"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts, the others still have several to go before they are also banned."
That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're probably in the wrong.
--Mark
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts, the others still have several to go before they are also banned."
That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're probably in the wrong.
Or you need a bigger posse... :-) It's only a matter of time before some POV warrior thinks of hiring those ad-clickers in India to help with the insta-reverting---oops sorry for suggesting the idea! :-)
Stan
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:28:42 -0800, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts, the others still have several to go before they are also banned."
That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're probably in the wrong.
Or you need a bigger posse... :-) It's only a matter of time before some POV warrior thinks of hiring those ad-clickers in India to help with the insta-reverting---oops sorry for suggesting the idea! :-)
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I suggest that there will most likely be problems with rigidly enforcing the 3RR, but I'm sure we can find solutions to those too, and I think the new problems (if there indeed are any) will be better than the current situation of some looney getting away with insanely repeatedly reverting.
Zoney
I think we'll have much bigger problems if we selectively enforce the 3RR. But I agree we'll likely have problems with a rigidly enforced one.
Anthony
I suggest that there will most likely be problems with rigidly enforcing the 3RR, but I'm sure we can find solutions to those too, and I think the new problems (if there indeed are any) will be better than the current situation of some looney getting away with insanely repeatedly reverting.
Zoney
Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the number of people who believe it? Mark
--- Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts, the others still have several to go before they are also banned."
That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're probably in the wrong.
--Mark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Yes. If there are numerous users on both sides reverting, then the page should be protected. But if clearly one side has many users reverting one or two users' edits, either those users are in the wrong (and thus probably should step up discussion on the talk page) or malicious vandals have ganged up (in which case, things are likely to escalate to the level which would require page protection). So in the end, there's no harm done. Quite often, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, might does make right (or in this case, lead to an ending which will force consensus).
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the number of people who believe it? Mark
--- Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts, the others still have several to go before they are also banned."
That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're probably in the wrong.
--Mark
I shudder to think of the implications for this if you are serious. Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Yes. If there are numerous users on both sides reverting, then the page should be protected. But if clearly one side has many users reverting one or two users' edits, either those users are in the wrong (and thus probably should step up discussion on the talk page) or malicious vandals have ganged up (in which case, things are likely to escalate to the level which would require page protection). So in the end, there's no harm done. Quite often, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, might does make right (or in this case, lead to an ending which will force consensus).
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the number of people who believe it? Mark
--- Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net
wrote:
"Sometimes particular articles attract several
edit
warriors, and often it's two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts, the others still have several to go before they
are
also banned."
That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're probably in the wrong.
--Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 07:24:42AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the number of people who believe it? Mark
Wikipedia doesn't (or shouldn't) gauge the truth AT ALL. Isn't that what the neutral point of view policy is all about? We're supposed to say "here's what various people think, make up your own mind".
To that end I would say, in general, the more people on your side in an edit war the more likely you are to be "right", in the sense of the edits you want are in the spirit of wikipedia. Obviously this is not a hard and fast rule, but as a guideline I'd say it applies. If we are to assume good faith, how can we think otherwise?
Shane.
So you think that in science pages, for example, space should be given to different theories based on their relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious? Mark
--- Shane King wikipedia@dontletsstart.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 07:24:42AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the number of people who believe it? Mark
Wikipedia doesn't (or shouldn't) gauge the truth AT ALL. Isn't that what the neutral point of view policy is all about? We're supposed to say "here's what various people think, make up your own mind".
To that end I would say, in general, the more people on your side in an edit war the more likely you are to be "right", in the sense of the edits you want are in the spirit of wikipedia. Obviously this is not a hard and fast rule, but as a guideline I'd say it applies. If we are to assume good faith, how can we think otherwise?
Shane. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:02:51PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for example, space should be given to different theories based on their relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious? Mark
I'm not discussing what I think should be done, I'm discussing what I believe current policy to specify. I believe creationism has no place at all in an article on science. That's neither here nor there though.
Shane.
--- Shane King wikipedia@dontletsstart.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:02:51PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for example,
space
should be given to different theories based on
their
relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious? Mark
I'm not discussing what I think should be done, I'm discussing what I believe current policy to specify. I believe creationism has no place at all in an article on science. That's neither here nor there though.
Shane.
