not have the right to unilaterally strip FA status.
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony is right, of course. I removed an item from the list, and posted on the talk page of the article, and on this mailing list, signalling my alarm that the item, in its present state, had been on the list in the first place.
This is how things are supposed to happen.
Wrong.
The process for the removal of featured article status is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review - you do not have the right to unilaterally strip FA status.
Whether I do or do not have the right to "unilaterally strip FA status" is a chimera. I never attempted to do that. What I did was remove a severely damaged article from the list of articles. The edit was reversible, but the fact that I removed it, and the reasons I gave, signalled my concerns.
This is how things work on a good wiki. Requiring people to jump through idiotic hoops isn't how we do things on Wikipedia.
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony is right, of course. I removed an item from the list, and posted on the talk page of the article, and on this mailing list, signalling my alarm that the item, in its present state, had been on the list in the first place.
This is how things are supposed to happen.
Wrong.
The process for the removal of featured article status is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review - you do not have the right to unilaterally strip FA status.
Whether I do or do not have the right to "unilaterally strip FA status" is a chimera. I never attempted to do that. What I did was remove a severely damaged article from the list of [featured] articles.
Errrrr.....
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Whether I do or do not have the right to "unilaterally strip FA status" is a chimera. I never attempted to do that. What I did was remove a severely damaged article from the list of [featured] articles.
Errrrr.....
Ah, you mistake making a bold edit for assuming that everybody will fall into lockstep. This isn't how things work on Wikipedia. Somebody has to take the initiative. If someone disagrees, the action can be undone. This is how wikis work.
Why do I even have to explain this? You're not newbies.
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Whether I do or do not have the right to "unilaterally strip FA status" is a chimera. I never attempted to do that. What I did was remove a severely damaged article from the list of [featured] articles.
Errrrr.....
Ah, you mistake making a bold edit for assuming that everybody will fall into lockstep. This isn't how things work on Wikipedia. Somebody has to take the initiative. If someone disagrees, the action can be undone. This is how wikis work.
Why do I even have to explain this? You're not newbies.
You have to explain this because I'm trying to work out what possessed you to do this in this way.
Surely one of the first lessons of Wikipedia that everyone learns is that if you plan to make a change, and it may be controversial, you should discuss it in the appropriate places first. You manifestly failed to do this.
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why do I even have to explain this? You're not newbies.
Tony, I suspect you hold the record for managing to be right yet pissing people off by the way you do it. Would it hurt to try and get things done a little less abrasively at times? For one thing, pissing people off tends to make them blind to the sense of your argument, and since quite often your reasoning is actually good, this sounds counter-productive.
-Matt
On 6/7/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why do I even have to explain this? You're not newbies.
Tony, I suspect you hold the record for managing to be right yet pissing people off by the way you do it. Would it hurt to try and get things done a little less abrasively at times? For one thing, pissing people off tends to make them blind to the sense of your argument, and since quite often your reasoning is actually good, this sounds counter-productive.
I don't think there is any legitimate reason to be pissed off here. I correctly identified some serious problems in an article, correctly removed it from the list that is supposed to represent our best articles, correctly alerted about half the community, and correctly followed up by working to resolve the issues.
And for a bonus, I educated some people on this mailing list in how it is possible, in a wiki, to do things quickly and without red tape.
This is value for money, particularly as I don't demand remuneration. What's to complain about?
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why do I even have to explain this? You're not newbies.
Tony, I suspect you hold the record for managing to be right yet pissing people off by the way you do it. Would it hurt to try and get things done a little less abrasively at times? For one thing, pissing people off tends to make them blind to the sense of your argument, and since quite often your reasoning is actually good, this sounds counter-productive.
I don't think there is any legitimate reason to be pissed off here. I correctly identified some serious problems in an article, correctly removed it from the list that is supposed to represent our best articles, correctly alerted about half the community, and correctly followed up by working to resolve the issues.
And for a bonus, I educated some people on this mailing list in how it is possible, in a wiki, to do things quickly and without red tape.
This is value for money, particularly as I don't demand remuneration. What's to complain about?
