(Sorry I'm late to this discussion, I was out of town.)
So this sounds like a new position, the idea of a middle ground. Some
things should not be encouraged, but should not be deleted either.
Right?
Where does What Wikipedia Is Not fit in to this? I always assumed that
WWIN listed the criteria for whether something should be deleted or not.
Or more specifically, it lists the criteria for whether something should
be fixed - but if it's unfixable, then delete it (e.g. if it can never
become more than a dictionary definition).
The problem I've had all along is that WWIN doesn't say anything about
trivia or ephemera. So there's no agreement on whether to delete them or
not. So I take it that Jimbo's position is that these things would fall
into a new category in WWIN - those things that should be discouraged
but not deleted. If someone is motivated enough to create a list of
songs whose title does not appear anywhere in their lyrics, then we
shouldn't delete it, but we shouldn't encourage it either. So "Wikipedia
is not for trivia" isn't really either true or false. Does that sound
like what you were saying?
Alex (axlrosen)
=======================
tarquin wrote:
> So can I write about the cat that was stuck up a tree in the next
> street from me? The local press gave in plenty of coverage!
Are there links? Would it be possible for others to confirm the
story?
I hope people don't waste much time writing such pages, but it strikes
me as much more of a waste to fight against someone who wanted to
include them. I have no problem with a social stigma against writing
such pages (just as there is and should be a social stigma against
writing articles about ourselves), but a policy of deletion that goes
beyond confirmability seems to me to invite more conflict than it
would be worth.
Such pages...
1. Do not belong in Wikipedia 1.0 (paper edition), because such will
be selected with an eye towards the cost of production
2. Ought not to be linked from the front page (which is
space-constrained to deal with only big events and major conceptual
topics)
But other than that, what's the harm?
One possible objection I can imagine is cluttering the search results.
But the best solution to that, I think, would be to have a refined
search engine that limits the impact of minor pages. There are a
number of ways to do that, but in any event, it seems unlikely to
be a huge problem anyway just because people aren't going to be so
interested in writing that many pages of this type.
And that's especially true if we more or less just ignore the
practice.
--Jimbo
Jimbo wrote:
>Ed Poor removed that line with the comment
>"(moved self-serving ... text to talk)". And of
>course since then, famously, you two have
>been at each others throats.
I'm almost certain that would have happended even if Mr. Rampton did not have
an article. Ed and Sheldon's politics are very much opposed to one another
(in an already almost hostile way) and they have clashed on several different
articles.
>Let me say it another way -- it isn't so much the
>conflict-of-interest that's a problem, it's that personal
>courtesy prevents people from editing an article about
>you that you've edited yourself, with the result being an
>entry that is not encyclopedic.
Personal courtesy be dammed! If it is in the article space then it is fair
game for NPOVing and fact-checking (in no way should the same courtesy
extended to user pages be transferable to the article space just because the
user happens to be famous enough for an article). Also, the very fact that a
person who is very closely involved with the subject in a POV way has edited
the article sends POV-warning signals to me. So if I saw somebody editing
their own article, then I would be extra suspicious of their edits.
But that is just me.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> From: Jimmy Wales
>> > There are verifiable facts about me, news reports
>and what-not, but I
>> would prefer if there were no article about me, as
a >matter of modesty
>> and good taste. I don't see any reason for us to
>have a hard-and-fast
>> rule about this, but would like to encourage a
>social meme of similar
>> modesty from other contributors.
>> > At a very minimum, it seems most tasteful for
>anyone about whom we do
>> have an entry to recuse themselves from working on
>it.
>I think it's reasonable to discourage entries about
>contributors, but I
>think it's unreasonable to expect people to recuse
>themselves from
>working on their own entries. We don't generally
>expect people to recuse
>themselves from areas in which they are experts. We
>should, however,
>expect people to be rational and impersonal when
>working on their
>entries...that is, be held to the same standards of
>verifiability and
>respect for others' edits.
>One question: why is this on the wikien list and not
>general wikipedia
>list? Are we trying to establish different mores and
>guidelines on all
>the wikipedia language versions?
This is a good question.
Made me think of something.
There are already some different guidelines between
the different versions. Even when, as it rarely
happen, the topic is common.
Recently, after a good couple of months,
french-speaking people reached a hundred percent
agreement to delete all Daniel C. Boyer pages.
-----
other times, I see not any consensus, though I am sure
there would be one on en. That means our rules will be
different from yours.
How could a consensus be drawn from this ?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3APrise_de_d%E9cision%2C_d%E9bloqu…
6 pro, 6 against, 5 neutral.
Consensus in action :-)
And when guidelines are already established on en,
because of your experience, it is probably important
that the other versions learn from you, but perhaps
make their own rules, according to local situation.
