I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value.
-- ã¨ããç½ãç« (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors...
Fred
I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value.
-- ã¨ãÂÂãÂÂç½ãÂÂç« (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors...
Fred
That was snippy...
Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view
There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3.
Fred
A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value.
-- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors...
Fred
That was snippy...
Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view
There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3.
Fred
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_t...
I started above text to draft a text for the board to review.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.comwrote:
A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value.
-- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of
directors...
Fred
That was snippy...
Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view
There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3.
Fred
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'd say "be bold" and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed (or at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute.
I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, and think it'd be a good idea to bolster NPOV with a Board resolution. Not because it would instantly solve the problem, of course, but I see its value in supporting those editors who'd fight to uphold NPOV.
A.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_t...
I started above text to draft a text for the board to review.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com
wrote:
A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value.
-- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of
directors...
Fred
That was snippy...
Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view
There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3.
Fred
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias,
asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this? do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia so successful?
rupert.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias,
asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this? do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia so successful?
rupert.
For the most part; however, and I speak only of the English Wikipedia, there are topics where pov prevails due to the skill and power of its advocates. I suspect much worse things elsewhere.
By the way, I regularly, and deliberately, engage in point of view writing elsewhere; I know it when I see it.
Ask yourself, where is the article [[processed food]]? If you want an good education in public relations techniques, try to write one...
Fred
Indeed larger wikis have vibrant local communities that uphold NPOV for the most part. Such wikis would not be affected by such a board resolution too much as they essentially upload NPOV anyways.
Smaller developing wikis on the other hand sometimes have people who even want to create policies that ban the notion of NPOV. We even had attempts of religious rules dictate content on ace.wikipedia for example. I would recommend against translating en.wikipedia's NPOV policy for such wikis as it is too complicated for a smaller wiki. Over time the wiki would develop the policy using such a board resolution as a guideline.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:48 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias,
asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this? do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia so successful?
rupert.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of information from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is that the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding ourselves, after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all the views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or even better, although there may be sourced information which does do that which can be included.
Fred
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, at 18:47, Fred Bauder wrote:
I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of information from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is that the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding ourselves, after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all the views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or even better, although there may be sourced information which does do that which can be included.
Fred
This is simply false. If a third source says that one of two reliable sources is wrong or simply worse, the third source is not ignored.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, at 18:47, Fred Bauder wrote:
I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of information from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is that the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding ourselves, after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all the views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or even better, although there may be sourced information which does do that which can be included.
Fred
This is simply false. If a third source says that one of two reliable sources is wrong or simply worse, the third source is not ignored.
It is not "simply" false. Provided such a criticism is found in a reliable source, neutral point of view would require it be included. For example, in a climate change article, information about the poor factual basis of climate change denial should be included.
Fred
Asaf Bartov wrote:
I'd say "be bold" and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed (or at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law :-)
(There are occasionally suggestions of intentionally setting 'cunningtraps' in new articles [small typos, mostly] in order to get more people to edit. ;-)
MZMcBride
I have posted 4 sentences, kind of a draft of a draft of a draft.
It is very overwhelming for me to draft text with near-legal precision on my own.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd say "be bold" and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed (or at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute.
I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, and think it'd be a good idea to bolster NPOV with a Board resolution. Not because it would instantly solve the problem, of course, but I see its value in supporting those editors who'd fight to uphold NPOV.
A.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_t...
I started above text to draft a text for the board to review.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com
wrote:
A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this
is
the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value.
-- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of
directors...
Fred
That was snippy...
Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable
caution,
starting by making suggestions on its talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view
There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3.
Fred
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
After running a task force for BLP in two phases over six months back in '09-'10, everything pointed toward something MZMcBride wrote on meta. It covers this.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/BLP
https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/...
It just needs to be "official."
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:36 AM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I have posted 4 sentences, kind of a draft of a draft of a draft.
It is very overwhelming for me to draft text with near-legal precision on my own.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd say "be bold" and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed
(or
at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute.
I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, and think it'd be a good idea to bolster NPOV with a Board resolution. Not because it would instantly solve the problem, of course, but I see its value in supporting those editors who'd fight to uphold NPOV.
A.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_t...
I started above text to draft a text for the board to review.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com
wrote:
A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this
is
the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am
proposing a
meta policy.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
> I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta > sufficiently > achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you > stated > it > would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already
is a
> core > value. > > -- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of
directors...
Fred
That was snippy...
Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable
caution,
starting by making suggestions on its talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view
There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3.
Fred
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have posted 4 sentences, kind of a draft of a draft of a draft.
It is very overwhelming for me to draft text with near-legal precision on my own.
-- ã¨ããç½ãç« (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
I've added a bit. I'll do some copyediting later.
Fred
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org