Re: [WikiEN-l] Now that's putting faith in Wikipedia
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM, David Gerard wrote: > http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3i615140fc749e4798425e1349881c51f3 > > Of course, at this moment it's a Twitter search on the word "skittles" > instead. Leading to: > > http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/03/02/skittles-the-cause-of-all-world-evil-or-just-clever-marketing/ > The site is broken with Firefox and possibly other browsers. In IE, at least, there is a floating flash box; clicking on "products" will take you to Wikipedia content. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Now that's putting faith in Wikipedia
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3i615140fc749e4798425e1349881c51f3 Of course, at this moment it's a Twitter search on the word "skittles" instead. Leading to: http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/03/02/skittles-the-cause-of-all-world-evil-or-just-clever-marketing/ - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Start an Epidemic
Carcharoth wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Charles Matthews > wrote: > > > > >> What works is this: >> > > > > Want to focus on one. > > >> - people show respect for the policy by "staying on the fairway", not >> gaming it at the margins; >> > > This only works if the policy is written sufficiently well to allow > for the existence of a broad fairway as opposed to a narrow one. There > will always be those who want to narrow the fairway and constrain > people into a set definition. If the margins are brought in too close, > it becomes too easy to accuse people of gaming the margins. If the > fairway is too broad, then too much slips through. Even if people > agree on where the central point should be, what should be done when > people disagree on how broad the fairway should be? > Dispute resolution. The existence of areas where reasonable people might disagree doesn't vitiate policies, it just means that there is room for concrete discussion with the aim of clarification. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Start an Epidemic
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > What works is this: Want to focus on one. > - people show respect for the policy by "staying on the fairway", not > gaming it at the margins; This only works if the policy is written sufficiently well to allow for the existence of a broad fairway as opposed to a narrow one. There will always be those who want to narrow the fairway and constrain people into a set definition. If the margins are brought in too close, it becomes too easy to accuse people of gaming the margins. If the fairway is too broad, then too much slips through. Even if people agree on where the central point should be, what should be done when people disagree on how broad the fairway should be? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Start an Epidemic
Marc Riddell wrote: > Carcharoth, I believe the problem we as a community are having with the > issue of civility is finding a definition of it that everyone can agree > upon. And, since the very concept of civility is so highly subjective, that > agreeing upon a firm definition is impossible. On the other hand ... it is not the only such issue. And insisting that everything be spelled out in detail is a type of wikilawyering. We have had extensive experience of this kind of issue with policies. We do not accept that the only criterion of a robust policy is a water-tight definition. For example, disruption is not accepted on Wikipedia, but there is no actual policy with a definition. What works is this: - there is a policy and it is open to revision by those who think they can improve it; - policies apply to everyone who contributes to Wikipedia, not just those who approve of that particular policy and its formulation; - policies have a central point for which there is a real consensus, whatever the details as represented in the wording says today; - this central point is deserving of respect in the context of what we do, daily, as editors, and creates a clear expectation on behaviour of those on Wikipedia; - people show respect for the policy by "staying on the fairway", not gaming it at the margins; - policies are in the end enforced on everyone, even though enforcement of policy is an art not a science and always takes into account factors such as the good of the mission; - the community rules out the creation of special cases and insists on a universal approach. Together these aspects of policy work. Not all policies do work as well as they should, but I think the fault can then be laid at the door of some breakdown in those seven points. Invoking general "cultural factors" is something of a cop-out. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
