Jimmy wrote:
>There are lessons to be learned here. In the design of proper traffic
>systems, it's important to not fight against human nature. Rather
>than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge
>intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps.
>
>In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we
>shooing a wasp? Is there a better way?
>
>--Jimbo
Yes, I agree with that. What are the better ways? I'm getting
disgusted with *what I perceive to be* (and which in fact may not be,
at all) a breakdown of community standards. Notwithstanding 24, I
think everyone would agree that wikipedia is a community. We try to
be friendly, we have the occasional tiffs, we choose to live together
and socialize a bit. This to me is a no-brainer: Wikipedia is a
community? Yes.
Physical communities have little compunction against casting people
out, either explicitly or implicitly: through gentrification, through
draconian rules regarding presentation, through neighborhood groups,
through calls to the police. Sometimes this is a good thing,
frequently it is not. Yet, unlike most communities, we are a
community bound by choice rather than circumstance, and we are bound
by intention rather than location. We are together because we have a
common goal. We are a community of people trying to build a free
online encyclopedia. To this regard, it seems to me that we should
not hesitate to show people the door when they prove not to share our
goal. We are a community, yes, but we are not a community of people
whose goal is to remove content, or to argue or chitchat (though some
of that will invariably occur along the way).
Imagine a community of economists who choose to work together in a
room dedicated to studying the economy. An overzealous filmnut with
the initials KQ shows up and wants to talk about films endlessly, and
at every mention of trade he goes off on _Star Wars I_. He doesn't
know much about the economy, he doesn't know much about trade, he
doesn't even know much about math; if he's aware of these defects he
doesn't even particularly care. What he's found is a healthy
community who let him hang out, using their tolerance to assuage his
own clingy personal needs.
Would this person belong in a group of economists, given that he can't
discuss economy? Should he go with them to work? Certainly not.
Should he know this already? Certainly. Should the group tell him
this if he does not know? IMHO: absolutely. He is interfering with
work. He is welcome to stay provided he's not interfering with work,
but if he is, he has to go.
I see nothing wrong with people who want to change community rules.
If we need to discuss a rule change, we need to discuss a rule change.
What might be helpful is to put on each rule and convention page a
gloss over why the decision to support that convention was reached.
That way people can address specific points in the future rather than
starting the whole debate again from scratch (I've been here a year
and a half and I've seen more than enough of the basic debates about
basic conventions). These new debates, when started, should be both
calm & respectful, which IMHO means logical and unemotional.
If the community decides that we should append "all hail Dubya the
wise and mighty U.S. emperor" to every page title, then I will either
roll up my sleeves and get started or I will remove myself from the
community. But what I will *not* do is remain in a community whose
goal is so often ignored or forgotten that it resembles usenet. I'm
not here to chitchat incessantly; I'm not here to sling insults and
cast people out; I want to help contribute to this free/free
encyclopedia because I believe in the idea. I've seen what we've done
in two years; I want to see what we can do in another two.
It seems to me that people should know what we're here for and respect
that, and people who don't should be asked, kindly, if their
priorities are straight in coming to the website. As far as I'm
concerned, the encyclopedia is what matters; there are plenty of other
places online to chitchat, argue, or pontificate. Try yahoo!groups,
or livejournal, or usenet, or even slashdot. Our community is unified
in purpose, and quite frankly, anyone who is not here for that purpose
belongs to a different community. Banning comes about IMHO because
people aren't seeing enough community pressure to quit being an
asshole and/or get to work.
So how we determine someone has nothing to contribute? Isn't that a
bold decision? How long do we allow someone to try to contribute
before deciding it's not worth it?
I believe that: 1) It should not be necessary to tell people to leave.
The community expectation should be so great that we are here to
build an encyclopedia that trolls and vandals are immediately and
thoroughly discouraged. 2)I'd rather not feel compelled to tell
people to leave because they're interfering. Most people realize it,
and so most people don't dabble where they don't belong. 3) If
someone proves a stubborn & insistent impediment, we should tell him
or her to leave. 4) When we do tell someone to leave, we should be
able to enforce it if necessary. some people are simply not helpful.
We don't all agree who those people are, but I think we do agree that
such people exist. For those people who won't listen to reason and
won't listen to community pressure, we should have an accurate means
of blocking access. We are accepting to people by default, but wasps
should make their nests outside, not inside.
