On 14 April 2013 13:28, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 April 2013 12:24, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Mmm, I remember that mail and whom I suggested
...
I didn't see you in that thread ... who were you thinking of?
It was a private reply and explanation about a well-known critic of
our BLPs. Water under the bridge.
I'm still
quite deletionist on BLPs because of examples where our
"rules" are too easy to game. I'm certainly not an anti-stub
deletionist because that I see as destructive of future growth, and I
improve many stubs these days. If "passionate" means "nuance-free",
which is a fair cop much of the time, then I agree with you.
I favour James Forrester and Thomas Dalton's arguments here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg01454.html
- that Wikipedia started as anything-goes, this was severely cut back
and we're now closer to a nuanced equilibrium.
Almost all attempts at writing enWP's history are good (I except the
one at Wikimania in DC which was a multi-dimensional trainwreck).
I had my pet theory for a few years, that there was too little
disruption - which I kept quiet about for several reasons, not the
least of which was that I'm unsure of the spelling of Nietzsche at the
best of times, but am sure I don't want to be associated with him.
Also from a wonkish point of view saying that makes for no useful
policy point arising. It mostly harks back to good old days that are
really very fictional.
We're not yet at a healthy equilibrium. I've used the history in a
workshop once, and the editor retention graph shows the need to be
thoughtful.
It is clear that we moved away from the old-style "What I Know Is"
criterion for inclusion quite sharply in 2007. What needs to be
explained more clearly is what took its place. I remember saying to
Brianna Laugher at the time - she raised the point in Taipei, so was
ahead of many of us - that "people who like rules" were displacing the
old-school guys. Five years on I'm still hoping for the one-liner that
says it better. I produced one for JISC when I was talking to them
with Martin Poulter. Either it wasn't really memorable, or I'm having
a senior moment and it'll come back to me.
Charles