On Nov 21, 2007 1:39 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On Nov 21, 2007 1:02 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On Nov 21, 2007 11:52 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On Nov 15, 2007 9:43 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote: > William Pietri wrote: > >Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > >> [...]As long as this silly idea refuses to die, neither can
my fervent
> >> opposition to it. > >> > > I regret that I feel the same way. > > And I share Dan's and William's chagrin. > > Something I've been struck by: we need to learn or re-learn, > for today's Wikipedia, how to form consensus. Back in the day > I think we knew how to, but either we've forgotten, or the game > has changed. > > A tiny minority of influential people on one side of a > contentious issue can apparently keep it alive *forever*. > We have to figure out how to settle these issues, and move on. > > I'm not a big player in any of these debates, but by way of > example, I managed to do this in the case of spoiler warnings. > I care almost as much about the spoiler warnings issue as the > BADSITES issue. I could easily be one of the tedious cranks > that Snowspinner was just complaining about. That spoiler > warnings have been summarily eradicated is deeply wrong. > But with apologies to Ken Arromdee, who I would have like to > have supported in that fight, I decided I didn't care enough > about the issue to keep arguing against the juggernaut that had > somehow formed against it, so I turned my back and walked away. > > I'm not saying the solution is to walk away from things you care > about. But the BADSITES issue clearly will not die; we've got > people on both sides who haven't budged an inch in their positions > (myself included) and who are apparently willing to trot out the > same arguments in endless repetetition until the cows come home. > We've all got to get off that treadmill somehow.
I don't think that's accurate. It is only people who are against BADSITES who continually trot it out so they can flail against it; it is the convenient strawman it always was, since it was first created as a strawman.The history of the proposed "alternative" to BADSITES, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment , is also fascinating. It turns out that the two main authors of the policy, BenB4 and Privatemusings, are banned sockpuppets. In fact, 58% of the edits to the page are by banned editors, mostly sockpuppets, another 18% are by an ip editor, and another 4% by the people who most often bring up the BADSITES strawman, Alecmconroy and Dtobias, for a total of 80%. Though the latter two didn't contribute much to the actual writing, they certainly dominated the Talk: page - Alec made 24 edits to the Talk: page and Dan made 162. So we have now reached the point where policies are essentially being written by banned editors, sockpuppets, IP editors, and people who oppose the policy they are writing. And even that "alternative" has apparently today been unilaterally rejected by a new IP editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.148.219.194
BADSITES has proven to be an extremely convenient way of distracting attention from the real issues regarding offsite harassment and non-encyclopedic links; I suspect it has worked even better than its author ever dreamed it would.
Jayjg this would be a nice story except for a few problems: 1) A
number of
editors favored BADSITES
Really? Which ones?
Tony Sidaway supported it strongly. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAttack_sites&diff=...
Well, Mongo appeared to support it. (See his comments on the talk page as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Attack_sites&diff=pr... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAttack_sites&diff=... ). Mongo then went to [[WP:NPA]] and attempted to get nearly identical language in there where he was supported by Thuranx.
So Tony supported it, and Mongo insisted it was an essay or proposed policy. And?
The difs I gave were of Mongo insisting that it stay as a proposed policy (and then an essay) rather than as rejected. And again, if you look at his behavior on the talk page and at NPA he supported it. So we have two prominent editors supporting it. I could give additional examples based on the talk page (I already pointed to Thuranx). I don't see why I need to go through and list every single editor. The bottom line is that actual non-sockpuppet prominent editors supported BADSITES. The notion that this was a strawman that no Wikipedia community member would ever support is simply false.
"Prominent editors" is a convenient shorthand, but we have essentially two editors here, one saying it was policy, another saying it was a proposed policy, or at least an essay (and *anything* can be an essay). I don't think either were admins, by the way. And I never claimed it was a "strawman that no Wikipedia community member would ever support"; rather, it was an extremely clever strawman that suckered in both proponents and opponents. Of course, it has proven extremely useful to opponents, particularly banned editors posting off Wikipedia.
- The removal of many of the problematic links we've
seen in the last few months (such as Making Lights and Robert
Black's blog)
we're precisely what BADSITES was calling for.
Just because the outcome is the same doesn't mean the reasoning for doing so was the same. Crappy links are deleted for all sorts of reasons, mostly because they're crappy, even if they would also have been deleted under that strawman BADSITES policy.
Except none of these were crappy links.
They looked like crappy links to me, but I could be wrong. Any specifics?
Um, see above. The link to Black's blog was a standard external link as were the Making Lights links. If these are were somehow crappy I'd like to hear an explanation.
It's pretty rare that blogs qualify as a *good* link in any meaningful sense of the term, except when they happen to be prominent blogs, and Black's blog was hardly prominent. Was there anything about Black's blog that was really valuable in your eyes? Any specific content you think was demonstrably valuable to Wikipedia? Please be specific about which content you think increased Wikipedia's stature as an encyclopia.
As for the "Making Lights" links, I think that incident is as useful as the BADSITES itself; that is to say, extremely useful for absolutist rhetoric, but not at all useful for making good decisions. Please see my earlier comments on this.
These were links that would have been included in article space but for the fact that they contained material we didn't like.
Err, "containing material we don't like" pretty much covers every link ever deleted from Wikipedia.
Jayjg, please do not' be disingenuous. You know what I mean. These would have been included but for the fact that that they contained specific information or speculation about Wikipedia editors.
But the vast majority of blogs are, in fact, non-encyclopedic; that's why we don't include them as reliable sources. And, in fact, Black's log fails [[WP:EL]] #2, and would be immediately rejected as a link on over 3 million Wikipedia pages. The fact that it could *possibly* be included as a link on exactly 1 page in all of Wikipedia doesn't mean that it is encyclopedic, or that its inclusion is necessary, or even desirable.