Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia. AGF and all the other values that make this thing great exist because they are a necessity for producing good collaborative articles. The more people focus on the project instead of meta discussion and the personalities, the more they see how AGF isn't just a nice idea...it's indispensable.
Steven
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia. AGF and all the other values that make this thing great exist because they are a necessity for producing good collaborative articles. The more people focus on the project instead of meta discussion and the personalities, the more they see how AGF isn't just a nice idea...it's indispensable.
Steven
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wow. That was kind of harsh, even by my standard. Even *i* would not tell someone to "shut up" and get back to work.
Just something to consider.
./scream
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia.
Wow. That was kind of harsh, even by my standard. Even *i* would not tell someone to "shut up" and get back to work.
I think Steven was meaning this generically; 'you' meant all of us, not singling out SV.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia.
Wow. That was kind of harsh, even by my standard. Even *i* would not tell someone to "shut up" and get back to work.
I think Steven was meaning this generically; 'you' meant all of us, not singling out SV.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, then I retract. I need to more vitamin E, to thicken the skin. :) It was however, still harsh, but then again, this is probably a cultural thing for me. We don't tell folks single or group, to shut up.
./scream
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia.
Wow. That was kind of harsh, even by my standard. Even *i* would not tell someone to "shut up" and get back to work.
I think Steven was meaning this generically; 'you' meant all of us, not singling out SV.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, then I retract. I need to more vitamin E, to thicken the skin. :)
You should have Assumed Good Faith ;-)
Magnus
On 06/03/2008, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia.
Wow. That was kind of harsh, even by my standard. Even *i* would not tell someone to "shut up" and get back to work.
I think Steven was meaning this generically; 'you' meant all of us, not singling out SV.
-Matt
Oh, then I retract. I need to more vitamin E, to thicken the skin. :)
You should have Assumed Good Faith ;-)
It's no joke, he really should have. I think this is one of our biggest problems - people go looking to be offended, and so they are offended. When communicating in a text format you don't have tone of voice and body language to help you interpret someone's meaning, so messages such as that one can be ambiguous. It it therefore vital to assume good faith. If someone is actually trying to offend you, they'll go out of their way to make sure you know it. If there's any doubt, you can be pretty sure if wasn't intended to offend.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia.
Wow. That was kind of harsh, even by my standard. Even *i* would not tell someone to "shut up" and get back to work.
I think Steven was meaning this generically; 'you' meant all of us, not singling out SV.
-Matt
Oh, then I retract. I need to more vitamin E, to thicken the skin. :)
You should have Assumed Good Faith ;-)
It's no joke, he really should have. I think this is one of our biggest problems - people go looking to be offended, and so they are offended. When communicating in a text format you don't have tone of voice and body language to help you interpret someone's meaning, so messages such as that one can be ambiguous. It it therefore vital to assume good faith. If someone is actually trying to offend you, they'll go out of their way to make sure you know it. If there's any doubt, you can be pretty sure if wasn't intended to offend.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Good faith or not, there is no faith assumption with telling folks to shut up. Its rude. The onus is on the poster, not the recipient to ensure messages are not ambiguous.
./scream
Good faith or not, there is no faith assumption with telling folks to shut up. Its rude. The onus is on the poster, not the recipient to ensure messages are not ambiguous.
It's only rude if it's intended to be, otherwise it's just words. He was just exaggerating his advice is order to make his point clearer. It's impossible (or, at least, impractical) to ensure messages are completely unambiguous, so the onus has to be on the recipient to try and work out what the poster intended and when doing that you should always assume good faith.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Good faith or not, there is no faith assumption with telling folks to shut up. Its rude. The onus is on the poster, not the recipient to ensure messages are not ambiguous.
It's only rude if it's intended to be, otherwise it's just words. He was just exaggerating his advice is order to make his point clearer. It's impossible (or, at least, impractical) to ensure messages are completely unambiguous, so the onus has to be on the recipient to try and work out what the poster intended and when doing that you should always assume good faith.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia. AGF and all the other values that make this thing great exist because they are a necessity for producing good collaborative articles. The more people focus on the project instead of meta discussion and the personalities, the more they see how AGF isn't just a nice idea...it's indispensable.
"In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia. "
Maybe I did misunderstood, maybe I Should have assumed good faith, but, the message seems clear and with unambiguity here.
./scream
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia.
Wow. That was kind of harsh, even by my standard. Even *i* would not tell someone to "shut up" and get back to work.
I think Steven was meaning this generically; 'you' meant all of us, not singling out SV.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, then I retract. I need to more vitamin E, to thicken the skin. :)
You should have Assumed Good Faith ;-)
Magnus
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Did you see the last part of my post? The second part of the sentence.
./scream
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm one hundred percent with slim here. I joined in that same 2004 window, when we enculturated new comers, brought editors into the fold and we all shared purpose and goals. As much as I hate melodramatic comments, we need to start looking at ways to save our project here, because we just got slapped in the face with the reality that we're not only not on different pages here, but our books are staging fights against each other. Jimmy may have fucked up, it really looks like he has, but thats simply a sideshow to our larger problem: our community simply doesn't exist as a whole anymore.
On 06/03/2008, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I'm one hundred percent with slim here. I joined in that same 2004 window, when we enculturated new comers, brought editors into the fold and we all shared purpose and goals.
Still do for the most part.
As much as I hate melodramatic comments, we need to start looking at ways to save our project here, because we just got slapped in the face with the reality that we're not only not on different pages here, but our books are staging fights against each other.
Nah. A few of the political power blocks going head to head is situation normal. Jimbo's actions are annoying but not something the community at large can be expected to do much about.
Jimmy may have fucked up, it really looks like he has, but thats simply a sideshow to our larger problem: our community simply doesn't exist as a whole anymore.
Well no. 2004 we could just about have qualified as tribal you might not have know every regular editor but you knew someone who knew someone who knew them. In terms of societies our numbers are now in the chiefdom stage. That means that you will not know most people. The number of steps between you and them will get longer and more strained. There are a number of effects of this:
Sub communities. Sub communities have always existed but have become more important. Community for editors might once have meant everyone know it means the people who hang out in the same areas of wikipedia as you.
Conflict there will be fewer people that both sides know and respect. To an extent sub communities counteract this since when a conflict occurs within a sub community such a person is likely to exist. When they occur across sub community however we have a problem. Fortunately due to editing patterns such conflicts will be uncommon.
Information flow: all those internal mailing lists and the like. It is inevitable that certain types of information will become monoplised. I am not saying this is a good or bad thing.
Monopoly of force. To an extent this has always existed. Admins have the software ability to win any conflict. However as adminship becomes a bigger deal access to such force becomes harder to obtain and an admin class starts to form that has a greater degree of separation from the editing class
So what do do. Monopoly of force is best dealt with by making "you do not use admin tools in an editing conflict you are involved in" into an absolute. No excuses regardless of the rightness or otherwise of the action in the grand scheme of things
Information flow best dealt with by making "you do not use privileged information (stuff from internal-I OTRS etc) in an editing conflict you are involved in" into an absolute.
Splitting into Sub communities. Accept that this is unstoppable. This being the case we will need to find ways to make sure than conflicts between members of different sub communities don't turn into conflicts between those sub communities. We will need to find a way to rehabilitate problematical sub communities and finally find ways to make sure the lone mavericks can co-exist peacefully with the sub communities.
On 06/03/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Only in fairly narrow areas. The last 3 users I interacted with on wiki were User:Froth User:SingCal and User:Vanderdecken. So far no bloodshed. You probably don't know these users I certainly don't but there doesn't appear to be any problem with AGF.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
You might. Personally I try to switch to something new. Once I get my current camera issues sorted I plan to look into seeing how I can increase the role of videos in wikipedia.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Nothing. Understand that for most of the project you are of no significance. Understand that regardless of your feelings the vast majority of the community is getting by just fine. At the moment there are handful of editors that have cross community impact Betacommand is the only one who comes to mind.
