I don't really think the idea of moving commentary out of Wikipedia will work. The problem is that no hard line can be drawn between "policy discussion" and "discussion about the articles". It is easy for a discussion about "what belongs in this article" to degenerate into "what is wikipedia's policy on this matter" to "is wikipedia's policy a good idea".
Again, if you propose to keep "official policy pages" in Wikipedia, then people will want to comment on them -- suggest additions or clarifications, or disagree with the policies themselves. The most natural place for them to do so would be [[Wikipedia policy/Talk]]... And you wouldn't want to get rid of [[Wikipedia policy/Talk]], because what if they are only asking questions like "can anyone think of a way of making the third paragraph clearer... i have trouble understanding it", which really do belong in [[Wikipedia policy/Talk]], not on "metawikipedia"...
With all due respect, I think Larry is overeacting to some recent disputes. Cutting all commentary out of Wikipedia is IMHO too radical a response. I think the solution here isn't structural change to Wikipedia, its trying to resolve the disputes at issue. (Which I don't think any of those involved, myself included, have done good enough a job of trying to resolve.)
Simon J Kissane
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
--- Simon Kissane sj_kissane@yahoo.com wrote:
...With all due respect, I think Larry is overeacting to some recent disputes...
He also pointed out that RecentChanges was getting too cluttered with changes ''not'' directly related to encyclopedia content.
The key reason I'm on board with Larry's proposal is because I think RecentChanges on Wikipedia should show ''only'' changes to articles and Talk ''about'' articles and ''no'' changes and talk about meta-wikipedia issues. The only way to do that is to push meta-discussions completely out of the Wikipedia.
In another message, Simon wrote:
... why not have a vote on it?
I do not support this call for a vote; however, we ''do'' need enough Wikipedians to unequivocally get behind a course of action (or to say they want to take no action) so that the whole community can see that consensus has been reached.
And so here's my declaration. I am in favor of creating a wiki based on Magnus' PHP software at http://meta.wikipedia.com/ that hosts all meta-discussions (commentary, personal pages, etc.).
When the metapedia comes online, I will do my part to move commentary from www.wikipedia.com to meta.wikipedia.com and to keep it there.
<>< [[tbc]]
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
On Friday 09 November 2001 00:19, you wrote:
The key reason I'm on board with Larry's proposal is because I think RecentChanges on Wikipedia should show ''only'' changes to articles and Talk ''about'' articles and ''no'' changes and talk about meta-wikipedia issues. The only way to do that is to push meta-discussions completely out of the Wikipedia.
Any reason we can't then have a link to "Recent discussions" next to "Recent changes"? Just for those who enjoy that sort of thing?
Indeed, one possibility is that each namespace have its own [[recent changes]] page. If we were to do that and then install a "commentary:" namespace, I think that might be an adequate solution to the problem. Magnus?
Larry
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
On Friday 09 November 2001 00:19, you wrote:
The key reason I'm on board with Larry's proposal is because I think RecentChanges on Wikipedia should show ''only'' changes to articles and Talk ''about'' articles and ''no'' changes and talk about meta-wikipedia issues. The only way to do that is to push meta-discussions completely out of the Wikipedia.
Any reason we can't then have a link to "Recent discussions" next to "Recent changes"? Just for those who enjoy that sort of thing?
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Simon Kissane wrote:
I don't really think the idea of moving commentary out of Wikipedia will work. The problem is that no hard line can be drawn between "policy discussion" and "discussion about the articles".
I think such a line already has been drawn: when people write essays or make proposals on new pages (subpages of [[Wikipedia commentary]] or their own pages), that's the stuff that would go in the commentary wiki. The discussion of policy issues on /Talk pages (or, in the future, in the "Talk:" namespace) can be considered applications of more general principles, at least for convenience's sake. In the future, general policy discussion on a talk page could be transferred, profitably, to the metawiki. The distinction is clear enough to make the move quite useful, I think.
Again, if you propose to keep "official policy pages" in Wikipedia, then people will want to comment on them -- suggest additions or clarifications, or disagree with the policies themselves. The most natural place for them to do so would be [[Wikipedia policy/Talk]]...
Well, so far, this hasn't happened too much. If something were still a matter of considerable debate, then it wouldn't belong on the official pages. Or, alternatively, the disagreement should be noted on the pages--noted, but not *engaged*. This is a matter of some self-discipline, and it really hasn't been a problem so far. Most of the disagreement about policy (whether new or old) has taken place off the policy pages. (The NPOV page is an exception!)
And you wouldn't want to get rid of [[Wikipedia policy/Talk]], because what if they are only asking questions like "can anyone think of a way of making the third paragraph clearer... i have trouble understanding it", which really do belong in [[Wikipedia policy/Talk]], not on "metawikipedia"...
OK, so we have a bit of overlap. That's a lot better than having a lot of incendiary debate cluttering up the Recent Changes page.
With all due respect, I think Larry is overeacting to some recent disputes.
This is not just my proposal; many people are behind it.
Simon, it would be helpful if you would simply refrain from offensive attempts to characterize the appropriateness of my reactions. In case you didn't know, that is *not* respectful. Stick to the arguments, please.
Cutting all commentary out of Wikipedia is IMHO too radical a response.
I don't think it's radical at all. It just involves moving the commentary away from the main wiki. What's radical about that? Commentary is not what Wikipedia is about. We are not here to talk about writing an encyclopedia; we're here to write one. (Well, *I* am actually *paid* to talk about writing an encyclopedai
I think the solution here isn't structural change to Wikipedia, its trying to resolve the disputes at issue. (Which I don't think any of those involved, myself included, have done good enough a job of trying to resolve.)
The reason I disagree with this, again, is that more and more such incendiary disputes are bound to arise, as Wikipedia grows. This is a way to make the metadiscussion more scalable.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org