Yes, again about the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/In Memoriam]] page cs. Is there yet a
solution? Last month, when I brought up this subject again (it wasn't the first time), it was said
that we should not be hasty. Well, there's been enough time not to be hasty now. I really think this
issue should finally be resolved, otherwise I'll be so bold to move everything to meta to let it
wait there for the new destination. There's no reason to let these pages be around anymore.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
>The image namespace is used for sounds as well as images. There are also a
>few .ai, .ps, or .dia files which are the source code of images. But if the
>.htm file is not an illustration of some HTML feature that can't be coded in
>wikicode, and it isn't the source code of some illustration (e.g. Indian
>numerals, IIRR), then delete it.
> Please give the dismissive tone some time off. Wikipedia is a silly name
My point was rather there's no reason why anything on any other Wiki should apply here. And I'd
rather hear arguments from you than reading an extensive discussion between other, non-involved
> > So, suppose voting is evil. Then how do we make decisions? Because with the
> > current number of members on this list, there's never going to be something
> > like consensus.
> That's simply not true.
Consensus means everybody agrees, right? I've never seen that so far on the list, but I may have
> > Endless discussions are tiring and getting us nowhere.
> It may be tiring, but it's hardly getting us nowhere. Ideas and thoughts
> have steadily been introduced and refined.
Note the "endless" part. Discussions are necessary and useful. But after a while it becomes
restating of opinions. Discussions then either end without a solution or don't end. That's bad. It
happens a lot.
> > That's not a desirable situation. Voting could end
> > discussions. But "voting is evil", so what to do then?
> Are you willing to admit the basic problems with voting?
I think voting is just fine. Sure, there are some drawbacks, but I don't see them as critical. At
least it has the advantage that decisions are made.
> An example of how consensus rather than voting can work is in progress at
Where? I don't see any decisions being taken, rather a proposal only edited by you and Chas zzz
brown - hardly consensus. Also, there's some voting at the top...
> Would it be possible to move the fantastic-waste-of-space that is Ram-Man's
> latest datadump to gazetteer.wikipedia.com, or somesuch, so they don't clutter
> up the *worthwhile* *encyclopedic* entries?
Why would we do that? Of the remainder of the articles, there's really a lot that are not
*worthwile* either - for now. In fact, there's many country articles that contain less information
than [[Grasshopper Junction, Arizona]] (oh, well, I see now that article doesn't exist (yet)). I
agree, they're just stubs, but then again, there's virtually no complete article on Wikipedia.
In fact, I've been contributing - also automated - all Dutch and Swedish municipalities lately, be
it with somewhat less information than Ram-Man's work.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger(a)nupedia.com> wrote:
> > I see a lot of good points being made here, and I frankly don't know what
> > to think about some of the issues raised. But I'd like to offer this
> > perspective.
> > On wasting time on recalcitrants: I (obviously) totally sympathize with
> > those who say they don't want to waste their time dealing with
> > recalcitrant users.
> > Wikipedia contributors can be difficult in a variety of ways. Not all of
> > them require banning, and the most common types can't:
> <snip laundry list of "difficult" contributors>
> It is a detrimental approach to come up with categories of problem
> contributors. Every contributor is individual, emotional, biased, and a bit
> kooky. Noone is perfectly normal--that's just the average. Rather, we should
> try to avoid CommunityExile (see MeatballWiki) if possible.
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban
some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's
what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we
should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
we should ban 24.
> > This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ
> > said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ
> > was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
> > rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
> > as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
> > a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
> > special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
> > one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
> > by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
> > and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
> > have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Done with Wikipedia for today,
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> >People have been talking about the difficulty of
> decision-making. So I
> >invite people to vote on how decisions should be
slowly and incrementally
In my country, we don't vote by crossing.
We deliberately choose the paper with the option we
tactically prefer, and we put that specific paper in
the ballot box.
And I don't like voting much.
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
I uploaded a slightly enhanced version, again at
Please test it with Esperanto as first browser choice, it should say
"Esperanto test" or something in the title.
I left the smallcaps in for now, as I like them, and Opera needs fixing ;-)
> An idea:
> Can Randompage weight the articles that it picks by their length?
> This will make *any* stub less likely to be chosen,
> arguably without giving a distorted picture of what Wikipedia is like.
> -- Toby
Rather not. The main reason I use Randompage is to find stub that I can add to, pages with bad style
(usually no bold subject), etc. If any such option is to be implemented, it should be definable per