Thus all you can ultimately do is make sure that you yourself are not damaging the project.
on 3/5/08 7:00 PM, SlimVirgin at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
I have been asking this same question for over two years now. In fact I touched on the subject in a post to one of the WP Lists just yesterday, and the response I got from a very frequent poster was: "Is this going to be another lecture on how the Project is failing? If so, I'm not interested". The denial is strong - and deadly.
To take from my "Thought for the Day" on The WikBack:
You cannot teach - they who will not be taught. You cannot help - they who will not be helped.
Marc
You cannot teach - they who will not be taught. You cannot help - they who
will not be >helped.
Don't be arrogant. The reason someone responded that way is because they are tired of talking in circles about the general problem with the community, not necessarily because they have their head's in the sand.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/5/08 7:00 PM, SlimVirgin at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
I have been asking this same question for over two years now. In fact I touched on the subject in a post to one of the WP Lists just yesterday, and the response I got from a very frequent poster was: "Is this going to be another lecture on how the Project is failing? If so, I'm not interested". The denial is strong - and deadly.
To take from my "Thought for the Day" on The WikBack:
You cannot teach - they who will not be taught. You cannot help - they who will not be helped.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 3/5/08 7:59 PM, Steven Walling at steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Don't be arrogant.
Are you in the habit of accessing other people's behavior, and telling them what, and what not, to be?
The reason someone responded that way is because they are tired of talking in
circles about the general problem with the community
Are you accessing another person's response here, or just not saying it's you own?
not necessarily because they have their head's in the sand.
"...in the sand" wasn't exactly the location I had in mind.
The question is, is the Community screwed up? If you have an opinion on this, please state it.
Marc
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/5/08 7:00 PM, SlimVirgin at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
I have been asking this same question for over two years now. In fact I touched on the subject in a post to one of the WP Lists just yesterday, and the response I got from a very frequent poster was: "Is this going to be another lecture on how the Project is failing? If so, I'm not interested". The denial is strong - and deadly.
To take from my "Thought for the Day" on The WikBack:
You cannot teach - they who will not be taught. You cannot help - they who will not be helped.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The question is, is the Community screwed up? If you have an opinion on
this, please state it.
I already did. I agree, but it's completely inappropriate for anyone to have the moralistic pretension to assume that anyone who doesn't want to discuss it on the mailing list is a naysayer. IMO, part of the thing that's screwed up about the community is this mailing list. So naturally, it makes sense to me that other wouldn't want to discuss it here.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/5/08 7:59 PM, Steven Walling at steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Don't be arrogant.
Are you in the habit of accessing other people's behavior, and telling them what, and what not, to be?
The reason someone responded that way is because they are tired of
talking in circles about the general problem with the community
Are you accessing another person's response here, or just not saying it's you own?
not necessarily because they have their head's in the sand.
"...in the sand" wasn't exactly the location I had in mind.
The question is, is the Community screwed up? If you have an opinion on this, please state it.
Marc
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net
wrote:
on 3/5/08 7:00 PM, SlimVirgin at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
I have been asking this same question for over two years now. In fact I touched on the subject in a post to one of the WP Lists just yesterday, and the response I got from a very frequent poster was: "Is this going to
be
another lecture on how the Project is failing? If so, I'm not
interested".
The denial is strong - and deadly.
To take from my "Thought for the Day" on The WikBack:
You cannot teach - they who will not be taught. You cannot help - they
who
will not be helped.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 3/5/08 8:30 PM, Steven Walling at steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
The question is, is the Community screwed up? If you have an opinion on
this, please state it.
I already did. I agree, but it's completely inappropriate for anyone to have the moralistic pretension to assume that anyone who doesn't want to discuss it on the mailing list is a naysayer. IMO, part of the thing that's screwed up about the community is this mailing list. So naturally, it makes sense to me that other wouldn't want to discuss it here.
Ok. But, Steven, if you believe it should be discussed, where could we do this? BTW, I agree with you completely about the condition of this List.
Marc
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/5/08 7:59 PM, Steven Walling at steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Don't be arrogant.
Are you in the habit of accessing other people's behavior, and telling them what, and what not, to be?
The reason someone responded that way is because they are tired of
talking in circles about the general problem with the community
Are you accessing another person's response here, or just not saying it's you own?
not necessarily because they have their head's in the sand.
"...in the sand" wasn't exactly the location I had in mind.
The question is, is the Community screwed up? If you have an opinion on this, please state it.
Marc
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net
wrote:
on 3/5/08 7:00 PM, SlimVirgin at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're tearing each other apart.
Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
I have been asking this same question for over two years now. In fact I touched on the subject in a post to one of the WP Lists just yesterday, and the response I got from a very frequent poster was: "Is this going to
be
another lecture on how the Project is failing? If so, I'm not
interested".
The denial is strong - and deadly.
To take from my "Thought for the Day" on The WikBack:
You cannot teach - they who will not be taught. You cannot help - they
who
will not be helped.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/5/08, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular,
Maybe this is the gist of the problem. AGF and all that good stuff are values developed on small wikis and it probably still works that way on other wikis like meatball. It may still work here too on the project and article level. The drawback with this is when other wikipedians who you don't know from Adam drop out of the sky and nominate your article for deletion, challenge the fair use rationales of your images, remove your spoiler tags, or otherwise challenge something in your article based on some policy discussion made "somewhere else" by people who you don't know.
Yeah, those are some things that can be *very* frustrating.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 3/5/08, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to benefit each other in that way.
But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular,
Maybe this is the gist of the problem. AGF and all that good stuff are values developed on small wikis and it probably still works that way on other wikis like meatball. It may still work here too on the project and article level. The drawback with this is when other wikipedians who you don't know from Adam drop out of the sky and nominate your article for deletion, challenge the fair use rationales of your images, remove your spoiler tags, or otherwise challenge something in your article based on some policy discussion made "somewhere else" by people who you don't know.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/03/2008, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe this is the gist of the problem. AGF and all that good stuff are values developed on small wikis and it probably still works that way on other wikis like meatball. It may still work here too on the project and article level. The drawback with this is when other wikipedians who you don't know from Adam drop out of the sky and nominate your article for deletion, challenge the fair use rationales of your images, remove your spoiler tags, or otherwise challenge something in your article based on some policy discussion made "somewhere else" by people who you don't know.
The strength of "Assume Good Faith" is that it's a good heuristic for life in general. Almost all people mean well and are sincere in their actions - that's why they're so hard to sway from them.
And *shit happens*, but people are unwilling to accept that it's possible - they ignore the ridiculous fucked-up complexity and emergent behaviour of evolved systems and keep looking for someone to blame. It's the same place conspiracy theories and witch-hunting come from.
(I'm looking for a reference to an experiment I read of: birds being fed or not at random when they pressed a lever. The chance of being fed was determined only by chance, but the birds constructed all manner of increasingly elaborate rituals before pressing the lever, timing, etc. in an attempt to make the food come more reliably. Does anyone know the one I mean?)
- d.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon maybe?
--John Reaves
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:53 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe this is the gist of the problem. AGF and all that good stuff are values developed on small wikis and it probably still works that way on other wikis like meatball. It may still work here too on the project and article level. The drawback with this is when other wikipedians who you don't know from Adam drop out of the sky and nominate your article for deletion, challenge the fair use rationales of your images, remove your spoiler tags, or otherwise challenge something in your article based on some policy discussion made "somewhere else" by people who you don't know.
The strength of "Assume Good Faith" is that it's a good heuristic for life in general. Almost all people mean well and are sincere in their actions - that's why they're so hard to sway from them.
And *shit happens*, but people are unwilling to accept that it's possible - they ignore the ridiculous fucked-up complexity and emergent behaviour of evolved systems and keep looking for someone to blame. It's the same place conspiracy theories and witch-hunting come from.
(I'm looking for a reference to an experiment I read of: birds being fed or not at random when they pressed a lever. The chance of being fed was determined only by chance, but the birds constructed all manner of increasingly elaborate rituals before pressing the lever, timing, etc. in an attempt to make the food come more reliably. Does anyone know the one I mean?)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
(I'm looking for a reference to an experiment I read of: birds being fed or not at random when they pressed a lever. The chance of being fed was determined only by chance, but the birds constructed all manner of increasingly elaborate rituals before pressing the lever, timing, etc. in an attempt to make the food come more reliably. Does anyone know the one I mean?)
