Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Wikipedia could turn into a place where the content is largely a tasteless, watery gruel because everyone is on pins and needles to avoid provoking negative responses.
Well, that would make me very happy. This is an encyclopedia, after all.
BrilliantProse, good writing, need not be controversial or antagonizing at all. A well written article can be lively, interesting, well-organized, etc., while at the same time in a very encyclopedic fashion present the facts in a sufficiently neutral manner that all sides to a dispute, if they are working in good faith, can agree that it's a good presentation.
--Jimbo
I feel like my point is being misunderstood, or else taken out of context. (However, no offense is taken, and no apology necessary.)
A truly NPOV article on a controversial subject would present things in a neutral fashion, but it would not be "tasteless, watery gruel". And that specifically because people would contribute without fear of negative feedback. I consider that important because the perfect NPOV article does not suddenly appear, and does not spring fully formed from the head of its author. It results from a community process, and I believe that process would never take place if contributors had to worry about their feedback ratings. The danger is that we make the community so wary that people are too timid to even discuss certain subjects, leaving only the shallowest, definitely non-encyclopedic treatment of controversial topics.
--Michael Snow
I think your point is a good one. A poorly designed system would give rise to fear and paranoia. But, I think that at least some people really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude." I think some people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such things for themselves.
Michael Snow wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Wikipedia could turn into a place where the content is largely a tasteless, watery gruel because everyone is on pins and needles to avoid provoking negative responses.
Well, that would make me very happy. This is an encyclopedia, after all.
BrilliantProse, good writing, need not be controversial or antagonizing at all. A well written article can be lively, interesting, well-organized, etc., while at the same time in a very encyclopedic fashion present the facts in a sufficiently neutral manner that all sides to a dispute, if they are working in good faith, can agree that it's a good presentation.
--Jimbo
I feel like my point is being misunderstood, or else taken out of context. (However, no offense is taken, and no apology necessary.)
A truly NPOV article on a controversial subject would present things in a neutral fashion, but it would not be "tasteless, watery gruel". And that specifically because people would contribute without fear of negative feedback. I consider that important because the perfect NPOV article does not suddenly appear, and does not spring fully formed from the head of its author. It results from a community process, and I believe that process would never take place if contributors had to worry about their feedback ratings. The danger is that we make the community so wary that people are too timid to even discuss certain subjects, leaving only the shallowest, definitely non-encyclopedic treatment of controversial topics.
--Michael Snow
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
To take this personally, I'm always complaining about rudeness, but I'm plenty rude myself. In fact, a good part of why I did a fork was routine rudeness from Larry Sanger and a few others that no one seemed to ever do anything about. I've managed to keep a somewhat favorable eBay reputation though; partly cause I usually enter negative feedback unless what happened was important. (Retaliatory negative feedback is routine on eBay so warning others needs to be more important in a particular instance than taking a bit of punishment for speaking up)
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:42:14 -0800 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Trust metrics
I think your point is a good one. A poorly designed system would give rise to fear and paranoia. But, I think that at least some people really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude." I think some people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such things for themselves.
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 07:02:27 -0700 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] feedback
To take this personally, I'm always complaining about rudeness, but I'm plenty rude myself. In fact, a good part of why I did a fork was routine rudeness from Larry Sanger and a few others that no one seemed to ever do anything about. I've managed to keep a somewhat favorable eBay reputation though; partly cause I don't enter negative feedback unless what happened was important. (Retaliatory negative feedback is routine on eBay so warning others needs to be more important in a particular instance than taking a bit of punishment for speaking up)
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:42:14 -0800 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Trust metrics
I think your point is a good one. A poorly designed system would give rise to fear and paranoia. But, I think that at least some people really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude." I think some people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such things for themselves.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think your point is a good one. A poorly designed system would give rise to fear and paranoia. But, I think that at least some people really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude." I think some people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such things for themselves.
Funny, these days when a significant number of people attempt to inform someone that they're misbehaving, they don't tend to say "On, I've been rude.", they say "Your cabal's conspiracy against me won't work!". But hey, we can dream.
-- Jake
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org