I see. I had always presumed that the cabal was so secretive and special that the actual members couldn't be identified. As far as I can tell neither of them were admins themselves...but maybe that's just how they fooled everyone into complacency.
This is my first "-1 Troll" rating. I must say, it's very exciting to include no insults, provide valid and insightful counterarguments and promote a perfectly productive back and forth discussion with the parent, all as a troll:)
Jossi and Cberlet are in the inner circle? The first is blocked indefinately, and the second appears to have left of his own accord (and deleted his user page, and nominated deletion of his own page.) There are lots of lousy editors out there. It doesn't mean there is any approval of their edits.
I've always found the "No wikilawyering" guideline to be a bit silly. I think it's trying to convey that one shouldn't coldly point to a sentence and feel "right" now and forever, and you should be open to "ignore all rules". But when someone makes an edit that lowers the quality of an article, it makes sense to show them the explanation of how an edit can be improved, or why an edit doesn't belong. When it's used to shut-out arguments, it does distress me. When I see it happen, I generally come to the party's defense.
Sockpuppetry has always been fairly easy to detect, and meatpuppetry not much more difficult (though meatpuppets aren't always improper.) Likewise, spotting unreasonable accusations of sockpuppetry is pretty easy.
Concerning RFA, I agree there are all sorts of issues with the state of metamoderation for admins. The nice thing about it is, admins don't really have much additional privilige. Some uninformed editors may think that their opinion is somehow valued higher than regular editors (and regrettably, it sometimes is allowed to be that way), but really, it just means they can delete/undelete pages and block people. Their actions are all public, so if they do an unreasonable action, it's not difficult to call them on it.
Since everything on WP is in the history, I don't know how you would lie, unless it was regarding a user's actions outside of WP.
I don't see incivility in the general sense delt with using bans. There is a strong preference for temporary blocks. I agree, that there can be some catty and underhanded tactics to get an editor to explode, but they are also against policy. WP:CIVIL applies to behavior, not just words.
The rules and policies are an attempt to improve the articles in the encyclopedia. They're an attempt to minimize edit wars, promote discussion, and manage the inevitable drama. They are elastic, and they do change in attempts towards improvement. There are still many areas for potential improvement. But even with the imperfection, the encyclopedia grows and, in my opinion, improves with new information and improved citations. Any time I notice such is not the case, I try to do my part to improve it myself. Other times, I leave it be; "There's something wrong on the Internet!" is no worldcrushing disaster for me. If someone cares, they can learn how to improve it.
You're welcome to your opinion, but personally, when I compare Wikipedia to places like 4chan, or Yahoo Chat, I consider the former to be a far cry from a descent into madness.
I've sent a note to the deleting admin; if that route fails, I'll propose undeletion. According to Google's cache, the article could use work, but it at least deserves a proper discussion before deleting. I suspect sources can be found for a perfectly good article.
I assume you trust that it's my account. Most of my changes are related to policy/guideline enforcement. I have many changes involving adding references to recently added information, many edits discussing policy, many edits weighing in article deletion discussions, many edits cleaning up articles in danger of being deleted, and in so, rescuing them. And yes, I do on occassion, seek out and add new facts, almost always with a proper reference cited.
I can wikilawyer with the best of them, I can link to nearly any guideline/policy as needed off the top of my head; the others, I can find within a few clicks. However, when I do so in discussions, I try to follow the policy Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. There are, admittedly quite a lot of things to read, so it is of no fault of the editor if they were unaware of some policy or another. I'm happy to work with them to get the desired content included.
I can understand you dubbing me a troll, the sarcasm I invoked is indeed a trite and overused tactic. I hope you'll forgive it.
If you bothered to RTFA I linked you to, you'd see, "Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment."
I expect new users to know how to use the internet well enough to find help once they need it. When you create an account and make an edit, you get a friendly greeting from a real live person pointing you to important links, and offering to answer any questions you may have.
If your topic is something that belongs in an encyclopedia but was deleted, please tell us what it was, we can have it restored, no problem. What was the article about?
"heard of X" is expressly rejected as a reason for delete. Votes that use this argument in deletion discussions are completely ignored. For more information see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Notability is shown by published secondary sources devoted to the topic.
I'm a huge supporter of Wikipedia, and I still believe you should now and forever double check everything found there. Those citations are there so you can look at them. And for argument's sake, what was the name of the journalist? Most published journalists are notable, and the page can potentially be restored if appropriate.