I read about it in a book by Derren Brown - I've just found the page and he says it was done by B. F. Skinner in 1948.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:53 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The strength of "Assume Good Faith" is that it's a good heuristic for life in general. <snip>
That's a fantastic quote, David.
And *shit happens*, but people are unwilling to accept that it's possible - they ignore the ridiculous fucked-up complexity and emergent behaviour of evolved systems and keep looking for someone to blame. It's the same place conspiracy theories and witch-hunting come from.
Yeah I agree. While the arguments may have gotten a bit more vicious, it's always been there (I remember basically the same discussion from a year before, and before that, and it hasn't gotten significantly worse), there was never a time (at least not that I can remember) that was "peaceful", really, but then again I wasn't here from the beginning.
Sarah commented that it seemed like there was much more spirit, much more drive to do something good back when she started in 2004. I think that has more to do with the fact that she was just starting out, more than the relative peacefulness of that year. All of us here are old dogs, who reads about every controversy and have definite views on most issues that come up. Most of the community isn't like that.
I have a friend who started out a month or two ago, and he still feels what Sarah felt in 2004. He has gotten into a few arguements, but they have been settled amicably (everyone Aed GF) and he still feels that initial rush that all of us felt in the beginning; the joys of contributing. Doubtless, in six months or so, he will have been properly disillusioned and in two years he will be wondering what happened with all the civility there was in early 2008.
--Oskar
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:53 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The strength of "Assume Good Faith" is that it's a good heuristic for life in general. <snip>
That's a fantastic quote, David.
And *shit happens*, but people are unwilling to accept that it's possible - they ignore the ridiculous fucked-up complexity and emergent behaviour of evolved systems and keep looking for someone to blame. It's the same place conspiracy theories and witch-hunting come from.
Yeah I agree. While the arguments may have gotten a bit more vicious, it's always been there (I remember basically the same discussion from a year before, and before that, and it hasn't gotten significantly worse), there was never a time (at least not that I can remember) that was "peaceful", really, but then again I wasn't here from the beginning.
Sarah commented that it seemed like there was much more spirit, much more drive to do something good back when she started in 2004. I think that has more to do with the fact that she was just starting out, more than the relative peacefulness of that year. All of us here are old dogs, who reads about every controversy and have definite views on most issues that come up. Most of the community isn't like that.
I have a friend who started out a month or two ago, and he still feels what Sarah felt in 2004. He has gotten into a few arguements, but they have been settled amicably (everyone Aed GF) and he still feels that initial rush that all of us felt in the beginning; the joys of contributing. Doubtless, in six months or so, he will have been properly disillusioned and in two years he will be wondering what happened with all the civility there was in early 2008.
--Oskar
Even today, as a vetern user of a couple years, I find it very easy to edit articles and only run into helpful, friendly people. I just follow a few simple rules.
Don't choose articles to edit by hearing about them on enwiki-l
Don't choose articles to edit by hearing about them on WP:AN or WP:AN/I
Don't choose articles to edit by hearing about them on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
Don't choose articles to edit by hearing about them on wikipediareview.com (.org?)
Just go edit something you're interested in, know a little about, and be polite. Almost everyone will be very nice to you. Editors just seem to gravitate towards ZOMG DRAMAZ centres as they gain experience - but if you deliberately go the other way, you'll find those centres are only a tiny part of our universe.
Cheers WilyD
On 06/03/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Even today, as a vetern user of a couple years, I find it very easy to edit articles and only run into helpful, friendly people. I just follow a few simple rules.
I've been creating articles. It's fun. Today I started [[List of Ecma standards]], which (a) needs completion (b) needs articles on each standard.
It's not a matter of Wikipedia having all the "low-hanging fruit" - we have all the fruit that's fallen off the tree. Twenty million topics have been identified as being within arms' reach ...
Two million? We've barely started.
- d.
On 06/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Even today, as a vetern user of a couple years, I find it very easy to edit articles and only run into helpful, friendly people. I just follow a few simple rules.
I've been creating articles. It's fun. Today I started [[List of Ecma standards]], which (a) needs completion (b) needs articles on each standard.
It's not a matter of Wikipedia having all the "low-hanging fruit" - we have all the fruit that's fallen off the tree. Twenty million topics have been identified as being within arms' reach ...
Two million? We've barely started.
Maybe but rather a lot of that 2 million was built on knowledge people held in their heads. Very few people with solid internet access hold information about the unfilled entries in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_name:_F
In their head (indeed I suspect even professional linguists won't offhand know much about rather a lot of those).
Thus we are moving from what people know to what people can find out. This is problematical since while there are a reasonable number of people online prepared to write about what they know about there are rather fewer who are interested in digging through dead tree sources to see what they can find out.
Incidentally we need a sound recording of the proper pronunciation of "!kung".
On 3/7/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Thus we are moving from what people know to what people can find out. This is problematical since while there are a reasonable number of people online prepared to write about what they know about there are rather fewer who are interested in digging through dead tree sources to see what they can find out.
There's still a huge middle ground: writing articles based on web sources. Virtually all the stubs I've written have come from there. It's pretty much a necessity to do some research anyway if you want to have at least one "source".
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/03/2008, David Gerard wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Wily D wrote:
Even today, as a vetern user of a couple years, I find it very easy to edit articles and only run into helpful, friendly people. I just follow a few simple rules.
I've been creating articles. It's fun. Today I started [[List of Ecma standards]], which (a) needs completion (b) needs articles on each standard.
It's not a matter of Wikipedia having all the "low-hanging fruit" - we have all the fruit that's fallen off the tree. Twenty million topics have been identified as being within arms' reach ...
Two million? We've barely started.
Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms' length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
A selection: *"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct astronomical objects searchable online." *"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items." *"Genbank, an online database of DNA sequences from over 165,000 species , has over 46 million entries" *"The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) GEOnet Names Server contains approximately 3.88 million named" *"Thomson-Gale's Biography Resource Center contains over 1,335,000 biographies." *"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds." *"the Internet Movie Database claims to have records on 549,131 titles and 2,280,301 names."
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
On 3/7/08, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms' length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
A selection: *"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct astronomical objects searchable online."
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is known on it? I doubt it.
*"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items."
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
*"Genbank, an online database of DNA sequences from over 165,000 species , has over 46 million entries"
Don't know enough about DNA to comment.
*"The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) GEOnet Names Server contains approximately 3.88 million named"
Named what?
*"Thomson-Gale's Biography Resource Center contains over 1,335,000 biographies."
Cool. How many do we have?
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
*"the Internet Movie Database claims to have records on 549,131 titles and 2,280,301 names."
We definitely want that level of depth I think. Particularly since we can at least cite the IMDB for all of them...
Steve
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/08, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms' length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
A selection: *"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct astronomical objects searchable online."
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is known on it? I doubt it.
I do. Are we running out of server space? To be in a catalogue, some minimum of information has got to be known on an object.
On 06/03/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I do. Are we running out of server space? To be in a catalogue, some minimum of information has got to be known on an object.
"name is a ? class, ? magnitude star in constellation ? at location ?"
Repeat nine hundred million times.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:40 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I do. Are we running out of server space? To be in a catalogue, some minimum of information has got to be known on an object.
"name is a ? class, ? magnitude star in constellation ? at location ?"
Repeat nine hundred million times.
-- geni
Geni
Probably more than that. I'd expect an article that looks more like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%289926%29_1981_EU41 to pick the last item out of my edit history. It's just a stub, but it has a decent amount of usefull information. Beyond that, this doesn't seem to answer my question.
Cheers WilyD
Wily D wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/08, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms' length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
A selection: *"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct astronomical objects searchable online."
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is known on it? I doubt it.
I do. Are we running out of server space? To be in a catalogue, some minimum of information has got to be known on an object.