Only guidelines or software changes that do not exist
on *any* wikipedia can be honestly discussed together.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Is there someone here with good and current knowledge about ancient history
in general and/or Phoenicia in particular? If so, please take a look at the
recent edits to [[Phoenicia]]. I get the impression that someone is trying
to pass off the opinion of a respected but by no means general accepted
theory/professor as being 'the' truth about Phoenicia. I do know something
about this subject, but not enough to either go into an edit war or resolve
it.
Andre Engels
Craig Hubley lives in Toronto Canada. He is a founder of P146 -- a group which advocates regional secession from the Canadian national government; as well as from Toronto, Ontario, and the UN. He is a fan of the movie "Fight Club". He has a degree in mathematics, from the University of Toronto, Waterloo (1987). He enjoys writing reviews for Amazon.com. He is associated with the Free University of Toronto, the Unicus Corporation, the Green Party, and Craig Hubley & Associates. He is a fan of Winona LaDuke.
It is easy enough, if you so desire, to search the internet and obtain his phone, fax, email, associates, friends, resume, education, personal correspondence, home address, and place of employment.
Notable Quotes by Mr. Hubley
a.. But I have made up my mind whose side I fight on, and I would cut fifty human baby throats to save one gorilla. In the 1960s there were "race traitors". I am a "species traitor". Take that as you will, but perhaps you see some reason now why I am not going to be participating in any great depth in any advice beyond the economy, which all Anthropoid nations participate in, whether willing to, or not...
b.. The only real standard for money used by human beings for human concerns should be free time... I can buy a comfortable hour of being left alone by everyone to consume any non-material comfort that I want, for one US$. How's that? The government operates "don't bug me" isolation tanks for one dollar an hour to guarantee that price, and all of them have a cot and toilet and lots of Internet bandwidth... with programs set up to route people together who belong together.
c.. In Canada our most educated observers have concluded that the PRovinces are pernicious instruments for exploiting natural capital as resources. Jane Jacobs, the noted urbanologist, advocates the city-state solution. We should be talking about how the NAFTA region, and then the OAS region, can develop workable investment and currency liquidity standards so that there is no "Rent-seeking" nor "race to the bottom" in either bloc.
Mav said
Anthere wrote:
>>Unless I seriously missed something, the
>>comment RK made just above is a rather old one.
>RK has been saying acting in a similar manor since the day that I first
>arrived at Wikipedia nearly two years ago. So a comment he made in July isn't
>that old in my book. The point is that he has not improved and continues to
>act badly.
Of course Mav. You are right. I did not say his current behavior was ok.
However, the fact is
RK has been there since (say) 2 years
During these two years, he has been behaving in a way many people here find not acceptable
Recently, he has received a serious warning; somehow, he is currently on probation (on a watch list ?)
It is important to consider whether the warning had an effect or not, hence to *compare* his behavior since the warning, to what it was *before* the warning.
If the warning did not change anything, then this kind of warning is useless with RK.
I personnaly think it made a difference. He is (I think) not calling for banning anymore, he is not calling people vandals, he is not insulting them so rudely. Or (in case I miss something), he is doing it less than before. As Cimon pointed out, he is careful not to use some trigger words.
Before, he said to some people they were nazi (or equivalent comments). This is direct insult, with little backup provided usually. So, a pure attack.
Now, he says "your comments might be seen as anti-semit by some people". Well, it is more polite; it does not say "I *am* bad", it says "some people consider I am, as regards their personal frame of reference". I suppose he could even cite people to support his claim.
Of course, I disagree, but I am left the opportunity not to comment this (people are free to have an opinion), while being accused of being nazi somehow force someone to justify herself, to *prove* she is not.
Eh :-) Ultimately... writing "Anthere is a nazi" is taking position. Forcing opinion. Closing the discussion. Bad.
Writing, "according to most american rabbins, Anthere is holding antisemit comments" is ...is... is...
Is that not what we are *precisely* doing on Wikipedia ?
Okay, my position is that he has been making efforts, and that should be recognised. That is why, regardless of other comments he made, I think I had to mention that the summary you copied was anterior to the warning. I would have felt dishonnest with wikipedians if I had not mentionned this fact.
This said, the fact he made efforts is good.
Whether the efforts are sufficient is another matter.
-----------------
I would like to know whether some of you have noticed shifts in the way other wikipedians (you perhaps) were talking after a while. The other day, in an icq discussion, someone wrote to me (on a subject irrelevant to Wikipedia), "I think this is a bad idea, but others appear to think differently". I am ***sure*** that two months ago, that person would have just said "this is a bad idea."
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Anthere wrote:
>Unless I seriously missed something, the
>comment RK made just above is a rather old one.
RK has been saying acting in a similar manor since the day that I first
arrived at Wikipedia nearly two years ago. So a comment he made in July isn't
that old in my book. The point is that he has not improved and continues to
act badly.
