[Wikipedia-l] Talk policy

[Mark Christensen]

I also brought this subject up in the Wikipedia itself.  I think it's
important to refactor discussions.  The key sociological differences between
Usenet and a wiki is that the ability to make instant additions and add to
discussions is balanced by the ability to edit what has come before.  If
Larry's correct in worrying about the Wikipedia becoming just another
discussion group, the way we should go about fixing that is to refactor
discussions.

Anyway, I don't buy the argument that since refactoring a /talk page is a
complex issue there are no rules we can apply.  For example, I think we can
say:

1) It's generally better to refactor /talk pages to summarize the previous
discussion than to delete that discussion.

2) Refactoring should not take place until the discussion has either died
down, or moved on to a new topic.

3) If there's a long discussion between two people, and it's slightly off
topic, feel free to move it to a new page, and replace it with a link to the
new page (a sub page of one of the involved parties is a good idea.)

4) When refactoring a /talk page, look for content which should be added to
the main encyclopedia page.  

If we go back to the origonal post, I agree that talk about a simple
typographical error should not exist, and can be deleted imediately.  If you
find a typo, go ahead and fix it, don't just post a gripe. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales at bomis.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:28 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Talk policy


I think you are absolutely correct in all aspects of your reasoning.
In many cases, the /Talk pages should be refactored when the main page
has been changed to the satisfaction of all the talkers.  In some
cases, this will not be true.

In some cases, deletions to the /Talk page should wait several days
until all the contentious parties have had a good chance to mull it
over.  For example, there might be a 3-way debate.  A and B are initially
in agreement, and C dissents.  B is convinced by C's dissent and changes 
the main page, noting on the /Talk page the reasons.  It would be nice if
A had a few days to decide whether to press the issue further, and simply
deleting the talk page on the assumption that B's conversion is tantamount
to consensus might be unwise.

One useful "middle of the road" solution is to *refactor* rather than
*delete*
the /Talk.  That is, to rewrite the talk page to sum up the debate that was
held, giving the rationale for the existing version of the page.  This
leaves
things a bit more open to further debate, while at the same time "cleaning
house"
in a useful way.

I think that when we come across an old talk page that seems to be about an
uncontroversially corrected error, we should feel free to just delete the
whole
discussion.

All in all, I think that no *simple* policy can be stated.  As long as we
have
a friendly and helpful community striving for consensus, then individual
judgment
will serve to guide us quite nicely.


Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I often stumble over /Talk pages containing requests for changes,
> clarification, or similar, which are outdated by the main page's
> progress. An example of many is
>
<URL:http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=LISP_programming_lan
guage/Talk&revision=1>:
> 
> > Page for discussion ...
> 
> Fluff, removed now.
> 
> > "... and is therefore the oldest programming language ..."
> 
> with arguments why this is false. Notion has been corrected in the
> article. Following is a section acknowledging the error.
> 
> > "... and CDR (Contents of Address Register) ..."
> 
> Pointing out a typo, which has been fixed. Another section
> acknowledging this error follows.
> 
> > Function CAR in LISP program returns ...
> 
> I don't know what this is, perhaps a suggested addition to the article?
> 
> So, one section is still relevant, the other four or five were used by
> people to showcase problems that they were not sure enough about to go
> ahead and correct them. I'm unsure what should be done about these
> no-longer-relevant bits.
> 
> My preferred alternative is deleting them outright, and make the
> following guideline: If you implement a suggestion from a /Talk page,
> be sure to delete the suggestion as well. It is no longer relevant to
> the current revision of the article.
> 
> The counter argument that holds me back is that the discussion
> provides background reasoning to changes, especially regarding more
> contentious topics.
> 
> (Obviously this does not apply to the CAR/CDR change, so I decided to
> remove that as well, now.)
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Robbe



-- 
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l