I agree. With numbers like that if a teenager sets about systematically adding such objects, and works unhindered by deletionists on only that for the rest of a long life he will still have barely scratched the surface of the topic. At 10 articles per person per day it would probably take 2000 editors with that kind of dedication to get it all. The practical implication is that only a small fraction of these objects can be added in the foreseeable future. We can only hope that priority will be attached to the most important ones, but if someone feels inspired to add everything he runs into he should feel free to do so. If doing so requires him to produce a list of some sort with a lot of red links it should inspire another user to add more.
Ec
On 06/03/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
*"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items."
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
Those are now held by the British museum. 150 million is books and book like items (pamphlets and maps for example)
*"the Internet Movie Database claims to have records on 549,131 titles and 2,280,301 names."
We definitely want that level of depth I think. Particularly since we can at least cite the IMDB for all of them...
IMDB is kinda dicey see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb
geni wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
*"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items."
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
Those are now held by the British museum. 150 million is books and book like items (pamphlets and maps for example)
The back rooms of museums in general are one of the world's great underutilized resources. Recently the Royal Ontario Museum managed to find a skeleton of a T-Rex that it forgot it had. Ideally we should have holographic images of every museum artifact in the world.
Ec
On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The back rooms of museums in general are one of the world's great underutilized resources. Recently the Royal Ontario Museum managed to find a skeleton of a T-Rex that it forgot it had. Ideally we should have holographic images of every museum artifact in the world.
Commons does not support whatever Blender stores it's files as which would be about the only open format for such data I can think of.
Getting access to the vaults of museums is an area where realistically we need functioning chapters backed with some foundation influence.. Sure technically there are ways a private individual could get into them but only limited areas and the amount you could so in a session would be limited.
In any case we haven't finished mining what is on public display yet. With the even standard digital camera getting better low light capabilities working through the whole of say the [[Pitt Rivers Museum]] could be an option if we could put together a large enough party of wikipedians.
Other attack lines are university collections where we should be able to find students at the university to get things moving (universities may not like students taking an interest but there isn't much they can do about it).
geni wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The back rooms of museums in general are one of the world's great underutilized resources. Recently the Royal Ontario Museum managed to find a skeleton of a T-Rex that it forgot it had. Ideally we should have holographic images of every museum artifact in the world.
Commons does not support whatever Blender stores it's files as which would be about the only open format for such data I can think of.
Getting access to the vaults of museums is an area where realistically we need functioning chapters backed with some foundation influence.. Sure technically there are ways a private individual could get into them but only limited areas and the amount you could so in a session would be limited.
In any case we haven't finished mining what is on public display yet. With the even standard digital camera getting better low light capabilities working through the whole of say the [[Pitt Rivers Museum]] could be an option if we could put together a large enough party of wikipedians.
Other attack lines are university collections where we should be able to find students at the university to get things moving (universities may not like students taking an interest but there isn't much they can do about it).
That's a more positive attitude! :-*
It's too easy to get discouraged by the enormous proportions of the task. Large museums (like Pitt Rivers) are problematical because of the amount of paperwork covering the artifacts. Small volunteer-run museums are often in a desperate state because of a lack of resources and expertise. They often can do little except watch items rot away before their eyes. As a starting point they might be more amenable to a win-win arrangement.
The Mormons are renowned for going to local churches and microfilming parish records. Outsiders may view their motivations as peculiar, but we cannot dismiss their contribution to record preservation.
Ec
On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's a more positive attitude! :-*
It's too easy to get discouraged by the enormous proportions of the task. Large museums (like Pitt Rivers) are problematical because of the amount of paperwork covering the artifacts.
With museums like Pitt Rivers you just photograph everything in the display cabinets wait a few years and repeat. Need a decent low light camera mind.
Small volunteer-run museums are often in a desperate state because of a lack of resources and expertise. They often can do little except watch items rot away before their eyes. As a starting point they might be more amenable to a win-win arrangement.
We are not experts in preservation and don't have the funds to support it.
The Mormons are renowned for going to local churches and microfilming parish records. Outsiders may view their motivations as peculiar, but we cannot dismiss their contribution to record preservation.
Scanning records a separate issue and requires a different approach. Photographing something without damage is fairly easy. Scanning without damage is hard. While technically the Hasselblad H3D-39 can take photos of A2 sized objects with a resolution of about 300DPI the price tag is over $30K. The upshot of this is that we are mostly going to be limited to scanning fairly common stuff or stuff that we or friends and relatives actually own since most collections are likely to be worried about damage.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
*"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items."
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
Those are now held by the British museum. 150 million is books and book like items (pamphlets and maps for example)
The back rooms of museums in general are one of the world's great underutilized resources. Recently the Royal Ontario Museum managed to find a skeleton of a T-Rex that it forgot it had. Ideally we should have holographic images of every museum artifact in the world.
Sorry, my error. It wasn't a T-rex but on of the huge plant eating dinosaurs.
Ec
This has topic-drifted like mad, so please excuse this as being a collection of utterly unrelated material.
One of the things that has bothered me is the way in which Wikipedia has tended to attempt to take over from more specialized efforts which are surely more authoritative than anything we can produce. I've seen this in a lot of science and transportation subjects, as (for instance) the tendency to write articles on every train station that ever existed, and then put in all information short of actual arrival and departure times. This stuff is high maintenance and particularly where there is an official site, any sensible person should prefer that over us. It would be nice to come up with some way to turn ourselves into a portal to the good (meaning reliable) stuff for these subjects.
As far as AGF is concerned: someone way up the chain hit the main reason. In decades of on-line discussion, I've found no principle more destructive than the "sovereign right to take offense". Even true trolling is not as bad (and it seems to me that most of what is called "trolling" these days is actually the SRtTO). In order to for you to make rational discussion, it is necessary for you to view your opponent as someone you could discuss things with rationally.
The flip side is that the visibility of Wikipedia means that there are way too many people who have something (malign) to gain from gaming it. The obvious result is that bad faith is increasingly abundant; the less obvious result is that the resulting urge to conduct a crusade against bad faith leads people to self-righteous responses. There are a lot of subjects which one probably shouldn't edit over long periods, because the POV warring is so strong that it is eventually possible not to be contaminated by it.
Which leads me to something that will undoubtedly rub some people the wrong way. Wikiprojects attract people who love the subject in question. This is always a recipe for some bias, as (for example) people in the Trains Wikiproject are likely to have positive leanings towards trains, and perhaps especially the trains of their native land/region/railroad. I don't know how much we can do about that, as banning projects or other overt associations isn't going to stop people from associating. The ones that worry me are those that are formed around advocacy points, and especially those addressing current controversies. For instance, one can go to the Intelligent Design project page and see complaints that it (and therefore the articles under its sway) are owned by committed secular Darwinists. We also have project on LGBT studies and on animal rights which surely must function as rallying points for those who support the same. Argument about how accurate these perceptions are is a bit beside the point; if the projects themselves are free of bias, there are surely subcommunities of editors who aren't.
I don't have a nice summary to tie all this together, so I'll just top here.
The Mangoe wrote:
This has topic-drifted like mad, so please excuse this as being a collection of utterly unrelated material.
One of the things that has bothered me is the way in which Wikipedia has tended to attempt to take over from more specialized efforts which are surely more authoritative than anything we can produce.
Unless these specialized efforts are also NPOV and under the GFDL (or similar CC licence) there really is a benefit to be gained in reinventing that particular wheel.
It would be nice to come up with some way to turn ourselves into a portal to the good (meaning reliable) stuff for these subjects.
In terms of being able to organize and integrate the information it's hard to beat the benefit of simply incorporating it directly into Wikipedia.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The Mangoe wrote:
This has topic-drifted like mad, so please excuse this as being a collection of utterly unrelated material.
One of the things that has bothered me is the way in which Wikipedia has tended to attempt to take over from more specialized efforts which are surely more authoritative than anything we can produce.
Unless these specialized efforts are also NPOV and under the GFDL (or similar CC licence) there really is a benefit to be gained in reinventing that particular wheel.
Spell it out, then. My sense on a lot of these topics is that we are simply a mirror inferior to the original.
It would be nice to come up with some way to turn ourselves into a portal to the good (meaning reliable) stuff for these subjects.
In terms of being able to organize and integrate the information it's hard to beat the benefit of simply incorporating it directly into Wikipedia.
