This page is for the case (regarding deletion of the Erdos Number categories), as I develop it, as opposed to my haphazard notes, at User:PeterStJohn/ErdosNumberControversy. Pete St.John 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
To avoid repeating such sentences as "sustaining the closure which deleted the several Erdos Number categories", I define some broad terms, and intend to be more specific in context as needed.
After two CfD were closed for lack of consensus, a third was brought.
The consensus was clearly in favor of "keep", so while the claim that the consensus was "delete" is deniable it is not plausibly deniable.
The arguments for deletion were all rebutted, mostly by mathematicians, who are professionally concerned with deductive logic. Abstracting the debates with "As per the excellent reasons given by so-and-so" is not plausible in the face of clear majorities of trained logicians. I keep mentioning the vote counts (ranging from 2-1, up to about 3-1 pro) not to prove a pro consensus but to make the arguement that the countervailing con consensus is implausible, or at least, that it is not obvious to the majority of contributors.
I'll just give an example: (paraphrasing) "an eminent mathematician who is also a wiki editor said it was a joke that has taken in mathematicians".
The most important thing about this example is not that is bad logic, but that it was repeated after it was rebutted. It continues to be a reason for deleting the category without the rebuttals being answered.
The Erdos Number categories are not easy to satisfactorily explain to nonmathematicians. Confusions here are entirely understandable and should be answered.
The list can be expanded at both ends. My assessment is that editors, working predominantly in editting, sometimes put the Policies ahead of the Content. Mathematicians, working predominantly with the content, put the Content ahead of the Policies.
I believe there is a general social conflict, between moralists, who put Law ahead of Justice, and ethicists, who put Justice ahead of Law. Laws can logically precede justice in the case of accepting law from Authority, as in the case of Revelation, as in theocracies. Justice can precede laws, as in the example of deriving laws from social effects, in secular governments.
Obviously we all intend Policy to make for good content. But particularly, the opposition is willing to be hypocritical, spammy, insinnuating, etc, in any way that they believe is unactionable in Wiki Policy, to subvert consensus in favor of their preferred policy. On a matter that can't possibly matter at all to any of them, but only to users of the category. This is not humane.
BHG has, since the Erdos categories deletion, posted two items for consideration as additions to wiki guidelines, in response to requests for clarification of the opposition's editorial philosophy.
She wrote WT:CFD#Defining_attribute which has moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Defining_attribute
She wrote Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_structured_database.
This page is for the case (regarding deletion of the Erdos Number categories), as I develop it, as opposed to my haphazard notes, at User:PeterStJohn/ErdosNumberControversy. Pete St.John 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
To avoid repeating such sentences as "sustaining the closure which deleted the several Erdos Number categories", I define some broad terms, and intend to be more specific in context as needed.
After two CfD were closed for lack of consensus, a third was brought.
The consensus was clearly in favor of "keep", so while the claim that the consensus was "delete" is deniable it is not plausibly deniable.
The arguments for deletion were all rebutted, mostly by mathematicians, who are professionally concerned with deductive logic. Abstracting the debates with "As per the excellent reasons given by so-and-so" is not plausible in the face of clear majorities of trained logicians. I keep mentioning the vote counts (ranging from 2-1, up to about 3-1 pro) not to prove a pro consensus but to make the arguement that the countervailing con consensus is implausible, or at least, that it is not obvious to the majority of contributors.
I'll just give an example: (paraphrasing) "an eminent mathematician who is also a wiki editor said it was a joke that has taken in mathematicians".
The most important thing about this example is not that is bad logic, but that it was repeated after it was rebutted. It continues to be a reason for deleting the category without the rebuttals being answered.
The Erdos Number categories are not easy to satisfactorily explain to nonmathematicians. Confusions here are entirely understandable and should be answered.
The list can be expanded at both ends. My assessment is that editors, working predominantly in editting, sometimes put the Policies ahead of the Content. Mathematicians, working predominantly with the content, put the Content ahead of the Policies.
I believe there is a general social conflict, between moralists, who put Law ahead of Justice, and ethicists, who put Justice ahead of Law. Laws can logically precede justice in the case of accepting law from Authority, as in the case of Revelation, as in theocracies. Justice can precede laws, as in the example of deriving laws from social effects, in secular governments.
Obviously we all intend Policy to make for good content. But particularly, the opposition is willing to be hypocritical, spammy, insinnuating, etc, in any way that they believe is unactionable in Wiki Policy, to subvert consensus in favor of their preferred policy. On a matter that can't possibly matter at all to any of them, but only to users of the category. This is not humane.
BHG has, since the Erdos categories deletion, posted two items for consideration as additions to wiki guidelines, in response to requests for clarification of the opposition's editorial philosophy.
She wrote WT:CFD#Defining_attribute which has moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Defining_attribute
She wrote Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_structured_database.