Stevertigo wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy. A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most recent post, which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav.
The best policies are simple. Where subjective concerns are dealt with, we need consensus. There is no way around it--these situations will arise, and there will need to be decisions made. Either there will be a community consensus, on what that decision will be, or there will be a Jimbo consensus. This is the choice.
There is another choice (although it might be included in the above). The community could decide to try to avoid interfering in some things, concentrating on writing articles (and to a lesser extent policy) but ignoring random POV accumulations around individual users. For the most part, the community does this -- such as on user pages.
Whether this decision comes through community consensus, or is imposed by Jimbo, I don't really care. ^_^
According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the wiki process.
Its faith in people. Not the process.
Hey, I can only read what's on the web page that you linked to! That says "the wiki model of web development". But OK, I have faith in people too.
Wikifaith, as I define it is simply an understanding that "Wiki works" because "people work"-- Wiki is a name for a tool that represents a technological extension of the human spirits of community and collegiality.
Ah, but this is more than simply faith in people! Just because somebody has faith in people doesn't mean that they'll believe that Wiki works. I'm sure that there's a strong correlation here -- in fact, I'd be surprised if /anybody/ had faith in wiki yet had no faith in people -- but it doesn't follow. So there is something more to the principle, something which you and I both think is correct, but which others might not.
I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do the right thing;
I have no faith in the thing called "Wikipedia" whatsoever. My faith is reserved for the people who happen to be on it. Nes pa?
I have faith in people, including Wikipedians; but many human institutions fail despite good people in them. So I /additionally/ have faith that Wikipedia also works.
I'm not sure if it's my faith or yours that is the larger. Do I have more faith, since I believe in Wikipedia as well as Wikipedians? Or do you have more faith, since (according to this hypothesis) you believe that instiutions made up of good people must work? If the latter, then I have less faith, because I disagree! (and cite every state in human history as my evidence ^_^).
To the extent that money measures faith,
Your donation of "money" (work hours quantified, right) is a good thing. Are you going to compare your donation in anyway to those of others?
No, my money is /not/ work hours quantified. Indeed, work hours are measured in hours, not dollars. But even work itself hardly corresponds well to dollars. (For example, I wouldn't work more on Wikipedia for money.)
And I don't see any use in comparing my donation to others'. In terms of total amounts, our levels of financial freedom are bound to be quite different -- and Jimbo has us all beat. Even if we could translate the donations into work (or work hours), these don't have the same value to each person either (and they'd have to be balanced by other work on Wikipedia). Finally, even if a meaningful comparison did exist, what would be the point?
OTOH, comparing this donation to my past donations is useful, in that money means about the same to me when I donate to Wikimedia as when I donate to various other groups. Not entirely meaningful, since you also have to figure in the various groups' financial needs. But there are other groups that, like Wikimedia, don't need my donation but could still put it to good use (a middle ground between groups that are very wealthy and groups that are desperate for funds). So, in the end, I think that it says /something/ that my donation to Wikimedia was much larger.
Not a huge point in the end, however; treat my multiparagraph reply as theoretical in nature, rambling about the nature of money more than anything else.
See, if that ever /really/ went through, I would leave. Hell, if it were ever a serious issue, I'd lose a lot of faith (in Wikipedia, but not much in the wiki process in general).
Youre an addict, Toby. ;-) Besides-- you make my point-- nothing would come of it. I can whip up some annoying fuss trying to get some support for it, and it will be over like *snap* I'll *bet that the namechange page would even be deleted (as inflammatory vandalism )-- and you and I both know that there needs be "consensus" for such a thing to stand. ;-)
Actually, if the content was interesting, I might keep it. But anyway, if your point is that nothing would come of it ... well, the conclusion I draw is that Wikipedia isn't as bad as it could be. Hell, I conceded that a long time ago! -- that's what all that talk about my faith in Wikipedia is about. But it doesn't at all follow that a namechange proposal that something /does/ come from is a good idea, right? That's the debate here.
I suspect that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules.
Idea: Keep the discussion limited to the context at hand, eh?
Hrm? What does that mean?
If you mean that you feel that I'm drifting off topic, so that you don't want to respond to rest of my post, then that's fine with me. (But you do respond! ^_^)
If people couldn't do anything to change Drolsi's old name /other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis and try to convince him that it would be a good idea, then that might have been what people tried in the first place!
This is idealistic-- measures to enforce that which is best for wikipedia are in place now-- Jim can pull even pull the plug if its going to be good for wiki.
It's worse than idealistic; it's counterfactual! But still interesting to me to think what might happen; counterfactuals often give insight into reality.
Lets keep perspective here. This is just a name.
Isn't that the argument /against/ forcing the change? ^_^
"There is no G-d-given right to edit Wikipedia" remember. (Tarquin, I think)
KQ, I think. Also not particularly relevant. While nobody has /any/ right to edit Wikipedia, that doesn't mean that any rules that we impose on editors are a /good idea/.
If your critique is of my approach-- I will acknowledge that I could have been more cordial to JiL.
I wasn't so much criticising what /you did/ as criticising what /Drolsi saw done/ -- although you started that, I suppose. Drolsi may yet prove to be an old troll trying to rile us up; I'm more concerned about the next Drolsi, who may be sincere.
Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary, in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too, like anything that interferes with the wiki process (in which I have so much faith).
So, under it all-- you oppose banning itself? Then we need a namechange for this thread. Should we take the step of voting on it?
Under it all, the very existence of bans and blocks is an evil. Given the attraction of vandals, it seems to be a necessary evil. But it is unwiki -- that is a fact (whereas as "evil" is opinion) -- and we should recognise that, to help us make wise decisions about it. The same goes for page deletion and anything done through an SQL query, including changing usernames. They're edits that ordinary users cannot make, hence unwiki -- necessary though they may be.
-- Toby