But if we take seriously the idea that if many people believe it it should be given space, you must do that, surely. Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:10:23PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
--- Shane King wikipedia@dontletsstart.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:02:51PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for example,
space
should be given to different theories based on
their
relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious? Mark
I'm not discussing what I think should be done, I'm discussing what I believe current policy to specify. I believe creationism has no place at all in an article on science. That's neither here nor there though.
Shane.
But if we take seriously the idea that if many people believe it it should be given space, you must do that, surely. Mark
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I must do what?
If you're saying I must put those views in articles, I disagree. I can choose not to edit those articles and let other people work on them.
If you're saying that if I do choose to work on articles, I'm obliged to put views in that I personally think to be wrong but are popular, then I think you're absolutely right. Like I said, I personally feel creationism has no place in an article on science. I don't edit to my personal feelings though, I edit to policy (or at least I try). That's why I said my personal feelings are neither here nor there: only what's currently policy matters.
Anyway, we're probably getting a bit off topic now, so I'll shut up. :)
Shane.
--- Shane King wikipedia@dontletsstart.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:10:23PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
--- Shane King wikipedia@dontletsstart.com
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:02:51PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for
example,
space
should be given to different theories based on
their
relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious? Mark
I'm not discussing what I think should be done,
I'm
discussing what I believe current policy to specify. I believe creationism has no place at all in an article on science. That's neither
here
nor there though.
Shane.
But if we take seriously the idea that if many
people
believe it it should be given space, you must do
that,
surely. Mark
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I must do what?
If you're saying I must put those views in articles, I disagree. I can choose not to edit those articles and let other people work on them.
If you're saying that if I do choose to work on articles, I'm obliged to put views in that I personally think to be wrong but are popular, then I think you're absolutely right. Like I said, I personally feel creationism has no place in an article on science. I don't edit to my personal feelings though, I edit to policy (or at least I try). That's why I said my personal feelings are neither here nor there: only what's currently policy matters.
Anyway, we're probably getting a bit off topic now, so I'll shut up. :)
Shane.
Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that the religious right were able to muster a relatively small number of people to edit here on the evolution pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then it should go in? If not, can you clarify what you did mean? Thanks, Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
At 06:06 AM 11/17/2004 -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that the religious right were able to muster a relatively small number of people to edit here on the evolution pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then it should go in? If not, can you clarify what you did mean? Thanks, Mark
I can't answer for Shane, but I should point out that in this scenario the NPOV policy would still be in full force and the Arbitration Committee would still be available as a way to deal with those who absolutely refuse to abide by it. The only difference would be that in this scenario there would be a hard limit on _revert warring_. Revert warring is a separate issue from article content, and is not the only way a person will be able to get themselves banned if the 3RR policy goes into effect.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:06:15AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that the religious right were able to muster a relatively small number of people to edit here on the evolution pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then it should go in? If not, can you clarify what you did mean? Thanks, Mark
Well, there are a few scenarios here:
If what they're putting in is something they can demonstrate is believed by a large number of people (ie the wider community, and not just the few editing), and they write it in such as way that it doesn't violate the NPOV policy, then yes.
If they fail to write to the NPOV policy, then what they're saying should still go in, but it will need to be reworked.
If they're pushing a very minority point of view that's not widely held in the greater community, then it's probably one of the few cases where the fact that there are a large number of people on one side isn't indicative of the validity of their additions.
Of course, in reality, I can't imagine a high traffic page like evolution only having one person opposing.
My point isn't that the number of editors believing a point of view makes it valid to go in the article. My point was that if we have a large number of editors thinking something should go in the article, and only one person against it, then more often than not the majority is going to be right. It's just simple probability, if you think about it.
Shane.
Shane King wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:06:15AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that the religious right were able to muster a relatively small number of people to edit here on the evolution pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then it should go in? If not, can you clarify what you did mean?
Well, there are a few scenarios here:
If what they're putting in is something they can demonstrate is believed by a large number of people (ie the wider community, and not just the few editing), and they write it in such as way that it doesn't violate the NPOV policy, then yes.
If they fail to write to the NPOV policy, then what they're saying should still go in, but it will need to be reworked.
If they're pushing a very minority point of view that's not widely held in the greater community, then it's probably one of the few cases where the fact that there are a large number of people on one side isn't indicative of the validity of their additions.
The reference to a tiny marginal minority only confuses the issue when it comes to creationism. Whether we agree with what they say or not we can't ignore the fact that a lot of people do believe that way.
