Summary style (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Response to Bryan Derken)
Abe Sokolov
abesokolov at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 7 10:39:53 UTC 2004
Mav and Brian:
maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:
"A comprehensive summary that takes less than 15 minutes to read is needed
as well as all the detail - giving the reader a *choice* as to how much
detail they are prepared to go through in order to answer their questions. I
would have written it myself, but 172 indicated that any effort to do so
would be reverted. So I didn't bother spending time on it."
I don't know if that's reason not to bother spending any time on it. I never
said that I wouldn't listen to other ideas; I was just trying to make it
clear that Bryan would have to reconsider his proposal. But I admit that
this is a generally fair statement of my position at the time. I opposed any
effort to create a NI-style series (at least right away) just as much as the
two of you supported such efforts.
When editors have conflicting ideas, they are tacitly aware that unless they
reach a compromise amongst themselves or unless one side leaves the table,
an edit war is the only option. When you think of it this way, edit wars are
in effect the force behind compromise. The occurrence of an edit war in and
of itself only is a sign of disagreement, and good contributors at times can
(and do) disagree.
In particular, I had compelling reasons for withholding this option at the
time. Notice that as the reader moves down the page, the narrative builds on
points already established in the text. Unless someone rewrote and
significantly expanded each section of the article, Bryan's proposals
would've left the individual components of the series superficial at best
and incoherent at worst. BTW, this was stated a number of times on the talk
page (and not just by me), and so far no one has responded to this-- at
least to the best of my recollection.
But at the root of this disagreement, we're likely dealing with competing
stylistic preferences-- not the realms of black/white and right/wrong. On
one hand, I favor quality (which requires multiple contexts-- the scholarly
approach to achieving NPOV) over brevity; and IMHO, the way the article's
currently organized is best suitable considering the diverse
historiographical tradition on the subject. (Not to diverge, but I can offer
evidence that the writers/editors/readers stating that they see things
similarly outnumber the two of you). On the other hand, the two of you seem
to stress "news style" more so than I do, making them less able to stomach a
"long article."
We should keep this difference of opinion respectful. Although I think that
Mav is wrong here, it does not diminish the great deal of respect that I've
developed over the past ~year and a half for him, recognizing a prodigious
range of talents and abilities.
On that note, I found the tone of Bryan's postings far less constructive
than Mav's. While I'm not saying that Bryan was deriding me in his two
mailing list postings, the tone of his postings was certainly derisive
(using terms and phrases like "obstinate," "going on the attack," "threats,"
"bludgeoned into submission," and the like). We do not have to analyze this
disagreement in terms of our character flaws. I regret that Bryan'd decided
to join in on this vitriolic attack-fest on the mailing list in response to
a single disagreement.
Perhaps I was curt -- and I'm sorry. Now let's take this discussion back to
where it belongsback to [[Talk:Origins of the American Civil War]] and try
to avoid personalizing this difference of opinion next time.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE
download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list