Yeah, it's terrible! That's why no one will ever use it! How dare one need to read and follow policies! How dare I be able to become one of those less than 1% revert people in a matter of weeks just by doing so! How dare one be able to discuss and change policies through logical argument! How dare it be free! How dare one be able to download the entire DB, fork it and create a website with whatever policies one likes! How dare there be bad editors and administrators, it should be perfect! This is the Internet damnit, we have standards!!
Blog posts are not reliable sources unless they're blogs written in a professional capacity. Also, citing your own publications is dangerous, as explained in Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest
Misinformed editors might use it in that printed on paper sense, but verifiability leans towards reliable sources as defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS
Niche topics often require less reliable sources, and standards are often relaxed. But when no reliable sources are writing about it, then the topic is not ready for an encyclopedia. Omg, I'll have to search google for info, or follow the external links. Poor me.
According to policy, citations are not required for information that is not questionable or disputed. I agree, demanding them in such cases is rather silly. DHMO is not a reliable source. And the way you do the experiment yourself is by reading the details of the experiment from the cited source and then replicating it. Peer reviewed science articles are specifically written in a manner than they can be replicated, and doing so is encouraged. But if all you can say is "Rare element that doesn't exist in nature boils at X degrees celcius" and your cite is "I know because I tried it, you can too!" then 1: Who the heck are you, 2: Why should you be trusted, the internet is anonymous, 3: I can't try it without the expenditure of serious resources. I came here to find verified information, not to find fun experiments to try for any level of confidence!
People revert against policy/guidelines, and that's a shame, but the solution is for more people to do their part in monitoring changes, and use proper dispute resolution when needed. It really works pretty well.
Wikipedia has that. It's called a Soft Redirect. When a relavant wiki exists, the information is encouraged to be moved there. But when the information is "This game that my friend bill and I invented in school that's a variation on paper football" finding an appropriate wiki is a bit difficult.
Your emphasis is wrong. It's an encyclopedia of everything that everyone can edit. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources of information. So if all you have are primary sources, then you need to create/find a reliable secondary source first.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the range has sorta sucked recently....stupid sunspots, we miss you.
(Call Sign: N3ZQV)
If you're gonna woosh, or meta-woosh, at least make it funnier than that!
nearly no-one uses Linux for multi-user systems
Except for all the universities. Otherwise, your comment is dead-on; fanboys of any flavor should get off my lawn.
Yeah, that was my fault. Sorry about that. I knew it was there, I just kept putting off fixing it or telling anyone.
I see. I had always presumed that the cabal was so secretive and special that the actual members couldn't be identified. As far as I can tell neither of them were admins themselves...but maybe that's just how they fooled everyone into complacency.
This is my first "-1 Troll" rating. I must say, it's very exciting to include no insults, provide valid and insightful counterarguments and promote a perfectly productive back and forth discussion with the parent, all as a troll :)
Jossi and Cberlet are in the inner circle? The first is blocked indefinately, and the second appears to have left of his own accord (and deleted his user page, and nominated deletion of his own page.) There are lots of lousy editors out there. It doesn't mean there is any approval of their edits.
I've always found the "No wikilawyering" guideline to be a bit silly. I think it's trying to convey that one shouldn't coldly point to a sentence and feel "right" now and forever, and you should be open to "ignore all rules". But when someone makes an edit that lowers the quality of an article, it makes sense to show them the explanation of how an edit can be improved, or why an edit doesn't belong. When it's used to shut-out arguments, it does distress me. When I see it happen, I generally come to the party's defense.
Sockpuppetry has always been fairly easy to detect, and meatpuppetry not much more difficult (though meatpuppets aren't always improper.) Likewise, spotting unreasonable accusations of sockpuppetry is pretty easy.
Concerning RFA, I agree there are all sorts of issues with the state of metamoderation for admins. The nice thing about it is, admins don't really have much additional privilige. Some uninformed editors may think that their opinion is somehow valued higher than regular editors (and regrettably, it sometimes is allowed to be that way), but really, it just means they can delete/undelete pages and block people. Their actions are all public, so if they do an unreasonable action, it's not difficult to call them on it.
Since everything on WP is in the history, I don't know how you would lie, unless it was regarding a user's actions outside of WP.
I don't see incivility in the general sense delt with using bans. There is a strong preference for temporary blocks. I agree, that there can be some catty and underhanded tactics to get an editor to explode, but they are also against policy. WP:CIVIL applies to behavior, not just words.
