RE: [Wikipedia-l] Talk policy

I also brought this subject up in the Wikipedia itself. I think it's important to refactor discussions. The key sociological differences between Usenet and a wiki is that the ability to make instant additions and add to discussions is balanced by the ability to edit what has come before. If Larry's correct in worrying about the Wikipedia becoming just another discussion group, the way we should go about fixing that is to refactor discussions. Anyway, I don't buy the argument that since refactoring a /talk page is a complex issue there are no rules we can apply. For example, I think we can say: 1) It's generally better to refactor /talk pages to summarize the previous discussion than to delete that discussion. 2) Refactoring should not take place until the discussion has either died down, or moved on to a new topic. 3) If there's a long discussion between two people, and it's slightly off topic, feel free to move it to a new page, and replace it with a link to the new page (a sub page of one of the involved parties is a good idea.) 4) When refactoring a /talk page, look for content which should be added to the main encyclopedia page. If we go back to the origonal post, I agree that talk about a simple typographical error should not exist, and can be deleted imediately. If you find a typo, go ahead and fix it, don't just post a gripe. -----Original Message----- From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@bomis.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:28 PM To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Talk policy I think you are absolutely correct in all aspects of your reasoning. In many cases, the /Talk pages should be refactored when the main page has been changed to the satisfaction of all the talkers. In some cases, this will not be true. In some cases, deletions to the /Talk page should wait several days until all the contentious parties have had a good chance to mull it over. For example, there might be a 3-way debate. A and B are initially in agreement, and C dissents. B is convinced by C's dissent and changes the main page, noting on the /Talk page the reasons. It would be nice if A had a few days to decide whether to press the issue further, and simply deleting the talk page on the assumption that B's conversion is tantamount to consensus might be unwise. One useful "middle of the road" solution is to *refactor* rather than *delete* the /Talk. That is, to rewrite the talk page to sum up the debate that was held, giving the rationale for the existing version of the page. This leaves things a bit more open to further debate, while at the same time "cleaning house" in a useful way. I think that when we come across an old talk page that seems to be about an uncontroversially corrected error, we should feel free to just delete the whole discussion. All in all, I think that no *simple* policy can be stated. As long as we have a friendly and helpful community striving for consensus, then individual judgment will serve to guide us quite nicely. Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: <URL:http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=LISP_programming_lan guage/Talk&revision=1>: -- ************************************************* * http://www.nupedia.com/ * * The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia * ************************************************* [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l