Welcome to the real world, where human beings don't calculate the costs and benefits of actions and scream "OMG UNILATERAL ADMIN ABUSE" when you are bold and perform a revertable action. As I said, there were non-abrasive ways of handling the situation and accomplishing the same or almost the same result. Even the way you word your messages helps; you may be right, but hitting people over the head with a tone like "Haha, I'm right and you're not! Why don't you realise this?" isn't helpful.
Johnleemk
On 6/7/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is any legitimate reason to be pissed off here. I correctly identified some serious problems in an article, correctly removed it from the list that is supposed to represent our best articles, correctly alerted about half the community, and correctly followed up by working to resolve the issues.
And for a bonus, I educated some people on this mailing list in how it is possible, in a wiki, to do things quickly and without red tape.
This is value for money, particularly as I don't demand remuneration. What's to complain about?
Welcome to the real world, where human beings don't calculate the costs and benefits of actions and scream "OMG UNILATERAL ADMIN ABUSE" when you are bold and perform a revertable action. As I said, there were non-abrasive ways of handling the situation and accomplishing the same or almost the same result. Even the way you word your messages helps; you may be right, but hitting people over the head with a tone like "Haha, I'm right and you're not! Why don't you realise this?" isn't helpful.
Sheesh! You want cute and cuddly? You have to pay me more.
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Sheesh! You want cute and cuddly? You have to pay me more.
Starting a discussion by describing an article as an "unspeakable piece of shit" isn't very helpful. Failure to assume good faith on the part of those who took place in the FA discussion is strike two. And this latest comes close to a violation of [[WP:DICK]].
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Sheesh! You want cute and cuddly? You have to pay me more.
Starting a discussion by describing an article as an "unspeakable piece of shit" isn't very helpful. Failure to assume good faith on the part of those who took place in the FA discussion is strike two. And this latest comes close to a violation of [[WP:DICK]].
Naughty boy, no bread and jam for you tonight. I did not fail to assume good faith. Perhaps it might have been more charitable to do so, but I did not.
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Sheesh! You want cute and cuddly? You have to pay me more.
Starting a discussion by describing an article as an "unspeakable piece of shit" isn't very helpful. Failure to assume good faith on the part of those who took place in the FA discussion is strike two. And this latest comes close to a violation of [[WP:DICK]].
Naughty boy, no bread and jam for you tonight. I did not fail to assume good faith. Perhaps it might have been more charitable to do so, but I did not.
In which case, kindly explain your comment "[...]managed to make it to "Featured Article" status without anyone actually reading it."
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Sheesh! You want cute and cuddly? You have to pay me more.
Starting a discussion by describing an article as an "unspeakable piece of shit" isn't very helpful. Failure to assume good faith on the part of those who took place in the FA discussion is strike two. And this latest comes close to a violation of [[WP:DICK]].
Naughty boy, no bread and jam for you tonight.
[[WP:DICK]]?
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:DICK]]?
Who's the dick? The fellow who spots a problem and fixes it, then patiently explains things to those who don't understand, or the person who only criticises?
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:DICK]]?
Who's the dick?
The person who is kindly advised by several people to moderate his tone, but just gets worse...
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:DICK]]?
Who's the dick?
The person who is kindly advised by several people to moderate his tone, but just gets worse...
I'm not aware of any problems with my tone. Please stop being silly.
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:DICK]]?
Who's the dick?
The person who is kindly advised by several people to moderate his tone, but just gets worse...
I'm not aware of any problems with my tone.
In which case, I can but suggest you re-read this thread.
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Who's the dick? The fellow who spots a problem and fixes it, then patiently explains things to those who don't understand, or the person who only criticises?
Kettle, meet ebony...
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:DICK]]?
Who's the dick? The fellow who spots a problem and fixes it, then patiently explains things to those who don't understand, or the person who only criticises?
I wouldn't be sure you could be described as patient.At least you've explained yourself, but your tone does not seem to indicate patience so much as it indicates condescension and shock that people would be upset by your actions.
Johnleemk
On 6/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Sheesh! You want cute and cuddly? You have to pay me more.
Starting a discussion by describing an article as an "unspeakable piece of shit" isn't very helpful. Failure to assume good faith on the part of those who took place in the FA discussion is strike two. And this latest comes close to a violation of [[WP:DICK]].