I daresay our standards are fairly open: come here to help build an
encyclopedia. Do not come here to chitchat, to troll, to play. Work
may be fun, work may not always be fun (I know this for certain), but
work is why we are here. We are open to people who want to help; we
are not open to people who want to hinder. We also, it seems (and
here I'm thinking of Helga), are not open to people who want to help
and consistently can not. Jerry Lewis can play in the
[[wikipedia:sandbox]]; he should keep his hands off the [[muriatic acid]].
kq
p.s. I like Axel's idea of making an edit per email to the list. This
was a long email, and so deserved more than a few edits--however, the
'pedia is responding very slowly. I will redeem myself. :-)
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Aunt_May&diff=439390&oldid=4393…
(and later adding the missing verb) :-)
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Third_Man&diff=0&oldid=4393…http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Academy_Award_for_Best_Cinemato…
and corrections. Speaking of which, why doesn't "preview" preview?
All I get is a text-edit box showing what I've typed in. An HTML
preview might be handy.
>> I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on
Wikipedia proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article
there repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of
conflicting viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the
best way to do it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete
synthesis is desired (and should be possible). <<
This objection is very obscure. Neutrality is defined "as presenting
conflicting extremes"? No, that's not how it's defined. Certainly, if
there *are* conflicting *extremes* on an issue, then they're presented,
yes. Is the objection instead that neutrality shouldn't be defined in
terms of conflict *at all*? In that case I'd say the whole reason for the
neutrality policy is that people will naturally fall into conflict over
what positions are true (or--of course, this isn't the same thing--have
adequate "evidentiary support"). The neutrality policy specifies what we
should do in such cases. If there's concern about stating what is
supported by evidence, we must acknowledge that there are different views
on that in any significant controversy.
"A more complete synthesis" might be desired by you, but it is not the
place of an *encyclopedia* to proffer such a thing. Individuals and
interested groups do that.
>> And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one
writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate
or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any
particular view at all is correct" are just wrong. <<
And why are they "just wrong"? Who, besides you, thinks they are "just
wrong"? In fact, that particular point is not only correct about what
Wikipedia policy is, it should be placed in neon lights and shouted from
the hilltops and brandished in the face of people who use Wikipdia to
further their agenda.
>> And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just
not helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that
orbits the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God
exists" has been a "fact" for much longer than that. <<
What's "unhelpful" about it? I find unexplained and unfair criticisms
unhelpful. Suppose the text said instead, as you say here, "Mars is a
massive object that orbits the Sun." That's something that virtually
everyone now agrees upon; therefore, according to the definition in the
text it is a "fact" (something that we would all acknowledge to be fact,
rather than opinion). What difference does it make that it was not a
"fact," in this sense, five hundred years ago? The text explicitly
acknowledges that "facts" can actually be falsehoods and "opinions" can be
true, and that "facts" can change. Is there something *wrong* with that
state of affairs, and do you think there's anything we can do about it?
It has never been and certainly is not a *fact*, by the definition given
on the page, that God exists. The text actually explicitly uses that
proposition as a prime example of an opinion.
>> The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that
the NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements
are assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of
which should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself
(though primary sources should simply be referenced). <<
This would hardly be an improvement: it would entail completely undoing
the neutrality policy so that it does not concern neutrality. The issue
of providing support and definitions, while certainly important, is
strictly speaking *orthogonal* to the issue of the bias of a text or lack
thereof. To be sure, a fair presentation of all views will, in perhaps
most cases, require definitions and support (i.e., the support offered by
the proponents of the respective views). But any neutrality or lack of
bias worthy of the name *requires* stating competing views fairly and not
taking sides. That's simply what neutrality, in presenting controversial
issues, *is*. "Providing evidence and definitions" is a good thing, but
it isn't what neutrality is, even if neutrality in many cases requires it.
If the suggestion is instead (and it's made none too clearly if so) that
we can simply do away with the practice of presenting alternative views
fairly, and instead present as correct the view that has the best
evidence--good luck with making your case. That's precisely what we're
trying to avoid *arguing about* with this policy.
By the way, certainly, we can admit that the page *might* need to be
changed. That the page in fact does need to be changed in any particular
way receives not the least support from the above.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Eclectiology wrote:
>> Scientific method is asymptotic to truth, and I would also extend that
assertion to NPOV. That a particular view is held by a significant
majority (either of the general public or of experts) does not magically
convert that opinion into fact. Scientific method very fairly allows
for the possibility that eccentric views may ultimately be found valid;
nevertheless, these allowances only represent distant hopes. Poker
players are not dealt royal flushes very frequently. <<
Just a short response to one point here: that majority opinion is fact
simply isn't the policy. I think the current policy makes this clear.