I greatly disagree. Our ability to organize data is limited by our presentation structures. Database-like presentation of tabular data is something we cannot do, but people will continue to write a page on each datum involved because that's what our structure encourages. Regardless of its accuracy, IMDB will probably be a better source, because it is specialized for that particular field. The same is inevitably going to be true of many other fields. Right now we're talking about converting the article on US lighthouses into a sortable table. The problem we are going to run into is that there are well over a thousand entries. There are already several other such directories out there, and about the only thing I can really say that we offer over them is legally plagiarizable text and the correction of certain inaccuracies.
On 3/7/08, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
"sovereign right to take offense"
Can you expand this term a bit? Google comes up empty.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/03/2008, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/7/08, Oldak Quill wrote:
Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms' length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
A selection: *"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct astronomical objects searchable online."
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is known on it? I doubt it.
According to [[Guide Star Catalog II]], "998,402,801 coordinate entries... and has positions, classifications, and magnitudes for 455,851,237 objects". Each one also has imaging data associated with it. So that's hundreds of millions of viable article subjects.
*"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items."
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
As geni said, these are "books and book like items". A good percentage make viable article subjects.
*"The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) GEOnet Names Server contains approximately 3.88 million named"
Named what?
Names of geographical objects.
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
Again, presumably many of their structures are known (to know that they are molecules), their names, their discoverers, their context, &c.
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
On Thursday 06 March 2008 16:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is known on it?
Yes. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
We do. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Thursday 06 March 2008 16:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is known on it?
Yes. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
We do. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
Kurt,
If it exists... it may not be a legit subject if it does not meet the requirements for inclusion, and / or the community does not want it included (via our AFD, for example). This is how our project works as of the moment.
./scream
On Thursday 06 March 2008 23:24, Screamer wrote:
Kurt,
If it exists... it may not be a legit subject if it does not meet the requirements for inclusion,
The proper requirement for inclusion--the only legitimate requirement--is simple verifiable existence.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Thursday 06 March 2008 23:24, Screamer wrote:
Kurt,
If it exists... it may not be a legit subject if it does not meet the requirements for inclusion,
The proper requirement for inclusion--the only legitimate requirement--is simple verifiable existence.
I'm going to start a bio on myself... lets see how long that stays. I, as a subject won't meet the inclusion standard and would be deleted shortly. Just an example.
./scream
On Friday 07 March 2008 05:34, Screamer wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Thursday 06 March 2008 23:24, Screamer wrote:
Kurt,
If it exists... it may not be a legit subject if it does not meet the requirements for inclusion,
The proper requirement for inclusion--the only legitimate requirement--is simple verifiable existence.
I'm going to start a bio on myself... lets see how long that stays. I, as a subject won't meet the inclusion standard and would be deleted shortly. Just an example.
Are you familiar with the is/ought fallacy?
Just because it WILL probably be deleted (you're right about that) doesn't mean it *should* be deleted.
That's what I'm talking about--what the PROPER, LEGITIMATE criteria for inclusion are, not what the current, illegitimate, de facto criteria are at the moment.
Screamer wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Thursday 06 March 2008 23:24, Screamer wrote:
If it exists... it may not be a legit subject if it does not meet the requirements for inclusion,
The proper requirement for inclusion--the only legitimate requirement--is simple verifiable existence.
I'm going to start a bio on myself... lets see how long that stays. I, as a subject won't meet the inclusion standard and would be deleted shortly. Just an example.
But that would not be because you're illegitimate. BLP and COI might be more important factors.
Ec
On 3/6/08, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Yes. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
If it exists... it may not be a legit subject if it does not meet the requirements for inclusion, and / or the community does not want it included...
And naturally, there's only one way to find out.
—C.W.
Just what is the difference between "does not meet the requirements for inclusion, " and " the community does not want it included..." ?
Perhaps you mean, whether or not it means the requirements that the community has put into formal guidelines, and whether or not it meets the idiosyncratic feeling at the time?
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/08, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Yes. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
If it exists... it may not be a legit subject if it does not meet the requirements for inclusion, and / or the community does not want it included...
And naturally, there's only one way to find out.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
Just what is the difference between "does not meet the requirements for inclusion, "
No assertion of notability on a BLP
and " the community does not want it included..." ?
A consensus of DELETE on articles for deletion.
Perhaps you mean, whether or not it means the requirements that the community has put into formal guidelines, and whether or not it meets the idiosyncratic feeling at the time?
No, I mean the clarification above.
./scream
Screamer, you seem to have confused a number of things. The assertion of notability requirement for does not apply specifically to BLPs--it applies to any articles about people or some kinds of groups or web content that do not assert or indicate some plausible notability or importance. Meeting it does not provide that the article be kept, it just provides that it not be speedily deleted as obviously impossible altogether. It can further be contested by anyone except the author. It's just a shortcut requirement to get things quickly deleted that do not warrant a discussion.
What you are probably thinking of is the provision for summary deletion of BLPs as "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. " as enacted by arb com at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnje...
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
Just what is the difference between "does not meet the requirements for inclusion, "
No assertion of notability on a BLP
and " the community does not want it included..." ?
A consensus of DELETE on articles for deletion.
Perhaps you mean, whether or not it means the requirements that the community has put into formal guidelines, and whether or not it meets the idiosyncratic feeling at the time?
No, I mean the clarification above.
./scream
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
Screamer, you seem to have confused a number of things. The assertion of notability requirement for does not apply specifically to BLPs--it applies to any articles about people or some kinds of groups or web content that do not assert or indicate some plausible notability or importance. Meeting it does not provide that the article be kept, it just provides that it not be speedily deleted as obviously impossible altogether. It can further be contested by anyone except the author. It's just a shortcut requirement to get things quickly deleted that do not warrant a discussion.
What you are probably thinking of is the provision for summary deletion of BLPs as "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. " as enacted by arb com at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnje...
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I'm not confused, I was only giving you a very specific example. I contested nothing you just stated.
So... how do you address my examples in regards to your earlier argument? since we got off topic.
./scream
David Goodman wrote:
Screamer, you seem to have confused a number of things. The assertion of notability requirement for does not apply specifically to BLPs--it applies to any articles about people or some kinds of groups or web content that do not assert or indicate some plausible notability or importance. Meeting it does not provide that the article be kept, it just provides that it not be speedily deleted as obviously impossible altogether. It can further be contested by anyone except the author. It's just a shortcut requirement to get things quickly deleted that do not warrant a discussion.
What you are probably thinking of is the provision for summary deletion of BLPs as "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. " as enacted by arb com at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnje...
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
Just what is the difference between "does not meet the requirements for inclusion, "
No assertion of notability on a BLP
and " the community does not want it included..." ?
A consensus of DELETE on articles for deletion.
Perhaps you mean, whether or not it means the requirements that the community has put into formal guidelines, and whether or not it meets the idiosyncratic feeling at the time?
No, I mean the clarification above.
./scream
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David,
And you seem to be confused about my example. I'll clarify, an article about myself won't at this time meet the a requirement for inclusion, because at this time, it won't assert any notability. I'm not a notable person, I've done nothing to make myself notable. There are no sources about me. This was my very specific example to answer your question.
La boule est dans votre cour.
./scream
If knew your true name, i could test that independently. A number of people have made that claim in wikipedia, including some about whom articles were upheld at AfD even over their objections.
As for what you said, I agree that not all humans should be in Wikipedia. I am not myself sure what the boundary ought to be.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
Screamer, you seem to have confused a number of things. The assertion of notability requirement for does not apply specifically to BLPs--it applies to any articles about people or some kinds of groups or web content that do not assert or indicate some plausible notability or importance. Meeting it does not provide that the article be kept, it just provides that it not be speedily deleted as obviously impossible altogether. It can further be contested by anyone except the author. It's just a shortcut requirement to get things quickly deleted that do not warrant a discussion.
What you are probably thinking of is the provision for summary deletion of BLPs as "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. " as enacted by arb com at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnje...
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
Just what is the difference between "does not meet the requirements for inclusion, "
No assertion of notability on a BLP
and " the community does not want it included..." ?
