![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
JA: Okay, here's another programme for e-gress from this mess.
JA: The indicated version of WP:NOR will be superior to the transmogrifications of Original Research Policy that some folks started trying to put past us on or about the middle of August. Jon Awbrey 02:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: What did you get? I got 02 January 2005. Looks like a winner to me! Jon Awbrey 02:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It will not. But it will provide a weapon for Larry Sanger's "Fools and Trolls" [1] to harass experts. How do I know this-- I had it happen to me. The guideline as orginally written gave us some protection, which as Sanger has noted, is rather missing here, which is why he left and many experts finally give up and leave. Differ with some troll, provide the appropriate cites to neuralize a POV and the next thing you know your carefully-done writings here get reverted under the excuse that you have cited yourself at arms link. Natually the troll has not a clue about the technical aspect of the field. Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The only reason this coup did not succeed is that some of us strongly protested about the high-handed and irregular way it was done (totally against the usual and customary procedure) and continue to do so. BTW, the original culprit seems to have disappeared, unless he has a sockpuppet or two.
Exactly. It did not do this before for preciesly the reasons we are now citing over and over. Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Oh, Friday Night Funning Around Aside, I assure you that I am perfectly serious. Although some people's unsourced allusions to "long-standing formulations" did not quite comport with my own memory of WP:NOR, I was willing to AGF on account of my own problems with L&STM. But one of the things that I learned, with three days of nuttin' better to do in my sandbox, was that my own recollection of WP:NOR was just fine, but that there was simply no credibility to the oft-repeated assertions of some folkses, er, how shall I put it — "novel narrative or historical interpretation" of the policy developments in question. So now that I have gone and done the legwork of making a sample chronicle readily available to all and sundry, it will not be necessary for any of us to rely on the conveniences of our personal anamneses. Jon Awbrey 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Okay, let's get really serious. Sarcasm and irony are partly defenses against strong emotion, a strangled attempt to communicate through one's teeth. One of the things that puts me in that frame of tooth is what appears to be the shoddy practices of some people's way of going about a campaign or decree of policy change, all in yer face of anybody who tries to point out its radical and non-consent character. By shoddy practices I simply mean practices the likes of which are expressly deprecated on any article page, for example:
JA: Stuff like that. Jon Awbrey 11:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I was talking to people who have been present here and paying attention for a while now. If you are seriously disputing my account of events, then details can be supplied. Jon Awbrey 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
On 20:55 Sept. 1 Steven Johnson proposed a modification to WAS´s modification of a proposed new paragraph that has and I believe contines to have considerable support. In the following 24 hours there has been much discusson none of which involved a specific criticism of any element of the proposed improvement, or any specific suggestion to make it even better. 24 hours spent accomplishing absolutely nothing ... except to disrupt for 24 hours a process of collaboration and constructive discussion. So, one or two people here are interested only in trolling. As for everyone else, I ask: taking into account WAS and Steve Johnson´s ultimate modifications, does anyone have any speficic problems with the proposed text? Does anyone want to suggest any more specific improvements? If the answer to both questions is "no" I ask an admin to modify the protection so that only admins can edit, and then replace the existing text with the new revised text. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This article was a piece of original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. It might be more suited to a personal website or a blog. (aeropagitica) 10:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And, just like my opening a particular page in a book, I did not personally create this output; instead I simply selected the correct (date, time and location) page, and captured the output to a file, and reported on it, following the WP:5P to the best of my abilities. --Eric R. Meyers ( Ermeyers) ( talk) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
In some of my contributions, I have written things that I felt some people might presume to be original research. I describe three cases of these in my essay Wikipedia:These are not Original Research. Comments welcomed. -- llywrch 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
(Note that I now also without hesitation correct your pasted spelling error above!)
JA: I will discuss under this heading a number of logical, practical, and structural problems that are rather apparent in the present configuration of directives regarding self-citation. As it is a holiday in the U.S., this may take a couple of days.