The rules and policies are an attempt to improve the articles in the encyclopedia. They're an attempt to minimize edit wars, promote discussion, and manage the inevitable drama. They are elastic, and they do change in attempts towards improvement. There are still many areas for potential improvement. But even with the imperfection, the encyclopedia grows and, in my opinion, improves with new information and improved citations. Any time I notice such is not the case, I try to do my part to improve it myself. Other times, I leave it be; "There's something wrong on the Internet!" is no worldcrushing disaster for me. If someone cares, they can learn how to improve it.
You're welcome to your opinion, but personally, when I compare Wikipedia to places like 4chan, or Yahoo Chat, I consider the former to be a far cry from a descent into madness.
I've sent a note to the deleting admin; if that route fails, I'll propose undeletion. According to Google's cache, the article could use work, but it at least deserves a proper discussion before deleting. I suspect sources can be found for a perfectly good article.
You're welcome to examine my edits at User contributions for Verdatum
I assume you trust that it's my account. Most of my changes are related to policy/guideline enforcement. I have many changes involving adding references to recently added information, many edits discussing policy, many edits weighing in article deletion discussions, many edits cleaning up articles in danger of being deleted, and in so, rescuing them. And yes, I do on occassion, seek out and add new facts, almost always with a proper reference cited.
I can wikilawyer with the best of them, I can link to nearly any guideline/policy as needed off the top of my head; the others, I can find within a few clicks. However, when I do so in discussions, I try to follow the policy Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. There are, admittedly quite a lot of things to read, so it is of no fault of the editor if they were unaware of some policy or another. I'm happy to work with them to get the desired content included.
I can understand you dubbing me a troll, the sarcasm I invoked is indeed a trite and overused tactic. I hope you'll forgive it.
If you bothered to RTFA I linked you to, you'd see, "Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment."
I expect new users to know how to use the internet well enough to find help once they need it. When you create an account and make an edit, you get a friendly greeting from a real live person pointing you to important links, and offering to answer any questions you may have.
I adore this comment.
If your topic is something that belongs in an encyclopedia but was deleted, please tell us what it was, we can have it restored, no problem. What was the article about?
"heard of X" is expressly rejected as a reason for delete. Votes that use this argument in deletion discussions are completely ignored. For more information see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Notability is shown by published secondary sources devoted to the topic.
I consider this a compliment. The image thing is annoying, but being a donation-supported entity, it's that or risk being sued out of existence.
I'm a huge supporter of Wikipedia, and I still believe you should now and forever double check everything found there. Those citations are there so you can look at them. And for argument's sake, what was the name of the journalist? Most published journalists are notable, and the page can potentially be restored if appropriate.
Yeah, it's terrible! That's why no one will ever use it! How dare one need to read and follow policies! How dare I be able to become one of those less than 1% revert people in a matter of weeks just by doing so! How dare one be able to discuss and change policies through logical argument! How dare it be free! How dare one be able to download the entire DB, fork it and create a website with whatever policies one likes! How dare there be bad editors and administrators, it should be perfect! This is the Internet damnit, we have standards!!
Blog posts are not reliable sources unless they're blogs written in a professional capacity. Also, citing your own publications is dangerous, as explained in Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest
Misinformed editors might use it in that printed on paper sense, but verifiability leans towards reliable sources as defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS Niche topics often require less reliable sources, and standards are often relaxed. But when no reliable sources are writing about it, then the topic is not ready for an encyclopedia. Omg, I'll have to search google for info, or follow the external links. Poor me.
According to policy, citations are not required for information that is not questionable or disputed. I agree, demanding them in such cases is rather silly. DHMO is not a reliable source. And the way you do the experiment yourself is by reading the details of the experiment from the cited source and then replicating it. Peer reviewed science articles are specifically written in a manner than they can be replicated, and doing so is encouraged. But if all you can say is "Rare element that doesn't exist in nature boils at X degrees celcius" and your cite is "I know because I tried it, you can too!" then 1: Who the heck are you, 2: Why should you be trusted, the internet is anonymous, 3: I can't try it without the expenditure of serious resources. I came here to find verified information, not to find fun experiments to try for any level of confidence!
People revert against policy/guidelines, and that's a shame, but the solution is for more people to do their part in monitoring changes, and use proper dispute resolution when needed. It really works pretty well.
You can turn off javascript. And you can customize your CSS/skin for both Wikipedia and Wikia.
Wikipedia has that. It's called a Soft Redirect. When a relavant wiki exists, the information is encouraged to be moved there. But when the information is "This game that my friend bill and I invented in school that's a variation on paper football" finding an appropriate wiki is a bit difficult.
Your emphasis is wrong. It's an encyclopedia of everything that everyone can edit. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources of information. So if all you have are primary sources, then you need to create/find a reliable secondary source first.