A consensus of DELETE on articles for deletion.
Perhaps you mean, whether or not it means the requirements that the community has put into formal guidelines, and whether or not it meets the idiosyncratic feeling at the time?
No, I mean the clarification above.
./scream
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David,
And you seem to be confused about my example. I'll clarify, an article about myself won't at this time meet the a requirement for inclusion, because at this time, it won't assert any notability. I'm not a notable person, I've done nothing to make myself notable. There are no sources about me. This was my very specific example to answer your question.
La boule est dans votre cour.
./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You tempt me to give you my name. I'd be interested in an independent test. But I live a small life, maybe sometimes in the future, I can do something notable. :)
./scream
David Goodman wrote:
If knew your true name, i could test that independently. A number of people have made that claim in wikipedia, including some about whom articles were upheld at AfD even over their objections.
As for what you said, I agree that not all humans should be in Wikipedia. I am not myself sure what the boundary ought to be.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
Screamer, you seem to have confused a number of things. The assertion of notability requirement for does not apply specifically to BLPs--it applies to any articles about people or some kinds of groups or web content that do not assert or indicate some plausible notability or importance. Meeting it does not provide that the article be kept, it just provides that it not be speedily deleted as obviously impossible altogether. It can further be contested by anyone except the author. It's just a shortcut requirement to get things quickly deleted that do not warrant a discussion.
What you are probably thinking of is the provision for summary deletion of BLPs as "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. " as enacted by arb com at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnje...
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
Just what is the difference between "does not meet the requirements for inclusion, "
No assertion of notability on a BLP
and " the community does not want it included..." ?
A consensus of DELETE on articles for deletion.
Perhaps you mean, whether or not it means the requirements that the community has put into formal guidelines, and whether or not it meets the idiosyncratic feeling at the time?
No, I mean the clarification above.
./scream
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David,
And you seem to be confused about my example. I'll clarify, an article about myself won't at this time meet the a requirement for inclusion, because at this time, it won't assert any notability. I'm not a notable person, I've done nothing to make myself notable. There are no sources about me. This was my very specific example to answer your question.
La boule est dans votre cour.
./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Screamer wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Thursday 06 March 2008 16:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
Kurt,
If it exists... it may not be a legit subject if it does not meet the requirements for inclusion, and / or the community does not want it included (via our AFD, for example). This is how our project works as of the moment.
It is not the purpose of AfD to glorify ignorance. Rules are the lid that you put on a box to keep people from looking outside.
Ec
On 07/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Thursday 06 March 2008 16:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is known on it?
Yes. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
No if a reasonable amount has be written about it then is may be the subject of an article?
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
We do. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
No if someone has written a reasonable amount about it then maybe otherwise no.
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
How much do you know about modern organic synthesis?
geni wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
How much do you know about modern organic synthesis?
A person interested in astronomy would probably have limited knowledge about organic synthesis. He would go ahead with adding stellar objects without spending much time on organic chemicals. He is able to admit that he knows nothing about organic chemicals, trusts that others are better versed in that subject, and lets them work in their own chosen field. He does not limit his world view to what he can see from his closed box.
He peers out of his telescope and sees stellar objects named organic chemistry, pottery shards, and pop culture and does not pretend that he can reach out and affect the motion of those stellar objects.
Ec
On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
How much do you know about modern organic synthesis?
A person interested in astronomy would probably have limited knowledge about organic synthesis. He would go ahead with adding stellar objects without spending much time on organic chemicals. He is able to admit that he knows nothing about organic chemicals, trusts that others are better versed in that subject, and lets them work in their own chosen field. He does not limit his world view to what he can see from his closed box.
He peers out of his telescope and sees stellar objects named organic chemistry, pottery shards, and pop culture and does not pretend that he can reach out and affect the motion of those stellar objects.
Ec
The problem is that due to modern organic techniques it is quite possible to create very large numbers of chemicals in a very short length of time. This is generaly used in combination with very narrow screening so unless you think "Chemical X does not inhibit cell function y" is a valid article you can't write articles on every single chemical. What you instead do is white about chemical families. You start with say bycyclo[2,2,2]octane then you have an article about the bycyclo[2,2,2]octane derivatives that contain biphenyls and then if there is enough info derivative of those. What you don't attempt is to write an separate article for every single chemical.
On Friday 07 March 2008 15:27, geni wrote:
The problem is that due to modern organic techniques it is quite possible to create very large numbers of chemicals in a very short length of time. This is generaly used in combination with very narrow screening so unless you think "Chemical X does not inhibit cell function y" is a valid article
It is.
What you don't attempt is to write an separate article for every single chemical.
Why not?
On 07/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Friday 07 March 2008 15:27, geni wrote:
The problem is that due to modern organic techniques it is quite possible to create very large numbers of chemicals in a very short length of time. This is generaly used in combination with very narrow screening so unless you think "Chemical X does not inhibit cell function y" is a valid article
It is.
What you don't attempt is to write an separate article for every single chemical.
Why not?
Because perma-substubs are pretty much useless and if the article reads "Chemical X has a positive dielectric anisotropy of 0.1" then for fairly obvious reasons the chemical is unlikely to be the target of future research so little hope for expansion. An article about the family of chemicals it is part of is far far more useful.
On 07/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
perma-substubs are pretty much useless
That may be true, but a nonexistent article is totally useless.
Maybe I was wrong, but I thought our goal was to collect all human knowledge.
On 07/03/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
perma-substubs are pretty much useless
That may be true, but a nonexistent article is totally useless.
Maybe I was wrong, but I thought our goal was to collect all human knowledge.
Yes but individual articles are not a useful way to present the info. General form of presentation in journals tends to be some form of table.
On 07/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
perma-substubs are pretty much useless
That may be true, but a nonexistent article is totally useless.
Maybe I was wrong, but I thought our goal was to collect all human knowledge.
Apologies for the double post. Gmail said it hadn't sent it the first time...
On 07/03/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
perma-substubs are pretty much useless
That may be true, but a nonexistent article is totally useless.
Maybe I was wrong, but I thought our goal was to collect all human knowledge.
geni wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical
compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
How much do you know about modern organic synthesis?
A person interested in astronomy would probably have limited knowledge about organic synthesis. He would go ahead with adding stellar objects without spending much time on organic chemicals. He is able to admit that he knows nothing about organic chemicals, trusts that others are better versed in that subject, and lets them work in their own chosen field. He does not limit his world view to what he can see from his closed box.
He peers out of his telescope and sees stellar objects named organic chemistry, pottery shards, and pop culture and does not pretend that he can reach out and affect the motion of those stellar objects.
The problem is that due to modern organic techniques it is quite possible to create very large numbers of chemicals in a very short length of time. This is generaly used in combination with very narrow screening so unless you think "Chemical X does not inhibit cell function y" is a valid article you can't write articles on every single chemical. What you instead do is white about chemical families. You start with say bycyclo[2,2,2]octane then you have an article about the bycyclo[2,2,2]octane derivatives that contain biphenyls and then if there is enough info derivative of those. What you don't attempt is to write an separate article for every single chemical.
Trust me, I'm not about to start writing up chemicals. I don't know enough about them to work on that, and I need to trust others. Chemicals which are only theoretical possibilities without any record of their having ever been synthesized probably do not merit inclusion. One can hypothesize that a basic carbon chain can include an infinitely long carbon string, but beyond some point it's only make-believe.
Ec
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Thursday 06 March 2008 16:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is known on it?
Yes. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery fragment or piece of flint.
We do. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
This is quite an extremist opinion, with which many people would have huge problems.
I exist. But I'm not a legitimate subject for an article.
--Oskar
On Friday 07 March 2008 02:19, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
This is quite an extremist opinion, with which many people would have huge problems.
I'm aware of that. So what?
I exist. But I'm not a legitimate subject for an article.
Yes, you are.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Friday 07 March 2008 02:19, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
This is quite an extremist opinion, with which many people would have huge problems.
I'm aware of that. So what?
I exist. But I'm not a legitimate subject for an article.
Yes, you are.