JA: The present edition of WP:NOR Policy makes its own statement about "Citing Oneself" and then defers by way of a slightly euphemistic bit of piping to a section of the WP:VAIN Guideline, to wit, the statement copied here:
JA: This bit of indirection introduces a whole host of problems into WP directives, which I will detail later on, tonight or tomorrow. Jon Awbrey 01:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just changed the article back to its original form as Expert editors. I remind everyone: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus". This means Wikipedia:consensus. Pproctor 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I am just trying to point out that this attempt to change the rule is not being done according to the guidelines. Likewise, I again quote wikipedia founder Larry Sanger. [4]
Pointing this sort of thing out is not being uncooperative. Pproctor 00:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Let me suggest the following empirical approach.
JA: If > 0 of them use the word vanity in connection with editorial policy on self-citation, then I will reconsider my position that the use of this term in this connection is highly inappropriate, if not an insulting presumption of moral turpitude. (I will also forthwith announce the end of civilization as we know it, but that's another issue.) Jon Awbrey 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Sounds like a plan. The problems that I foresee in trying to implement it are (1) What is the best name for that satellite page? (2) What sort of luck do you think we'll have fixing that page? (3) There are, on the average, about eleventy-one problems that I never foresee. Jon Awbrey 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Just from my experience with the village pump, there's a reason why they have that gravitational hole icon at the top of the page, so I won't go there again. The problem we have here is this: (114) There really are such things as vanity presses. (115) Their existence has nothing at all to do with the issue of a WP editor citing a statement made by that same editor, most likely under the name that appears on that editor's birth certificate or driver's licence, in the sorts of articles and books that WP expressly takes as its own "gold standard" for reliability, to wit, articles and books that are issued by peer-reviewed journal editors and other publishers of impeccable reputations. So I continue to think that it's a mistake to confound these two issues. They are not the same issue, and issue 114 does not even rate discussion here. Jon Awbrey 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: GTB, that was not a mass revert. I merely restored the lead sections to where they were on 19 Aug 2006. We wouldn't want anybody to get confused and start calling what is essentially the same thing as the lockdown version "longstanding" or anything, now would we? Jon Awbrey 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: GTB, thanks for snaking the pipes. I would have done it myself eventually, but I'm not all here yet, so to speak. Jon Awbrey 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Looky here:
JA: No diffs in the lead except for piping. By lead I mean the nutshell, defs, and fundamentals, stopping just before that absurdly complex example about analysis/synthesis. Jon Awbrey 20:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I already explained that in the edit line, and again above. The rule is "no change w/o consensus", so we need to go back to the last time we had a longstanding consensus version, and proceed from there. Otherwise, in a few days, some people will start calling last months fad the longstanding consensus version — oops, they already did. Jon Awbrey 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Don't trouble yourself about it. I won't last much longer. I have now examined a sufficient quantity of the 3 to 4-year histories of several policy pages that I can now see how things really work around here. All of it violates the wiki way of life, and it just ain't a happy place to be anymore. I started out doing what I have always done to improve the quality of knowledge about a subject, and some WikiPunk Kid comes down on the articles I'm working on with a Writ of HaveYourAss Corpus and tells me how I ought to be doing it. I have just wasted a month of my life patiently explaining what ought to be, ever was, and ever will be in the Real World, an utter no-brainer. There's data in that. Jon Awbrey 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: People keep explaining the very same stuff till they are blue in the face.
JA: Jon Awbrey 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: The point is that people who want to make those changes should have to explain them and justify them and quit wasting our time asking for "concrete examples" that they don't really care about, or "explicit formulations" that we already have in the previous version that was consensus for a long time. Jon Awbrey 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
GTBacchus is correct. There were two different discussions going on: one concerning primary and secondary sources, which was moved to its own page to facilitate clear discussion. I made a change which was reverted, but most editors support the revision I made, understanding it to be a clarification of existing policy. Nevertheless, the change I proposed was reverted, and has NOT been put back into the policy. Theoretically the iscussion is still ongoing on that talk page though no one has made any recent contributions.
This page was then freed up for discussion on one section, concerning expert editors. The current protected version includes a revised section that incorporates the views of many editors and has the support of a wide majority.
There have been no other changes since these two lines of discussion began. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User claims you need a source to claim something doesn't exist. [6] Thoughts? Arbusto 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
JA: Okay, here's another programme for e-gress from this mess.
