LMS wrote:
...On issue of more importance, when a controversial or important decision must be made, my role in this project is to make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to defend it (or to justify it in advance).
Hmm. The pages Simon mentions don't seem controversial to me, nor do I believe they're important. But he said they were deleted with extreme prejudice, and that's what I went on record to protest. It wasn't my content, so I'm not going to fight for it. It's gone. But your reply doesn't shed light on the mystery. I guess I have to go on record, too, to say that I am not questioning your authority. I greatly appreciate the role you play.
I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community." ... stunts by people who are doing their best to question that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly interesting.
If you completely reject it, then it seems you are rejecting the contribution that Simon, TheCunctator, and I bring to the community. It certainly matters in a personal way to the former two, and it matters to me on the basis of principle.
Larry, the mystery remains. Who deleted the pages mentioned by Simon, and why? If it wasn't you (as in one case he says you already stated that it wasn't), then what's your point here? And if it was, then why "waste time" talking in generalities? Simon raised specific issues. True, the generalities are important as a matter of policy, but I don't think Simon cares about that right now. I know that I wouldn't if I couldn't figure out who was trashing ''my'' work.
...In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will trust that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and indeed not abusing my authority.
If I knew in precisely which situations you had exerted your authority, I would have a basis for trust. As it stands, all I know is this:
1. You will delete pages when you deem it to be in the 'pedia's best interests. I have no problem with this. I haven't written anything similar to ''any'' of the deleted content in question.
2. Someone is deleting content, but no one knows why because that individual hasn't explained his or her motives. The content doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the goals of Wikipedia, as held by "consensus" of the community, so only two Wikipedians seem to be directly affected.
The consequence is this: if I have any doubt whatsoever about whether content that I create for Wikipedia is relevant to its goals, I'll be keeping a copy on my personal computer. Not a big deal. But it is, indeed, a blow to community harmony that I have to resort to such tactics.
Jimbo wrote:
Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether Bomis is willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can diverge from the Wikipedia objective.
Absolutely!
Thanks. Looking forward to the announcement of the URL.
Dave McKee wrote:
I hope these problems can be sorted out in an adult and businesslike manner, and that any mistakes or omissions are learnt from.
Ditto.
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure." -- Ellen Ripley, "Aliens"
References: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000700.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000701.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000702.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000704.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000705.html