On Tuesday 19 August 2003 00:24, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
a) Most people have their freedom abruptly denied
before recieving any notice. Cops show up, say
"you're under arrest", and cart them off to jail. The
analogy really doesn't work.
That is talking about probable cause for cops to make an arrest. My analogy
is akin to providing proper notices to appear in court. The analogy is very
sound
I apologize, I was extrapolating in a flawed manner.
and mentioning cops making arrests is a strawman.
"Strawman" implies it was an intentional attempt to be underhanded. It
wasn't.
b) Speaking of
the analogy not working... The article
is on trial, not the author.
Thus the notice goes on the article itself; the author may or may want to
act in the article's defense. Your reasoning is weak.
I don't see how it's any weaker than the rest of the reasoning that's gone
into this policy decision and its ex post facto discussion. In your analogy,
you need to give notice to the person being put on trial. That person can
then decide who they want to notify.
The article
should have all the time in the world
to check vfd and prepare its defense
You have any idea how odd that sounds? The article cannot be its own
advocate.
Of course I realize how odd it sounds. My entire argument is intentionally
absurd to point out the ridiculousness of the analogy and the situation
itself. Do you not bother reading things in parentheses? You certainly have
no trouble removing them from quoting when they provide vital context. I was
making a point.
"unwiki" means very different things to very
different people. To me, personally, "wiki" is
purely a TECHNICAL term, not a philosophy.
Wiki is a philosophy, a very radical one in which websites are open to
contributions by complete strangers. Thus "unwiki" is anything which tends
to make things less open (like listing articles for deletion without
providing notice on the article itself).
That is YOUR assertion. Not everyone agrees with you. And furthermore, not
everyone who shares your idea that "wiki" is a philosophy may agree with your
definition of this "philosophy".
What I have a
problem with is being told I'll
have to go through yet another irritating step
that was never needed until somebody decided
for themselves that it was.
It became necessary once the volume of submissions to the VfD page became
as large as it is today. Since so many things are listed there is less
debate on each item. Thus the chances of something being unfairly deleted
increases. Our policies have evolved this way; at first everything was very
informal and lax, but as we have grown we have needed to develop written
policies to make things run smoothly.
And these written policies are apparently developed in back rooms with no
input from the community. Convenient for you until you realize it goes
directly against your "policy" of forcing openness upon the unwashed masses.
Pick a way and stick with it, please, so I can decide whether to jump ship
and stop wasting my time.
Why wasn't
this little "policy" decision advertised
far and wide?
It was an extension of our current largely un-written policies of openness,
accountability and fairness. IMO, the Admin that made the written change
was just codifying these precepts to apply in this particular case.
What would have been wrong with the "admin" giving some notice before he made
what some view as a unilateral policy change? Or would that have been too
inconvenient, since people might disagree?
I never saw any
mention of it until Saturday.
You are well aware of it now.
Only because someone I have no respect for complained about it on the list.
Not everyone subscribes to or reads the archives of the list, just like not
everyone monitors every policy page; and if they do, some may entirely ignore
threads started by certain people in an effort to avoid wasting their own
time. If you want to be forcefully open, you're going to need to make a
greater effort to dissiminate information about what is being done with
policies.