JA: The indicated version of WP:NOR will be superior to the transmogrifications of Original Research Policy that some folks started trying to put past us on or about the middle of August. Jon Awbrey 02:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: What did you get? I got 02 January 2005. Looks like a winner to me! Jon Awbrey 02:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It will not. But it will provide a weapon for Larry Sanger's "Fools and Trolls" [1] to harass experts. How do I know this-- I had it happen to me. The guideline as orginally written gave us some protection, which as Sanger has noted, is rather missing here, which is why he left and many experts finally give up and leave. Differ with some troll, provide the appropriate cites to neuralize a POV and the next thing you know your carefully-done writings here get reverted under the excuse that you have cited yourself at arms link. Natually the troll has not a clue about the technical aspect of the field. Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The only reason this coup did not succeed is that some of us strongly protested about the high-handed and irregular way it was done (totally against the usual and customary procedure) and continue to do so. BTW, the original culprit seems to have disappeared, unless he has a sockpuppet or two.
Exactly. It did not do this before for preciesly the reasons we are now citing over and over. Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Oh, Friday Night Funning Around Aside, I assure you that I am perfectly serious. Although some people's unsourced allusions to "long-standing formulations" did not quite comport with my own memory of WP:NOR, I was willing to AGF on account of my own problems with L&STM. But one of the things that I learned, with three days of nuttin' better to do in my sandbox, was that my own recollection of WP:NOR was just fine, but that there was simply no credibility to the oft-repeated assertions of some folkses, er, how shall I put it — "novel narrative or historical interpretation" of the policy developments in question. So now that I have gone and done the legwork of making a sample chronicle readily available to all and sundry, it will not be necessary for any of us to rely on the conveniences of our personal anamneses. Jon Awbrey 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Okay, let's get really serious. Sarcasm and irony are partly defenses against strong emotion, a strangled attempt to communicate through one's teeth. One of the things that puts me in that frame of tooth is what appears to be the shoddy practices of some people's way of going about a campaign or decree of policy change, all in yer face of anybody who tries to point out its radical and non-consent character. By shoddy practices I simply mean practices the likes of which are expressly deprecated on any article page, for example:
JA: Stuff like that. Jon Awbrey 11:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I was talking to people who have been present here and paying attention for a while now. If you are seriously disputing my account of events, then details can be supplied. Jon Awbrey 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
On 20:55 Sept. 1 Steven Johnson proposed a modification to WAS´s modification of a proposed new paragraph that has and I believe contines to have considerable support. In the following 24 hours there has been much discusson none of which involved a specific criticism of any element of the proposed improvement, or any specific suggestion to make it even better. 24 hours spent accomplishing absolutely nothing ... except to disrupt for 24 hours a process of collaboration and constructive discussion. So, one or two people here are interested only in trolling. As for everyone else, I ask: taking into account WAS and Steve Johnson´s ultimate modifications, does anyone have any speficic problems with the proposed text? Does anyone want to suggest any more specific improvements? If the answer to both questions is "no" I ask an admin to modify the protection so that only admins can edit, and then replace the existing text with the new revised text. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This article was a piece of original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. It might be more suited to a personal website or a blog. (aeropagitica) 10:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And, just like my opening a particular page in a book, I did not personally create this output; instead I simply selected the correct (date, time and location) page, and captured the output to a file, and reported on it, following the WP:5P to the best of my abilities. --Eric R. Meyers ( Ermeyers) ( talk) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
In some of my contributions, I have written things that I felt some people might presume to be original research. I describe three cases of these in my essay Wikipedia:These are not Original Research. Comments welcomed. -- llywrch 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
(Note that I now also without hesitation correct your pasted spelling error above!)
JA: I will discuss under this heading a number of logical, practical, and structural problems that are rather apparent in the present configuration of directives regarding self-citation. As it is a holiday in the U.S., this may take a couple of days.