"Fact" can be given the perfectly innocuous definition, "what everyone
believes" (note, "everyone" does not mean "a significant majority")
leaving "opinion" to stand for "a position on an issue about which there
is significant disagreement."
Yes, there's vagueness here: when is a disagreement "significant"? What
if *one person* still believes the world is flat? But I think we can work
out problem cases like these on an individual basis and use our judgment;
the upshot of policy has proven to be clear enough to be quite useful, I
think.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
I'm resurrecting this feature request from [[Wikipedia:Village pump]]
where it is discussed under "Wikipedia Evangelism".
The point raised was the desirability of an easy way to ask a friend
to comment on the accuracy of an article, or simply to point out an
interesting article to someone.
How about doing what a lot of news pages do? Add a box at the bottom
of each article
[] Send this article to a friend
along with a java mailer to fire the message off and a text box to add
a note. Having a linked mailer would eliminate the necessity of
firing up a mail program.
[[Rotenburg]] on the English Wikipedia consists only of a link to the German.
It is linked to from [[Rotenburg (district)]]. What should be done with such
a page?
phma
Thanks for your answers. I knew this was something of a grey area for now.
But, for now I will assume I CAN add screen-captures from movies, and box
art. One thing I was wondering though, can I just take a picture of the
box from amazon or somewhere, or a screen capture from a review site? It
would certainly make things easier, as the box scans on online stores tend
to be of a pretty good file size, with just about perfect properties for a
good size->quality ratio. I'm glad to hear we're speaking to some top
people about this though.
Thanks,
ASB [[User:Smelialichu]]
--
<signature>
There are only 10 types of people in this world;
Those that know binary...and those that don't
</signature>
Any ideas about a new wesbite called wikitionary to be set up, a dictionary for every language??
_____________________________________________________________
Help save rainforest or feed orphaned chimpanzees with Redjellyfish Long Distance!
http://www.redjellyfish.com/longdistance
>My apologies -- you do indeed provide contact information.
>Reading Hotlorp's mail to me more carefully,
>it only says that you didn't reply --
>which you explain the reason for above.
>
>Can I convince you to advertise this fact on
[[Wikipedia:Admininstrators]],
>similar to my advertisement, to make it easier for banned users
>to reach at least one of us -- it took me several hours to reply as well.
Done. And we should start using the wikiEN list, huh? :-)
kq
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
> (I confess: I don't understand what should go to
> wikien-l and what
> should go to wikipedia-l.)
Well, that's simple. Do you think wasps only enter the
main window leading to the english wikipedia, or do
you think the wasp may also enter that small remote
window on - say - the french wikipedia ?
Answer : monday evening, I painfully climbed the
ladder to close the window for the night, for a wasp
has entered through the window.
10 mn ago, I closed it again, and will favor keeping
it close now. Youssefsan suggested we also close the
curtains and not advertise the french wiki location
for the wasps not to come in big numbers.
If the wasp can enter only the main window in the
home, you post to the english list. If it appears the
wasp can enter through any open window, you post to
the main list...
ya ?
I'll take time to come back on the answers/comments
provided a couple of days ago this we...
But we must not kill the wasp
> When a wasp is in the house, most people try to shoo
> it out a window
> with a newspaper. They open a window wide, and then
> take a newspaper
> or magazine and launch repeated attacks on the wasp
> to try to convince
> it to fly out the window. This is a frustrating and
> usually
> impossible procedure. It is contrary to the nature
> of the wasp. It's
> exhausting and usually ends in the death of the
> wasp. I would imagine
> that some people get stung in the process.
>
> Buckminster Fuller found a better way, a way that
> works with virtual
> certainty, with comparatively little effort. Here's
> what to do: close
> the curtains and/or shades and/or blinds on all the
> windows except the
> open window. Turn off the light in the room. Make
> the room as dark
> as possible, except for the window where you wish
> the wasp to go. The
> wasp will fly out quickly and voluntarily.
>
> There are lessons to be learned here. In the design
> of proper traffic
> systems, it's important to not fight against human
> nature. Rather
> than expecting and hoping people to behave properly
> at huge
> intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and
> ramps.
>
> In dealing with problem members, we should ask
> ourselves: are we
> shooing a wasp? Is there a better way?
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
> p.s. Through a quick web search, I have been unable
> to confirm that this actually
> should be attributed to Buckminster Fuller. But
> that's how I heard it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus � Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com