Are you aware of our policy and guidelines regarding , for example, notability? Additionally, if the community does not want an article included, say via AFD, is it still a legit article? How do you address that?
./scream
On Friday 07 March 2008 11:09, Screamer wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Friday 07 March 2008 02:19, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
This is quite an extremist opinion, with which many people would have huge problems.
I'm aware of that. So what?
I exist. But I'm not a legitimate subject for an article.
Yes, you are.
Are you aware of our policy and guidelines regarding , for example, notability? Additionally, if the community does not want an article included, say via AFD, is it still a legit article? How do you address that?
Simple: our "policies" (which are merely descriptive of past tendencies, and carry no actual normative weight anyway--they're not *REALLY* policies in the normal sense of the word) and the AfD outcomes are wrong.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Friday 07 March 2008 11:09, Screamer wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Friday 07 March 2008 02:19, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
This is quite an extremist opinion, with which many people would have huge problems.
I'm aware of that. So what?
I exist. But I'm not a legitimate subject for an article.
Yes, you are.
Are you aware of our policy and guidelines regarding , for example, notability? Additionally, if the community does not want an article included, say via AFD, is it still a legit article? How do you address that?
Simple: our "policies" (which are merely descriptive of past tendencies, and carry no actual normative weight anyway--they're not *REALLY* policies in the normal sense of the word) and the AfD outcomes are wrong.
And the sky is not *really* blue tinted. Forgive my parallel. The policy has weight, and is enforceable. We have IAR, yes, but largely - the policy is enforceable. Until it is changed. Perhaps you could start a talk page discussion with the suggestions, I would go comment on it.
AFD outcomes are always wrong? How do you address this?
./scream
On 06/03/2008, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms' length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
A selection: *"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct astronomical objects searchable online."
Much of which will not have enough info for a substub.
*"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items."
Including rather a lot of fiction. Ever tried to get a copy of something they hold? Not cheap.
*"Genbank, an online database of DNA sequences from over 165,000 species , has over 46 million entries"
Not every DNA sequence has had enough written about it for an article.
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
Doesn't mean much. Parallel synthesis techniques mean that organic compounds can be produce at a very high rate most of which will appear in a table in one paper.
*"the Internet Movie Database claims to have records on 549,131 titles and 2,280,301 names."
Yeah but that includes porn movies which we generally don't find much in the way of worthwhile sources on.
Lists of named places and bios are reasonable. Comparisons other large databases are going to tend to be less so.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 06/03/2008, David Gerard wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Wily D wrote:
Even today, as a vetern user of a couple years, I find it very easy to edit articles and only run into helpful, friendly people. I just follow a few simple rules.
I've been creating articles. It's fun. Today I started [[List of Ecma standards]], which (a) needs completion (b) needs articles on each standard.
It's not a matter of Wikipedia having all the "low-hanging fruit" - we have all the fruit that's fallen off the tree. Twenty million topics have been identified as being within arms' reach ...
Two million? We've barely started.
Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms' length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
A selection: *"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct astronomical objects searchable online." *"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items." *"Genbank, an online database of DNA sequences from over 165,000 species , has over 46 million entries" *"The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) GEOnet Names Server contains approximately 3.88 million named" *"Thomson-Gale's Biography Resource Center contains over 1,335,000 biographies." *"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds." *"the Internet Movie Database claims to have records on 549,131 titles and 2,280,301 names."
It's great that some people recognize the size of the task at hand. I would add that a single monthly periodical publication that lasts for a century at 100 pages per month will generate 120,000 pages of material during that time. At 200 words per page that's already 24,000,000 words. That's alrady bigger than the /"Enciclopedia universal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_universal_ilustrada_europeo-americana". /All our notability debates do nothing to cope with the massive amount of data that is available. I've lately been buying up bound 19th century periodicals very cheap; One of the latest ones has been about 50 annual reprint volumes of "Gentleman's Magazine" at roughly $1.00 each . Libraries can't keep up with the storage, and the smart ones at least salvage a little cash by selling them on line. With many others it's a short trip to the dumpster.
Material that lacks notability is mostly harmless. Some of it can be the seed for some future bigger article in the distant future when it gets someone wondering. In the big scheme of things it does not take up a lot of disk space, but the arguments about deleting it take up far more disk space.
When presented in a respectful way that gives everyone a chance to respond, there is no argument over notability. In an atmosphere of trust nobody feels so beset by rapid-fire tagging, because they are confident that the deletion proposals have been carefully reviewed by humans with a sense of judgement. They don't have to feel like Lucille Ball in the chocolate factory.
A rule of thumb for the deletionists might be: For every article that you delete you must add one. Given the professedly high standards upon which someone relies for deletion, one should be able to expect that that person's inclusion standards will be just as high.
Ec
On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A rule of thumb for the deletionists might be: For every article that you delete you must add one. Given the professedly high standards upon which someone relies for deletion, one should be able to expect that that person's inclusion standards will be just as high.
Not really practical given the number of copyvios we delete daily.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:14 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not really practical given the number of copyvios we delete daily.
OK - remove copyright violations and blatant spam and nonsense, then.
-Matt
On 07/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A rule of thumb for the deletionists might be: For every article that you delete you must add one. Given the professedly high standards upon which someone relies for deletion, one should be able to expect that that person's inclusion standards will be just as high.
Not really practical given the number of copyvios we delete daily.
I would have thought it obvious from the context of the thread that we're talking about AFD/"notability" deletions here.
- d.
geni wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A rule of thumb for the deletionists might be: For every article that you delete you must add one. Given the professedly high standards upon which someone relies for deletion, one should be able to expect that that person's inclusion standards will be just as high.
Not really practical given the number of copyvios we delete daily.
If it was only about copyvios we would probably not be having this discussion. I don't mind even narrowing my criteria down to deletions for lack of notability.
Ec
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2008, David Gerard wrote:
Two million? We've barely started.
Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms' length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
See also the latest episode of WikipediaWeekly (partial transcript at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode42#Growth_of_W... plus a few replies on its talkpage.
The longer I spend at Wikipedia (3 years now, not bad), the more I grow to favour Inclusionism, Mergism, and Incrementalism. They seem to be the most optimistic and practical way to continue dreaming big. (which is why I and everyone I know contributes. big dreams)
Deletionists are the main cause of harm to both our "community/ies" and our public image.
"a man's reach should exceed his grasp" or else what are we for?
(As best expressed in the recent piece by Nicholson Baker/wageless: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131
Quiddity
We have a lot of causes of harm to our public image, and as far deletion and inclusion are concerned, there is really no way that we can win public approval. Our notability debates reflect those in the real world, and we will always be criticized for being elitist and indiscriminate.
I do think that "Wikipedia is not a directory" is not being taken seriously enough. Between all the football players, census data, and other such directory data, we are creating an unmaintainable mess. Wikipedia's model rewards people who create new articles, as you can tell by reading AfD. Whether it will reward the considerable work needed to keep all these articles up to date is at the very least questionable. The angst over the fair-use-rationale image deletion crusade suggests that it won't.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 2:28 AM, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
The longer I spend at Wikipedia (3 years now, not bad), the more I grow to favour Inclusionism, Mergism, and Incrementalism. They seem to be the most optimistic and practical way to continue dreaming big. (which is why I and everyone I know contributes. big dreams)
Deletionists are the main cause of harm to both our "community/ies" and our public image.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:02 AM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I do think that "Wikipedia is not a directory" is not being taken seriously enough. Between all the football players, census data, and other such directory data, we are creating an unmaintainable mess. Wikipedia's model rewards people who create new articles, as you can tell by reading AfD. Whether it will reward the considerable work needed to keep all these articles up to date is at the very least questionable. The angst over the fair-use-rationale image deletion crusade suggests that it won't.
I think over the long term you underestimate our abilities. There are plenty of obsessives and fans out there to maintain most things.
Although I do think that our deletion criteria should have more to do with maintainability and less to do with peoples' abstract ideas of what they think a Serious Encyclopedia should contain.
-Matt
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Sarah commented that it seemed like there was much more spirit, much more drive to do something good back when she started in 2004. I think that has more to do with the fact that she was just starting out, more than the relative peacefulness of that year. All of us here are old dogs, who reads about every controversy and have definite views on most issues that come up. Most of the community isn't like that.