JA: The present edition of WP:NOR Policy makes its own statement about "Citing Oneself" and then defers by way of a slightly euphemistic bit of piping to a section of the WP:VAIN Guideline, to wit, the statement copied here:
JA: This bit of indirection introduces a whole host of problems into WP directives, which I will detail later on, tonight or tomorrow. Jon Awbrey 01:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just changed the article back to its original form as Expert editors. I remind everyone: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus". This means Wikipedia:consensus. Pproctor 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I am just trying to point out that this attempt to change the rule is not being done according to the guidelines. Likewise, I again quote wikipedia founder Larry Sanger. [4]
Pointing this sort of thing out is not being uncooperative. Pproctor 00:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Let me suggest the following empirical approach.
JA: If > 0 of them use the word vanity in connection with editorial policy on self-citation, then I will reconsider my position that the use of this term in this connection is highly inappropriate, if not an insulting presumption of moral turpitude. (I will also forthwith announce the end of civilization as we know it, but that's another issue.) Jon Awbrey 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Sounds like a plan. The problems that I foresee in trying to implement it are (1) What is the best name for that satellite page? (2) What sort of luck do you think we'll have fixing that page? (3) There are, on the average, about eleventy-one problems that I never foresee. Jon Awbrey 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Just from my experience with the village pump, there's a reason why they have that gravitational hole icon at the top of the page, so I won't go there again. The problem we have here is this: (114) There really are such things as vanity presses. (115) Their existence has nothing at all to do with the issue of a WP editor citing a statement made by that same editor, most likely under the name that appears on that editor's birth certificate or driver's licence, in the sorts of articles and books that WP expressly takes as its own "gold standard" for reliability, to wit, articles and books that are issued by peer-reviewed journal editors and other publishers of impeccable reputations. So I continue to think that it's a mistake to confound these two issues. They are not the same issue, and issue 114 does not even rate discussion here. Jon Awbrey 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: GTB, that was not a mass revert. I merely restored the lead sections to where they were on 19 Aug 2006. We wouldn't want anybody to get confused and start calling what is essentially the same thing as the lockdown version "longstanding" or anything, now would we? Jon Awbrey 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: GTB, thanks for snaking the pipes. I would have done it myself eventually, but I'm not all here yet, so to speak. Jon Awbrey 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Looky here:
JA: No diffs in the lead except for piping. By lead I mean the nutshell, defs, and fundamentals, stopping just before that absurdly complex example about analysis/synthesis. Jon Awbrey 20:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I already explained that in the edit line, and again above. The rule is "no change w/o consensus", so we need to go back to the last time we had a longstanding consensus version, and proceed from there. Otherwise, in a few days, some people will start calling last months fad the longstanding consensus version — oops, they already did. Jon Awbrey 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Don't trouble yourself about it. I won't last much longer. I have now examined a sufficient quantity of the 3 to 4-year histories of several policy pages that I can now see how things really work around here. All of it violates the wiki way of life, and it just ain't a happy place to be anymore. I started out doing what I have always done to improve the quality of knowledge about a subject, and some WikiPunk Kid comes down on the articles I'm working on with a Writ of HaveYourAss Corpus and tells me how I ought to be doing it. I have just wasted a month of my life patiently explaining what ought to be, ever was, and ever will be in the Real World, an utter no-brainer. There's data in that. Jon Awbrey 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: People keep explaining the very same stuff till they are blue in the face.
JA: Jon Awbrey 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: The point is that people who want to make those changes should have to explain them and justify them and quit wasting our time asking for "concrete examples" that they don't really care about, or "explicit formulations" that we already have in the previous version that was consensus for a long time. Jon Awbrey 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
GTBacchus is correct. There were two different discussions going on: one concerning primary and secondary sources, which was moved to its own page to facilitate clear discussion. I made a change which was reverted, but most editors support the revision I made, understanding it to be a clarification of existing policy. Nevertheless, the change I proposed was reverted, and has NOT been put back into the policy. Theoretically the iscussion is still ongoing on that talk page though no one has made any recent contributions.
This page was then freed up for discussion on one section, concerning expert editors. The current protected version includes a revised section that incorporates the views of many editors and has the support of a wide majority.
There have been no other changes since these two lines of discussion began. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User claims you need a source to claim something doesn't exist. [6] Thoughts? Arbusto 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)