When one harbours the conceit that one is right, as is often the case in scientism it is much more difficult to write from the NPOV. The phrasing of your comments on the matter suggests that only those with a view contrary to that of orthodox science are prone to POV writing. NPOV is far more an attitude towards one's writing than a policy. An important idea is often cheapened when it is set in policy. If an article on evolution happens to have a small section explaining how the beliefs of a creationist vary from those of an evolutionist that's fine. They don't need for an evolutionist to carry on at great length about how creationists have fallen into error. A single paragraph is often enough. At the same time there should be no need to "rework" that paragraph to the point where it no longer fairly represents what creatonists are really saying. And there is no need to elaborate at length about why creationists are wrong. Let their words speak for themselves.
My point isn't that the number of editors believing a point of view makes it valid to go in the article. My point was that if we have a large number of editors thinking something should go in the article, and only one person against it, then more often than not the majority is going to be right. It's just simple probability, if you think about it.
Was it not Mark Twain who commented about "lies, damn lies, and statistics." :-)
Ec
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:37:51PM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The reference to a tiny marginal minority only confuses the issue when it comes to creationism. Whether we agree with what they say or not we can't ignore the fact that a lot of people do believe that way.
Eh? I was the one arguing that creationists should be heard, wasn't I? My reference to a tiny minority wasn't intended to mean only a tiny minority of people are creationists (I'm quite aware that there are 100 million Americans who believe every word of the Bible to be literally true), but if the views they're putting forward are held by a tiny minority, they should not go in.
I'm not fully versed in the subtleties of creationist views, but I'm sure that there are different schools of thoughts and minority opinions. That's what I was referring to.
Maybe creationism was a poor example, but hey, I didn't choose it, I only responded to it.
Shane.
Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for example, space should be given to different theories based on their relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious?
I think he is serious, but that you've misunderstood him.
All that he's saying, I think, is that as a matter of social reality, in the vast majority of cases where there is one person reverting against a large group, and no one else is interested in helping out, it's because the one person is doing something obnoxious.
That's not saying that the truth is determined by majority vote or anything like that, ti's just an observation about the facts on the ground around here.
--Jimbo
Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for example, space should be given to different theories based on their relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious?
We can simply contextualize what we're talking about. If an article is in the context of a scientific theory, it should say what the scientific viewpoint on it is. If other communities disagree, these could be mentioned briefly. If there is a lot to mention, a separate article such as [[creationism]] or [[controversies involving evolution]], or something of that sort, is warranted.
Sometimes this is hard to do, but I think usually it's possible. To take one example, something like [[clinical depression]] could describe the orthodox psychiatric view of clinical depression, with a mention that it's controversial and a link to a more general article and/or an article specifically about the controversy. If this had been 1970, when orthodox psychiatry considered homosexuality a mental illness, we'd have a similar case, where we'd have [[homosexuality (paraphilia)]] describing psychiatry's take on it and linking to [[homosexuality]] or [[gay]] or something of that sort describing controversies and other views on the matter.
The problem with a hardcore scientism point of view is that scientists are not always right, as the homosexuality example illustrates.
-Mark
Yes, for sure, but the original poster seemed to be saying that if many people were espousing something, then it must be right. Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for example,
space
should be given to different theories based on
their
relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious?
We can simply contextualize what we're talking about. If an article is in the context of a scientific theory, it should say what the scientific viewpoint on it is. If other communities disagree, these could be mentioned briefly. If there is a lot to mention, a separate article such as [[creationism]] or [[controversies involving evolution]], or something of that sort, is warranted.
Sometimes this is hard to do, but I think usually it's possible. To take one example, something like [[clinical depression]] could describe the orthodox psychiatric view of clinical depression, with a mention that it's controversial and a link to a more general article and/or an article specifically about the controversy. If this had been 1970, when orthodox psychiatry considered homosexuality a mental illness, we'd have a similar case, where we'd have [[homosexuality (paraphilia)]] describing psychiatry's take on it and linking to [[homosexuality]] or [[gay]] or something of that sort describing controversies and other views on the matter.
The problem with a hardcore scientism point of view is that scientists are not always right, as the homosexuality example illustrates.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for example, space should be given to different theories based on their relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious?
The opposite of gravity is levity. :-)
Ec.