-- mav
I'm at wits end with RK.
Just check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gaia_philosophy&action=history
Note RK's edit summaries (first is reverting me, second is reverting Cimon
avaro, and third is reverting Anthere):
RK (Reverting violation of standard Wikipedia protocol. Please stop the
personal attacks, and stop attacking statements I NEVER MADE. Take the time
to READ the actual comments.)
RK (Cimon, please stop your mass reversions, your lies about my own
statements, and stop attacking things I have never said. You need to get some
sort of control over your anger.)
and
RK (Reverting Anthere;'s POV violations, again. This is the English
Wikipedia, and not Anthere's personal wish list of she wishes English
speakers would use this term. Please ban that vandal. Seriously.)
So according to RK, my restoration of a great deal of text was a violation of
Wikipedia protocol and I attacked him. I did no such thing (I did mention
that /he/ was the one doing the attacking though). Also according to RK Cimo
avaro is a liar and has an anger management problem. Sorry, but I just don't
see that. What I /do/ see is RK going ballistic on a daily basis on a number
of articles. Finally according to RK Anthere writes POV text and is a vandal.
That is an outrageous assertion.
I hate to say it, but I think RK is more of a hindrance to our effort than his
edits are worth.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
I'm at wits end with RK.
Just check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gaia_philosophy&action=history
Note RK's edit summaries (first is reverting me,
second is reverting Cimon avaro, and third is
reverting Anthere):
RK (Reverting violation of standard Wikipedia
protocol. Please stop the personal attacks, and stop
attacking statements I NEVER MADE. Take the time to
READ the actual comments.)
RK (Cimon, please stop your mass reversions, your lies
about my own statements, and stop attacking things I
have never said. You need to get some sort of control
over your anger.)
and
RK (Reverting Anthere;'s POV violations, again. This
is the English Wikipedia, and not Anthere's personal
wish list of she wishes English speakers would use
this term. Please ban that vandal. Seriously.)
%%%%%%
Ant :
Mav, I apology in advance, but I fear that part of
what you wrote is misrepresentation :-(
Unless I seriously missed something, the comment RK
made just above is a rather old one. Err...RK and I
apparently disagree about something on this article
(though I have not been able to distinguish what
precisely yet), but he has not recently told me I was
out of place on en, nor asked for me to be banned for
being a vandal. That is old stuff.
Err...he *suggested* that part of what I wrote a
couple of days ago could be interpretated as
anti-semitism, but it was rather "gently" said (so to
speak). Right now (toward me at least), I see someone
trying to make efforts.
%%%%%%%%
So according to RK, my restoration of a great deal of
text was a violation of Wikipedia protocol and I
attacked him. I did no such thing (I did mention
that /he/ was the one doing the attacking though).
Also according to RK Cimo avaro is a liar and has an
anger management problem. Sorry, but I just don't see
that. What I /do/ see is RK going ballistic on a daily
basis on a number of articles. Finally according to RK
Anthere writes POV text and is a vandal.
That is an outrageous assertion.
I hate to say it, but I think RK is more of a
hindrance to our effort than his edits are worth.
%%%%%%%%%
Ant :
again, he did not write recently I was a vandal. I am
not sure about the pov, but I think he did not either.
I thank you for thinking that outrageous assertion (I
think I will be an expert in npov writing for all cult
articles in a few months). It was very nice of you
Mav. All the other refs you gave are exact, and I
agree it is difficult. Err...very difficult. Like
walking on eggs.
I am not able to give an opinion on whether this
difficulty is worth or not worth it :-( I dunno really
:-(
I thank 168 for her help.
Ant
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
>Seeing as how Mr. Hubley on his web site takes
>credit for one of 142.177.etc's trademark articles,
>I believe there is every reason to believe that
>Hubley and 142.177.etc are one and the same,
>unless there is some evidence to the contrary.
I agree with you. And the truth is an absolute defense in any libel case (even
if not true, then any reasonable person would also strongly suspect a
Hubley/142 connection given all the available evidence). My mentioning that
142.177 was Craig Hubley is not, as he likes to state, actionable libel and
slander.
>However, I must take issue with the implied suggestion
>some have made that we undertake to bombard Hubley
>with e-mail, phone calls, legal threats, and personal visits.
Who implied this? Lir came close, but I just don't see a clear connection
between Lir's research and any advocacy to deluge Mr. Hubley or otherwise
bother him. It was my impression that Lir was trying to make a point that now
that 142 has been "outed" then we could (in a technical sense) do that. He
did not say that we should do that and in fact indicated that the outing was
bad because we could disrupt Mr. Hubley's life.
>Such a response would be ineffective and inconsistent
>with our core values.
I agree. But we can and should use that information to contact the authorities
if Mr. Hubley's actions justify that.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)