Oh, you've got to give him credit. The above is a pretty funny line.
Other scenarios in which one would speak that line leap to mind.
On 07/06/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Welcome to the real world, where human beings don't calculate the costs and benefits of actions and scream "OMG UNILATERAL ADMIN ABUSE" when you are bold and perform a revertable action.
... and isn't even an admin.
As I said, there were non-abrasive ways of handling the situation and accomplishing the same or almost the same result. Even the way you word your messages helps; you may be right, but hitting people over the head with a tone like "Haha, I'm right and you're not! Why don't you realise this?" isn't helpful.
OTOH, I can see a lack of patience given the above.
- d.
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, there were non-abrasive ways of handling the situation and accomplishing the same or almost the same result. Even the way you word your messages helps; you may be right, but hitting people over the head with a tone like "Haha, I'm right and you're not! Why don't you realise this?" isn't helpful.
OTOH, I can see a lack of patience given the above.
I finally found the "permission to edit a page" form the other day, but it had been protected so I couldn't fill it in.
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is any legitimate reason to be pissed off here. I correctly identified some serious problems in an article,
Where did you provide a list of fixable problems?
correctly removed it from the list that is supposed to represent our best articles, correctly alerted about half the community, and correctly followed up by working to resolve the issues.
And for a bonus, I educated some people on this mailing list in how it is possible, in a wiki, to do things quickly and without red tape.
You flatter yourself.
On 07/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
And for a bonus, I educated some people on this mailing list in how it is possible, in a wiki, to do things quickly and without red tape.
You flatter yourself.
Speaking as someone who has not been involved in this whole farrago until now, I think instruction creep has blinded you somewhat, Geni. Tony is quite correct in his assessment of what [[WP:UCS]] means.
On 6/9/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 07/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
And for a bonus, I educated some people on this mailing list in how it is possible, in a wiki, to do things quickly and without red tape.
You flatter yourself.
Speaking as someone who has not been involved in this whole farrago until now, I think instruction creep has blinded you somewhat, Geni. Tony is quite correct in his assessment of what [[WP:UCS]] means.
[[Wikipedia:There is no common sense]]
Woot dueling essays.
James Farrar stated for the record:
The process for the removal of featured article status is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review - you do not have the right to unilaterally strip FA status.
Where is the list of things he has the right to do? Or conversely the things he is forbidden to do?
On 07/06/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
James Farrar stated for the record:
The process for the removal of featured article status is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review - you do not have the right to unilaterally strip FA status.
Where is the list of things he has the right to do? Or conversely the things he is forbidden to do?
[[WP:UCS]] applies. It is not reasonable to unilaterally overrule a previous consensus discussion.
I abrogate the right to eliminate things from the wiki on my own say-so if i know that others support them. I explicitly disenfranchised myself from doing this as an admin during my almost-unanimous Rfa.
It is only by limiting myself to what I know beyond a doubt is unsupportable that I consider myself fit for the responsibility of taking unilateral action when it is actually needed. DGG
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No, he made a unilateral decision. He just happened to inform the mailing list afterwards, he didn't do so in order to get a review of his decision.
He made an edit. And I don't know why he informed the mailing list, but it certainly shows that he wasn't trying to be sneaky or hide anything. Surely he informed the mailing list knowing full well that if the community disagrees with his edit they will reverse it.
This very odd debate about whether I have the right to remove an item from a list on the wiki strikes me as a sideshow. The fact that ti's happening at all suggests to me that there are a lot of editors who have deliberately and knowingly disenfranchised themselves by abrogating the right to edit the wiki, and expect others to follow the.
Anthony is right, of course. I removed an item from the list, and posted on the talk page of the article, and on this mailing list, signalling my alarm that the item, in its present state, had been on the list in the first place.
This is how things are supposed to happen. It's why we call it a wiki. It's said to be a Hawaian word meaning "quick".
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/7/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is only by limiting myself to what I know beyond a doubt is unsupportable that I consider myself fit for the responsibility of taking unilateral action when it is actually needed.
