My cellphone spellchecker substituted "faith" for "fact". I was
trying to
encourage the use of your approach.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 06:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When
they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV!
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite
project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes,
supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as
satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During
<dcduring(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et
al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some
extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this
case
I
think the
Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is,
somebody's gotta go first.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> I
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>