Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
I just wanted to mention here that I've started a new thread at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Berkman_Sciences_Po_banner_taken_down Since our research banner was taken down, we've been paying a great deal of attention to the various concerns raised here and on wiki about its design and functioning. So I've tried to carefully describe what kind of work we are doing now to address these concerns, with the hope that we could move forward with the research in a community compliant way and collect the 650 additional responses that we would need to complete it. I hope that this is helpful... Regards, Jérôme. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Speaking off the record and in my personal capacity - fuckin' A. Thank you for being the one sane voice :p On Sunday, 11 December 2011, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that the research committee made only a token effort at finding or following relevant onwiki policy or consensus , nor did they try to explain or correct their actions onwiki in a timely manner as per WIARM. Or where they did, they didn't follow up. Any of those 3 elements (Policy, Consensus, WIARM/BRD) each could and still can help bring people up to speed and reduce misunderstandings. That's part of what they're for, after all! I'm sure that people will be more supportive once things are sorted out in that way. Hmm, the research committee still hasn't made any onwiki statement at a relevant location that I can find. If this were a court case, RCom would pretty much have lost by default and/or forfeit already. As I said, analyze and nitpick things to death. Does any of that above * really* matter? It distresses me to see the community turned into this insane policy-enforcing power-hungry gang. Everything must be approved by us (consensus)! Everything must follow each letter and comma of every goddarn policy out there! If there is a single comma missing we will shred you to pieces, treat you like a scum and public enemy number 1, whack you with all kinds of warnings, AN threads, blocks... Yeah, you go back to where you came from and stay there![1] Since when doing something nice and interesting on WP should be treated and compared to going to a court? Why and when did the community started to think that compliance with WP:IDHCWTSF[2] is more important than intentions, than doing the right thing, than embracing new, different ideas? Why does everything have to go through nine circles of bureaucracy? I weep for the memory of Wikipedia that was *free*. Yes, it is still free [as in $ and *©*], but it is no longer free of the instruction creep that stifles and regulates your every movement. I weep for the memory of a feeling that you *can* change, you *can* edit, you *can* do... without that gripping fear that you are violating some random policy and therefore will be whacked on your head with some large stick. Renata [1] Exaggerated, yes, but isn't this the typical newbie experience these days? [2] Wikipedia:I don't have a clue what this stands for ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Is swearing acceptable on this email list? If so, I will unsubscribe as I would prefer not to to be surprised by offensive language in my mail box. Fae On 12 December 2011 18:59, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Speaking off the record and in my personal capacity - fuckin' A. Thank you for being the one sane voice :p ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:59:24PM +, Oliver Keyes wrote: On Sunday, 11 December 2011, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote: as per WIARM. As I said, analyze and nitpick things to death. Does any of that above * really* matter? Speaking off the record and in my personal capacity - fuckin' A. Thank you for being the one sane voice :p Hilariously enough, Renata and I are saying almost the same thing, I just [[WP:WOTTA]]ed it. The one thing we disagree on is that Renata is arguing Ignore all rules and I prepend: if it improves the encyclopedia Compare with the policy on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR The tag soup takes up more space than the actual policy. :-P It really can't get much simpler than this. If you want to look at some of the corolleries of this single sentence rule, see [[Wikipedia:What Ignore all rules means]]. If you think that's insane, then I seriously don't know what's sane anymore. :-/ sincerely, Kim Ignore All Rules; or else! Bruning -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Kim, One thing that confuses me. On the Foundation-l list, why do you insist on peppering your comments with English Wikipedia alphabet soup and references to local project policy? A pretty large proportion of the readers of this list have no interest in such pages, and no knowledge of what you mean when you say you [[WP:WOTTA]]'d something. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 07:01:58PM -0500, Nathan wrote: Kim, One thing that confuses me. On the Foundation-l list, why do you insist on peppering your comments with English Wikipedia alphabet soup and references to local project policy? A pretty large proportion of the readers of this list have no interest in such pages, and no knowledge of what you mean when you say you [[WP:WOTTA]]'d something. Because I realize I'm breaking one of my own rules O:-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WOTTA Thanks for reminding me. I promise to adhere to it better in future. sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