I've got news for you, David: every single edit you ever made to Wikipedia was unilateral. It's unavoidable. You can't take a vote on whether you press that button.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/7/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is only by limiting myself to what I know beyond a doubt is unsupportable that I consider myself fit for the responsibility of taking unilateral action when it is actually needed.
I've got news for you, David: every single edit you ever made to Wikipedia was unilateral. It's unavoidable. You can't take a vote on whether you press that button.
Can we stop this silliness already? No edit, with discussion, is "unilateral." Let's not pretend we don't try to work together.
-Jeff
David Goodman wrote:
I abrogate the right to eliminate things from the wiki on my own say-so if i know that others support them. I explicitly disenfranchised myself from doing this as an admin during my almost-unanimous Rfa.
It is only by limiting myself to what I know beyond a doubt is unsupportable that I consider myself fit for the responsibility of taking unilateral action when it is actually needed.
Perhaps another term for this is "self-control". There will always be pages that can be eliminated by unilateral action, as in common vandalism. We also need to make allowance for erroneous decisions. The real problem there is not in the deletion itself, but when the deleter persists in protecting his decision in the face of significant objections.
Ec
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
This very odd debate about whether I have the right to remove an item from a list on the wiki strikes me as a sideshow.
You have the right to fork and the right to leave. Nothing else.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Three people saying they like an article *and no-one saying they don't* is consensus.
It's consensus among those three people, maybe, but it's hardly an established consensus among Wikipedians.
No, you haven't understood my point. It's a consensus among those three people AND everyone that read the page and decided there was no need to comment, which is probably much larger than just 3 people.
That sounds like consensus by attrition. The notion that silence is consent is not a very sound principle on which to build consensus. Some people pick their battles, and wait until they're really pissed off before jumping in.
Ec
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Three people saying that they like an article is not "established consensus". Moreover, Tony's concerns show that there *isn't* a consensus that this article should be FA.
Three people saying they like an article *and no-one saying they don't* is consensus. Generally, it is only necessary to speak up if you disagree with something. Yes-men serve little purpose in consensus driven decision making.
To protect a consensus then it is important to make sure that one not advertise that opinions are being sought. ;-) I think that your definition of consensus is flexible enough to allow for the participation of yes-men when it suits your purposes.
There is a difference between consensus and unanimous assent. One person objecting, without discussion, does not destroy consensus.
Yes there is a difference. Whether a single objector destroys consensus depends on the circumstances.
Ec
On 06/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No process is required to make a bold edit. That's what the edit button
is for.
BOLD is not meant to be used for going against established consensus. If it was an FA, then there was, at some point, consensus to promote it.
Three people saying that they like an article is not "established consensus". Moreover, Tony's concerns show that there *isn't* a consensus that this article should be FA.
Ah, but his concerns don't show that there is a consensus that the article should stop being an FA, which is what is required to demote the article.
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
But seriously, what's with all this "you mean you had the temerity to do something by yourself" stuff? Are there seriously people who have used Wikipedia long enough to find wikien-l but not found that if you discover a problem you fix it?
FA has a very solid process. There are reasons for this.
Yes, mosly encrustation.
- d.
On 6/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, mosly encrustation.
No try again. There are actually a very solid reason. You've probably brought it up yourself in other contexts.
James Farrar wrote:
Let me just check this: you unilaterally overruled consensus by stripping an article of Featured Article status?
Have Administrators always abused their power like this, or is it just in the last week?
Tony's not an administrator after resigning last year.
To answer your question, typically, yes, many have, but it's gotten extremely bad the last few weeks.
-Jeff
On 6/6/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Let me just check this: you unilaterally overruled consensus by stripping an article of Featured Article status?
Have Administrators always abused their power like this, or is it just in the last week?
Tony's not an administrator after resigning last year.
To answer your question, typically, yes, many have, but it's gotten extremely bad the last few weeks.
All good editors take action to resolve a serious problem on Wikipedia as soon as they encounter it. It's our secret ingredient.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
All good editors take action to resolve a serious problem on Wikipedia as soon as they encounter it. It's our secret ingredient.
Yes, but the truly great ones don't go around thinking they alone know what the problem is.
-Jeff