----- Original Message -----
From: "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com>
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonableblock of user
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:41:32 -0500
I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor
to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he
become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the
community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other
honest user.
And as to the specific comment "Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very
first time you are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and disputed."
Nonsense. It can mean that, or it can mean that someone or more people editing the page
feel invested in particular wording and are dismissing someone out of hand, or a
combination of the two.
Sometimes I have excised entire new sections from an article, but I carry them over to
Talk, and explain why they are incorrect or problematic and try to suggest ways to make
them better.
--C
From: "Blair P. Houghton"
<blair(a)houghton.net>
JAY JG wrote:
I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred
to as Wikipedia's "prime
directive" before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree. In
any event, while I don't know the details of this particular
case, it amazes me how often people attempting to make major,
usually contentious, and often highly POV re-writes to articles
cite "Be bold", yet fail to note that the majority of that
policy is devoted to when you *should not* "Be bold". In
particular, much of the policy clearly points out that on
disputed issues and controversial subjects one should, instead,
get consensus on Talk: pages first.
Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill. I don't know who will
complain until I do what I have a right to do. And I suspect I'm
"only human" in that regard, as is everyone else.
Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you
are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and
disputed. And it's a bad sign when people start taking about what
they "have a right to do" on Wikipedia; as far as I know, editing
Wikipedia is still not covered under the Constitution, Bill of
Rights, or similar legislation.
I believe
we are straying into "argument from silence" logical
fallacy territory here.
It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia. What doesn't get
munged is accepted. And if you see a problem, you fix it. Has a
lot to do with the way life works, too. Which is one of the
attractive features of the place.
As soon as you are reverted, the "argument from silence" is
obviously no longer correct.
Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot
be unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals.
Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from
the back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the
point, then including everything I added
Referring to one's opponents on Talk: pages as "juvenile
delinquents" and oneself as the "teacher" is a particularly bad
strategy for getting cooperation.
(but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon to be
gone anyway).
This statement is an ominous sign.
Jay.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at