--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> wrote:
I think that I meant that it seemed rather circular
to claim that a name must be changed because it's
"inflammatory"
("of a nature to rouse passion, anger, or animosity"
-- OED)
when the only passion, anger, and animosity that it
raised
was in the business of changing names in the first
place.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary ;)
There was no mention (there was eventually, but late
in the process)
of any emotions being aroused by the name /other/
than
the desire to ban it on the grounds that it was
"inflammatory".
Wikipedia is not an emotionary either.
But that is hardly what I said; which, as I
mentioned,
was not very coherent. And was overly combative.
And rude.
Sorry about that.
No-- you were just too quick to type back in retort --
like LD was. You both are gracious enough to
recognize it
and apologise for the minor miscommunications along
the way, and I am admirous of both of you for having
the fortitude to do so.
Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy.
A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most
recent post,
which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav.
The best policies are simple. Where subjective
concerns are dealt with, we need consensus. There is
no way around it--these situations will arise, and
there will need to be decisions made. Either there
will be a community consensus, on what that decision
will be, or there will be a Jimbo consensus. This is
the choice.
According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the
wiki process.
Its faith in people. Not the process. Wikifaith, as I
define it is simply an understanding that "Wiki works"
because "people work"-- Wiki is a name for a tool that
represents a technological extension of the human
spirits of community and collegiality. Changes which
act to hamper this are rooted in mistrust, and are for
lack of a better term "anti-wiki"
That's neither here nor there when it comes to
personal usernames.
I have a great deal of faith in the wiki process
these days --
more than I did when I first heard of it! ^_^
To make the argument that usernames are in some way
different is the same as saying that they are special
-- in what way are they special? Do they need to be
protected? Are they
I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do
the right thing;
I have no faith in the thing called "Wikipedia"
whatsoever. My faith is reserved for the people who
happen to be on it. Nes pa?
To the extent that
money measures faith,
Your donation of "money" (work hours quantified,
right) is a good thing. Are you going to compare your
donation in anyway to those of others?
See, if that ever /really/ went through, I would
leave.
Hell, if it were ever a serious issue, I'd lose a
lot of faith
(in Wikipedia, but not much in the wiki process in
general).
Youre an addict, Toby. ;-) Besides-- you make my
point-- nothing would come of it. I can whip up some
annoying fuss trying to get some support for it, and
it will be over like *snap* I'll *bet that the
namechange page would even be deleted (as inflammatory
vandalism )-- and you and I both know that there needs
be "consensus" for such a thing to stand. ;-)
OK, that might not be entirely without doubt;
See?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible
situation where.... for the community to attempt to
impose on me by force.
If we acted unreasonably by your standards, then you
would leave. But because were open, we tend to attract
rather intelligent people, and this standard of reason
would no doubt have to be high. Even in situations
where there is a close split (which reminds me:
time-limited voting, no anons, no newbies (except the
user themself) etc. ) there is still the need for the
community to stand by its own policy. This is why its
important to hammer it out and-- if I may add-- why
your criticisms are valid.
I suspect that the world would be a better place
if we didn't have the technical means to enforce
some rules.
Idea: Keep the discussion limited to the context at
hand, eh?
If people couldn't do anything to change
Drolsi's
old name
/other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis
and try to convince him that it would be a good
idea,
then that might have been what people tried in the
first place!
This is idealistic-- measures to enforce that which is
best for wikipedia are in place now-- Jim can pull
even pull the plug if its going to be good for wiki.
Lets keep perspective here. This is just a name.
"There is no G-d-given right to edit Wikipedia"
remember. (Tarquin, I think) If your critique is of my
approach-- I will acknowledge that I could have been
more cordial to JiL.
Instituting banning and page protection -- even if
necessary,
in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad
thing too,
like anythin that interferes with the wiki process
(in which I have so much faith).
So, under it all-- you oppose banning itself? Then we
need a namechange for this thread. Should we take the
step of voting on it?
~S~
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com