-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 06:09 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We are always subjective, but a good discussion will almost always help us make better decisions.
Fred, that's precisely what's at issue here. The BADSITES policy prevents good discussions of the sort that are Wikipedia's foundation. That's why I think this issue is so crucial to Wikipedia's future.
William
On 12/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Except, we haven't adopted any such policy, again the strawman.
Except there are people who behave exactly like we have, so the name appears accurate as well as convenient. You can't hinder people talking about what's blatantly happening by telling them they're not allowed to use the proper names for things.
- d.
On 10/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Except, we haven't adopted any such policy, again the strawman.
Except there are people who behave exactly like we have, so the name appears accurate as well as convenient. You can't hinder people talking about what's blatantly happening by telling them they're not allowed to use the proper names for things.
Right. The (failed, non-consensus) policy proposal represents the opinion of a large minority fraction of longterm users. Who act accordingly.
It is a large enough fraction to be a problem rather than rare abberant behavior, and small enough that it's not a consensus.
There are aspects of our decisionmaking process that suck. Dealing with strongly divisive polarizing issues is one of them.
on 10/11/07 8:38 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There are aspects of our decisionmaking process that suck. Dealing with strongly divisive polarizing issues is one of them.
You're right, George. Sounds like a good argument for the "sandbox" idea I proposed yesterday. A space where you could practice you're communication skills; where no real "decisions" are expected to be made; and where nothing is at stake (except your egos, perhaps ;-). Kind of like war games using blanks.
Marc
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We are always subjective, but a good discussion will almost always help us make better decisions.
Fred, that's precisely what's at issue here. The BADSITES policy prevents good discussions of the sort that are Wikipedia's foundation. That's why I think this issue is so crucial to Wikipedia's future.
Except, we haven't adopted any such policy, again the strawman.
Sorry for the confusion. When I say "BADSITES" I am referring to any proposed or actual policy that we not link to certain sites because there are things on them that some people don't like. I'm glad to use another name if you'd like to suggest one.
Let me be clear: I believe the policy that you are proposing, although well meant, prevents good discussions of the sort that are Wikpedia's foundation.
William
On 12/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com]
Fred, that's precisely what's at issue here. The BADSITES policy prevents good discussions of the sort that are Wikipedia's foundation. That's why I think this issue is so crucial to Wikipedia's future.
Except, we haven't adopted any such policy, again the strawman.
That depends on whether you believe that policy is "everything in [[Wikipedia:List_of_policies]]" or "what happens".