That's what commitment is all about, but I think we lack leadership and vision. Jimbo provided this when the project was younger, but the project has gone well beyond that. NPOV, open access, and inclusiveness are great principles but in the absence of leadership and vision these are more difficult to accomplish. Perhaps what some of us see as a more fractious environment is more an inability to see where we are going.
I have a friend who started out a month or two ago, and he still feels what Sarah felt in 2004. He has gotten into a few arguements, but they have been settled amicably (everyone Aed GF) and he still feels that initial rush that all of us felt in the beginning; the joys of contributing. Doubtless, in six months or so, he will have been properly disillusioned and in two years he will be wondering what happened with all the civility there was in early 2008.
This is a very interesting observation. Since last month's newbie wasn't here in 2004 he judges the norm by what he see now, without any reference point in what it used to be. Templating, strict referencing and boilerplate image tags were not there in those days. The newbie's norms are different since they include them from the beginning. A person returning now after 3 or more years of absence would find the environment much different from what he knew. The 18-month burnout, which AFAIK is only anecdotal, has a ring of truth, and could be the basis for an interesting sociological study. The old dogs are the ones who have managed their way through the 18-month crisis, and still stick around.
Ec
On 06/03/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Möller wrote in another thread:
"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."
Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue.
I think a key word in that quote that people seem to be missing is "margins". The vast majority of the community are not a problem (at least, not a big one, we're far from perfect, of course), the recent issues have been caused by a tiny minority of destructive individuals. We should do what we can to prevent such individuals causing problems, but they'll always be there somewhere.
Why? We shouldn't care that much about the "community". Caring about such nebulous things as the "community" and its "ideals" is one of the reasons why the social-networking side of WP gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia. I personally try never to use the word "community". "Project" is more correct. If you think about the difference between those words, you'll realise why your concerns are almost certainly irrelevant.
RR
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:30 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/03/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Why? We shouldn't care that much about the "community". Caring about such nebulous things as the "community" and its "ideals" is one of the reasons why the social-networking side of WP gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia. I personally try never to use the word "community". "Project" is more correct. If you think about the difference between those words, you'll realise why your concerns are almost certainly irrelevant.
I don't think you can dismiss the community (as a thing or as an idea) that easily. I've always thought of "project" to be inclusive of the encyclopaedia and the community. The encyclopaedia and the community cannot be separated - they intimately rely on each other. Most of the things that increase community cohesion and support the social aspects of Wikipedia have a positive effect on the encyclopaedia. The most important reason for this is that people will contribute to something more often and more regularly if they feel part of a community and feel that they are furthering the aims of that community.
This is why I never understood the big deal over userboxes. As a thing which improves social-aspects of Wikipedia and turns a User: into a person, it is bound to have a positive effect on the encyclopaedia.
on 3/6/08 9:23 AM, Relata Refero at refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Why? We shouldn't care that much about the "community". Caring about such nebulous things as the "community" and its "ideals" is one of the reasons why the social-networking side of WP gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia. I personally try never to use the word "community". "Project" is more correct. If you think about the difference between those words, you'll realise why your concerns are almost certainly irrelevant.
RR
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:30 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
The above post by Relata Refero is a good example of what you are up against asking the questions you are asking. And, unfortunately, it's all too typical: People having a much more comfortable time dealing with 1s & 0s than with other people.
Marc Riddell
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/6/08 9:23 AM, Relata Refero at refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Why? We shouldn't care that much about the "community". Caring about
such
nebulous things as the "community" and its "ideals" is one of the
reasons
why the social-networking side of WP gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia. I personally try never to use the word "community".
"Project"
is more correct. If you think about the difference between those words, you'll realise why your concerns are almost certainly irrelevant.
RR
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:30 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
The above post by Relata Refero is a good example of what you are up against asking the questions you are asking. And, unfortunately, it's all too typical: People having a much more comfortable time dealing with 1s & 0s than with other people.
Marc Riddell
I think that's vaguely insulting, actually. More to the point, its a spectacular assumption about my personal habits based on a statement I made about institutional structures. Either way, it would be normally quite unhelpful - except that its actually more than a little illustrative of my point.
RR
That's because, Marc, 1s and 0s matter more to Wikipedia than people do. Some scandal splits the community? Half of everyone leaves in despair? Doesn't matter, we can just draft in new populations - probably of higher quality than the current population, too.
Besides, I doubt whether there really was a time when the community ever did march unitedly behind the banner of one set of "ideals". It's obvious that, even from the start, our founders had different visions of what Wikipedia was - and what Wikipedia should become. No point harking back to an imaginary Golden Age.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:54:34 -0500 From: michaeldavid86@comcast.net To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] What is happening to the community
on 3/6/08 9:23 AM, Relata Refero at refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Why? We shouldn't care that much about the "community". Caring about such nebulous things as the "community" and its "ideals" is one of the reasons why the social-networking side of WP gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia. I personally try never to use the word "community". "Project" is more correct. If you think about the difference between those words, you'll realise why your concerns are almost certainly irrelevant.
RR
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:30 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
The above post by Relata Refero is a good example of what you are up against asking the questions you are asking. And, unfortunately, it's all too typical: People having a much more comfortable time dealing with 1s & 0s than with other people.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. http://www.searchgamesbox.com
Good observations, Christiano. As for me, I have said just about all that I can say about the Project's attitude toward its people. I do know this - after a professional lifetime working with talented, creative people - that the emotionally healthy ones do not react well to being treated as an afterthought. The final proof of all of this will be in the quality, not the quantity, of the work.
Marc
on 3/6/08 4:56 PM, Christiano Moreschi at moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
That's because, Marc, 1s and 0s matter more to Wikipedia than people do. Some scandal splits the community? Half of everyone leaves in despair? Doesn't matter, we can just draft in new populations - probably of higher quality than the current population, too.
Besides, I doubt whether there really was a time when the community ever did march unitedly behind the banner of one set of "ideals". It's obvious that, even from the start, our founders had different visions of what Wikipedia was
- and what Wikipedia should become. No point harking back to an imaginary
Golden Age.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:54:34 -0500 From: michaeldavid86@comcast.net To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] What is happening to the community
on 3/6/08 9:23 AM, Relata Refero at refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Why? We shouldn't care that much about the "community". Caring about such nebulous things as the "community" and its "ideals" is one of the reasons why the social-networking side of WP gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia. I personally try never to use the word "community". "Project" is more correct. If you think about the difference between those words, you'll realise why your concerns are almost certainly irrelevant.
RR
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:30 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to help save and protect this community and its ideals?
Sarah
Sarah,
The above post by Relata Refero is a good example of what you are up against asking the questions you are asking. And, unfortunately, it's all too typical: People having a much more comfortable time dealing with 1s & 0s than with other people.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. http://www.searchgamesbox.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/6/08, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Doesn't matter, we can just draft in new populations - probably of higher quality than the current population, too.
Yay, meat-puppets! No, seriously I've tried to introduce new people to Wikipedia, but the invariable response was "looks pretty stupid".
The ability to motivate others has never been a personal strength of mine, and the ability to keep people from quitting in disgust has never been a strength of the project.
But we should still aspire to do both.
—C.W.
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
That's because, Marc, 1s and 0s matter more to Wikipedia than people do. Some scandal splits the community? Half of everyone leaves in despair? Doesn't matter, we can just draft in new populations - probably of higher quality than the current population, too.
If you think that these new people will magically be of higher quality, you are probably caught in a daydream. Each brings his own baggage about what an encyclopedia should be, and none of the experience about how we got here.
Besides, I doubt whether there really was a time when the community ever did march unitedly behind the banner of one set of "ideals". It's obvious that, even from the start, our founders had different visions of what Wikipedia was - and what Wikipedia should become. No point harking back to an imaginary Golden Age.
Wikipedia grew well beyond the vision of the founders. Most great ideas never come close to their founders' visions, if they get off the ground at all. It would be great to hear Jimbo reflect on how big he expected the project to get at the time it was started.
Ec