On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the season > for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer > this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia from > the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus and arm > waving and say "It is alive! It is alive!" > > ... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is. > > Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. "Let's try again! > This time it will work!" > -- > -- > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] > Jussie-Ville - terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a reasoned argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts on this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however strong you might hold your opinions on the topic. As you can see I have fairly strong views on this particular topic myself :-) and I'm making them known here in a public forum. But I am also trying to make reasoned arguments and propose solutions without demonising those who are responsible or the project itself (e.g. "corpse" etc. above). If we want to make sure that our criticisms raised on Foundation-l are actually addressed I think we need to make that the relevant people are not afraid of being demonsided if they admit a mistake. Otherwise we'll just be dismissable as being "against it": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0 Trying to do something and not succeeding is not a failure - so long as we learn from the mistakes. As it says on the door as you leave the WMF office [so I have been told], "Let's make better mistakes tomorrow". This is a good attitude to have! Rather than trying to avoid mistakes altogether, or worse, not acknowledge them at all. "let's try again" (as you put it) is, IMO, a good attitude to have so long as you're not trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome. In the case of the AFT for example, you can clearly see in the documentation that each iteration (versions 1-4 and now 5) have built on the best and discarded the worst of each previous model. As I've stated, I hold much hope for the usefulness of AFTv5, which is being build learning from past experience. Which is why I would like to see AFTv4 removed from the remaining 99.7% of en.wp now that it is being superseded. -Liam Peace, love & metadata -- wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
