Summary style (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Response to Bryan Derken)

Mon Jun 7 10:39:53 UTC 2004

Mav and Brian:

maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:

"A comprehensive summary that takes less than 15 minutes to read is needed 
as well as all the detail - giving the reader a *choice* as to how much 
detail they are prepared to go through in order to answer their questions. I 
would have written it myself, but 172 indicated that any effort to do so 
would be reverted. So I didn't bother spending time on it."

I don't know if that's reason not to bother spending any time on it. I never 
said that I wouldn't listen to other ideas; I was just trying to make it 
clear that Bryan would have to reconsider his proposal. But I admit that 
this is a generally fair statement of my position at the time. I opposed any 
effort to create a NI-style series (at least right away) just as much as the 
two of you supported such efforts.

When editors have conflicting ideas, they are tacitly aware that unless they 
reach a compromise amongst themselves or unless one side leaves the table, 
an edit war is the only option. When you think of it this way, edit wars are 
in effect the force behind compromise. The occurrence of an edit war in and 
of itself only is a sign of disagreement, and good contributors at times can 
(and do) disagree.

In particular, I had compelling reasons for withholding this option at the 
time. Notice that as the reader moves down the page, the narrative builds on 
points already established in the text. Unless someone rewrote and 
significantly expanded each section of the article, Bryan's proposals 
would've left the individual components of the series superficial at best 
and incoherent at worst. BTW, this was stated a number of times on the talk 
page (and not just by me), and so far no one has responded to this-- at 
least to the best of my recollection.

But at the root of this disagreement, we're likely dealing with competing 
stylistic preferences-- not the realms of black/white and right/wrong. On 
one hand, I favor quality (which requires multiple contexts-- the scholarly 
approach to achieving NPOV) over brevity; and IMHO, the way the article's 
currently organized is best suitable considering the diverse 
historiographical tradition on the subject. (Not to diverge, but I can offer 
evidence that the writers/editors/readers stating that they see things 
similarly outnumber the two of you). On the other hand, the two of you seem 
to stress "news style" more so than I do, making them less able to stomach a 
"long article."

We should keep this difference of opinion respectful. Although I think that 
Mav is wrong here, it does not diminish the great deal of respect that I've 
developed over the past ~year and a half for him, recognizing a prodigious 
range of talents and abilities.

On that note, I found the tone of Bryan's postings far less constructive 
than Mav's. While I'm not saying that Bryan was deriding me in his two 
mailing list postings, the tone of his postings was certainly derisive 
(using terms and phrases like "obstinate," "going on the attack," "threats," 
"bludgeoned into submission," and the like). We do not have to analyze this 
disagreement in terms of our character flaws. I regret that Bryan'd decided 
to join in on this vitriolic attack-fest on the mailing list in response to 
a single disagreement.

Perhaps I was curt -- and I'm sorry. Now let's take this discussion back to 
where it belongs—back to [[Talk:Origins of the American Civil War]] and try 
to avoid personalizing this difference of opinion next time.

-172

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE 
download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/