Prejudices (First Series)
Wikipedia is inconsistent
I am opposed to all efforts to impose uniformity on Wikipedia; imposition of national or political PoV are the worst, and most common of these; but the AD/CE edit war is another and clearer example. The wiki solution to the problem would be for anyone who was editing a sentence anyway to change the style if he objected to it, and otherwise to leave it alone. It is an elementary theorem of probability theory that the proportion of AD to CE would then reflect the proportion of people who prefer one to the other, and WP would achieve uniformity when the world does - and not before.
The same logic applies to the doubtless well-intentioned effort to format Wikipedia identically in every article, and to the recurring spats over Anglo-American usage. Both of these are also contrary to express policy, and I approve those policies.
Eventualism
Eventually Wikipedia will get it right. [3]
Delete, but don't Speedy
A few words quoted from Jimbo which have not gotten enough attention in all this:
- *g* Funny isn't it? I keep stumbling across pages ranting against my irrational vendetta and ban of userboxes when basically I'm just saying Everyone please relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- There seems to be an understanding that you have given the OK for mass userbox deletion. I think it would be helpful if you could make it fully clear that this is not the case. Everyking 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that divisive and inflammatory userboxes should be deleted. I am convinced by the events of the last few months that they should not be speedied. The reform proposal linked to a few sections above makes abundantly clear the amount of judgment involved in the application of T1; other speedy criteria can be verified trivially, and usually all reasonable editors will agree when they have been met.
TfD will also usually get rid of something faster, since speedies will often be listed on WP:UBD; and Undeletion will be seriously discussed and often approved. (Of course TfD's can be nominated for undeletion too; but if there has been visible consensus, the deletion reviewers will ignore it.) Septentrionalis 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Five layers of MOS
There are five different approaches to a Manual of Style. MOS should use most of them; it doesn't. Approach 4 is all too often advocated, but Wikipedia is not an exercise in language reform.
One example which actually came up was the proposal to ban "one fourth" in favor of "one quarter"; the examples below are possible statements based on that (hopefully uncontroversial) divergence.
- Discuss the possibilities
- North American English tends to use fourth; other Commonwealth English tends to use quarter.
- There are exceptions to this rule of thumb in both direct.
- Quarter can be used of a division into more than four pieces
- Make a recommendation
- In general, use fourth in articles written in American English; quarter in articles in Commonwealth English.
- Establish a rule for Featured Articles
- Featured Articles must use fourth in articles written in American English; quarter in articles in Commonwealth English.
- A new improved, modern English
- Always use fourth, because it's logical
- Always use quarter. This was the original proposal.
- Don't edit just to change one style to another
- If an article has quarter as an established stylistic choice, don't change to fourth without discussion and consensus.
I think this example makes clear why MoS #2 and MoS #3 should not be the same; we can reasonably suggest that American articles use "fourth", but we should not deprive an article of FA because someone has used "quarter" instead; American English can, as Ursula K. Le Guin did.
Only MOS #3 and MOS #4 require consistency between one MOS page and another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Wiki-Crusaders
We've seen these all too often; somebody notices that an aspect of Wikipedia (usually one he does not use himself) can be abused - and calls a Crusade:
- Userboxes are evil; ban all userboxes.
- Admins can be abusive; desysop all admins.
- Anon accounts vandalize; semi-protect all articles.
- Editors can be nitwits; protect all articles.
We've seen all of these; the last usually in some modified form , because even our Crusaders do sometimes edit articles.
These Crusades have a number of common features:
- A declaration the sky is falling
- An utter absence of evidence that our normal procedures aren't dealing with the abuses.
- The EVIL practice X is usually something which makes no substantive difference to article space, but which some editors find useful.
- Reasoning of the form: "I don't do X (use userboxes/edit anonymously...); why should you have the right to do X? After all, it can be abused."
After six months or so, either it doesn't pass, and somehow the sky manages not to fall; or it does pass, some established editors are harassed, a large number of newbies are driven away, and we watch our expansion slow further - but there's never any great improvement to the encyclopedia.
If I have linked to this section, it probably means that I oppose giving some Crusader an office of trust or profit. Recent Crusades include:
- The complaint (quite literally) that User:Docu signed his posts with Docu instead of four tildes. Some actually proposed to block Docu for this scandalous offense. Docu is not the one who should be blocked.
- This Crusade to block all alt accounts (as opposed to abusive alt accounts, which are the only ones we can recognize) is merely unenforceable and useless - but it did inspire this thread.
- The perpetual Crusades at MOS to mandate one of several valid forms of English; the latest is an effort to decree that we should use 19th century and not nineteenth century. Really; I'm not making this up. Admittedly, unless resisted, as in the late Date-delinking disaster, this rarely begins with the cry "the sky is falling"; but it rapidly emerges. Part of the problem appears to be thinking in terms of a community of MOS editors, as opposed to a community of editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Why we have edits that fail verification
The desperation to support an untenable position to which one is nonetheless committed has caused centuries of extreme mental gymnastics. - Laurie R. King.
Articles in need of attention
Award
|
|
The Rosetta Barnstar
|
| For your concise and integral addition of a greek meaning for the article Logos as well as your many other contributions to grecian topics, i present you with the rosetta barnstar award. thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent editing. Some thing 06:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
|
| Here's a barnster from a complete stranger for your good work :) QueenCake (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
|
Name
Okay, I forgot and put two ~s on each side of the name, instead of four in front. Antonio Giusti 08:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Antonio Giusti
Hi PM
I appreciate your efforts to keep New York Manumission Society NPOV. There is in fact a lot of reading on the web about these issues with the society. It's important to keep the coverage neutral.
I'm still wanting to add more "color" to the articles, i.e. specific activities of the group. I've got so much to do and little experience with Wikipedia, that I'm afraid I'm a bit intimidated and overwhelmed.
I know this is too much to ask, but I would really like to keep coverage of the Manumission society as positive and digestible as possible until March. Your edits so far are perfect, I just don't want there to be any edit wars or undue weight. I truly don't think you're the "bad guy" in your dealings with...others, in fact - I can see both sides. (Have you ever thought the user in question might be the source he most cites? Just a thought.)
I'm frankly hoping to enlist your help - if you can do anything at all to collaborate with me on this project (around all of these related articles), I would be so grateful.
- Sincerely,
- NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Naming dispute participation invite
A geographical naming dispute has gone to mediation here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-19/Paneriai - it started with one town but its scope has widened to include the entire PL-LT Commonwealth. Since you were involved in writing the naming policies, your input would be welcome. I think some of the policy wordings are problematic and lend themselves to unnecessary volumes of argument. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
_in_Northwest_Indiana.jpg)
