Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
Defining the problem and solutions is easy too. Getting the core editing community to agree to any change is the difficult part.
Problems: - Discussions favour the loudest voice and the people who refuse to walk away. Wiki people often say that there are no barriers to participation, but if you have anything better to do with your time, arguing over mundane article details while being attacked/insulted by the other side becomes undesirable very quickly. - Admins are often some of the worst offenders. - ANI follows none of the best practices for dispute resolution.
For solutions: - Hold people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not they are correct. - And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we can change or amend things if they don't work.
Adrian Raddatz
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Some training and assessment might be useful. P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Raddatz Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 3:56 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Defining the problem and solutions is easy too. Getting the core editing community to agree to any change is the difficult part.
Problems: - Discussions favour the loudest voice and the people who refuse to walk away. Wiki people often say that there are no barriers to participation, but if you have anything better to do with your time, arguing over mundane article details while being attacked/insulted by the other side becomes undesirable very quickly. - Admins are often some of the worst offenders. - ANI follows none of the best practices for dispute resolution.
For solutions: - Hold people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not they are correct. - And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we can change or amend things if they don't work.
Adrian Raddatz
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Let me be simple. A friend of mine was banned for life by the WMF, there was no room for discussion so the notion that this is a first is not accurate.
It is well known that English Wikipedia is considered a toxic environment This has been known by all for a very long time. The fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee is not able to do something about it. There are many considerations possible but it is not this committee that is at fault it is the community itself. Many people are indignant that they are told that it has to stop. FRAM may be the "victim" in this but hey why not him? A point is being made.
Your notion of toxic behaviour of the WMF is problematic. The point is that English Wikipedia behaviour is to change. It did not help that you all were told to mend your ways, now reflect and come up with what you consider will make for a more friendly environment. The good news is, you are not in a position that you can ignore this. The notion that the WMF has to bring you new rules is imho wrong. Roll your own. Thanks, GerardMM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:39, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is well known that English Wikipedia is considered a toxic environment This has been known by all for a very long time. The fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee is not able to do something about it. There are many considerations possible but it is not this committee that is at fault it is the community itself. Many people are indignant that they are told that it has to stop. FRAM may be the "victim" in this but hey why not him? A point is being made.
Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true, and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with the critical mass of human participants that this project needs. Have you been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human nature?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true, and yet it exists.
Most people are non toxic .... in my city and in Wikipedia. Nathan's point is correct - it won't change and WMF can't fix it.
Richard.
Thankfully the gamut of human nature is far wider than just 4chan and Reddit.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:31 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true, and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with the critical mass of human participants that this project needs. Have you been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human nature?
Nathan
Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true, and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with the critical mass of human participants that this project needs. Have you been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human nature?
Nathan
I think we in agreement that people en masse rarely organise themselves effectively to achieve a common goal. The examples you cite, together with Wikipedia and the other projects demonstrate that well. The solution, then is not for some attempt to tweak the culture so that the desired effective organisation happens spontaneously, but for an external structure to be imposed. There are models for organising tens of thousands of people to create, curate and disseminate knowledge -- universities, schools, libraries, academies, leaned societies, ...
The Turnip
Jonathan + Adrian -- thank you for the thoughtful ideas. Seconding that: ~ We could use warmer, less confusing ways to handle edit conflicts, deletion, and edit wars ~ We have the luxury of trying many approaches in different places, and iterating
Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier place?...
There is no such place... Have you been to a city?
Yes. Some disarmingly well-designed and welcoming, despite their density. The question is not whether better equilibria exist; they do. It is why they are often hard to recognize, try out, and adopt. Your insistence that 'there is no such place' is quite extraordinary, really: and highlights the challenge.
Todd Allen writes:
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic.
<laugh> Smooth redefinition of terms. Jonathan's proposal was so kind + specific, and you're spoiling for a fight. Most of us have an opinion on inclu/delight, and would be glad to debate it, but this thread isn't the place.
Pierre-Selim:
can people participating to this thread respect the soft limit of this
mailing list, i.e. this is not a chat
Thanks for the reminder. More than one post per day in a thread is probably too much...
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub "article".
As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to show sourcing immediately.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
How open minded ...
That said can people participating to this thread respect the soft limit of this mailing list, i.e. this is not a chat, and I'm pretty sure your answers can wait 24 hours.
Thank you.
Le ven. 5 juil. 2019 à 12:16, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com a écrit :
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub "article".
As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to show sourcing immediately.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
editing
environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
find
them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
example
some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
where
people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
versions
of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
being
nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
communicated
before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
Wikipedia.
But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew
what
the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
now
an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
What I
find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and
foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is sarcasm, right? Right?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub "article".
As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to show sourcing immediately.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
editing
environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
find
them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
example
some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
where
people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
versions
of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
being
nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
communicated
before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
Wikipedia.
But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew
what
the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
now
an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
What I
find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and
foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I wish that it were. Unfortunately, it is actually the case.
Todd
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:42 AM Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
This is sarcasm, right? Right?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn
Pokemon,
and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub "article".
As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to show sourcing immediately.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
editing
environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
we
have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the
last
year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private
information,
these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing
arbs. I
would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
zzzz,
zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have
argued
for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so
quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
find
them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
example
some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
conflict
understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
where
people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit
one
the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
versions
of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in
their
native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
being
nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
communicated
before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their
problem
was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
Wikipedia.
But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew
what
the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
reason
where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
now
an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic
way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
What I
find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and
foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable
and
finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection
on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub "article".
As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to show sourcing immediately.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
One could say that deletionism is just as toxic, cutting off valuable off-springs at the root, based on the balance of different views present at the birth. Walking around with the intent to cut for a long time, has an effect on how one relates to the world.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn
Pokemon,
and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub "article".
As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to show sourcing immediately.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers@gmail.com>
wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
editing
environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
we
have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs.
I
would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
zzzz,
zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
find
them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
example
some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
conflict
understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
where
people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
versions
of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
being
nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
communicated
before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
Wikipedia.
But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew
what
the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
reason
where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
now
an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What
I
find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I see the main and most important trend just now is the broad usage and introduction of Wikidata in strengthening and extending Wikipedia content.
And Wikidata works against deletionism. All Pokemons shall have separate WD objects, independency how it is in Wikipedia articles. And as WD is he sum of all version articles, if any version see a a subject worth to have a Wikipedia article it will also exist a WDobject for it.
In practice it has meant for us working in a small version, that we are in general going the inclusionist way. We focus more that there exist good sources and that the facts will not be changes over time (but it must also be known to a substitutional number of people)
I perceive enwp is lagging in the embracing of Wikidata. It could be understood considering that enwp has less need to lean on WD objects in their article writing then smaller versions, but is interesting it could also effect secondary issues like the debate of inclusionism and deletionism.
In my personal vision, in 5-10 years there will exist techniques that enable readers to access Wikidata fact in an interface as in Wikipedia, extending number of articles you can access in "Wikipedia" in a given language to multiply by perhaps a factor 10 or more, a higher factor for a small language an lower for like enwp - truly a way to "spread knowledge to all humankind"
Anders
Den 2019-07-06 kl. 12:14, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub "article".
As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to show sourcing immediately.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things:
- A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org