Corporate vanity policy enforcement

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
57 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Mestel
I think people may perhaps be misunderstanding what I'm saying.  I'm
not saying that we shouldn't let people do anything that's outside
process - that would be ridiculous; all I'm suggesting is that things
that become common practice, they should be described on policy pages,
so that everyone knows what's going on.

--
David

On 02/10/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/1/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > One thing to remember is that deletions can be undone.  Deleting an
> > article is really no big deal.
> >
>
> Okay. Given that line, I cannot resist the following. (so sue me, some
> straight lines really need to be punched on)
>
> Please (pretty please, with cherry on top) go on the record saying
> that undeletion is no big deal. I dare you, I double dare you.
>
> Glossing on...  (you may want to disregard the following, the point is
> all above, what follows is just driving it into the ground; pounding a
> dead horse, choose your
> metaphor for explicating things plain as pikestaffs)
>
> Just because one *can* do something (or in this case _undo_) it does
> not mean that doing that is easy/costless/(or likely to happen in any
> significant majority of cases).
>
> Undeleting articles does happen, but it does not make deleting
> articles a trivial act. "Big deal" really needs to be deprecated
> around wikipedia, as a term in general. Because it gives out the
> appearances that wikipedia is still a Ben&Jerry operation, when
> clearly it is not. (And yes, I could go on and on on this subject, but
> I think the point is made.)
>
>
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Gerard-2
On 02/10/06, David Mestel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think people may perhaps be misunderstanding what I'm saying.  I'm
> not saying that we shouldn't let people do anything that's outside
> process - that would be ridiculous; all I'm suggesting is that things
> that become common practice, they should be described on policy pages,
> so that everyone knows what's going on.


Guideline pages with "common practice as of [present month]", perhaps?


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:22:20 -0400, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>As far as not biting the newbies, well, of course I agree.  A kind and
>loving template which says "Thanks so much for your submission to
>Wikipedia, but it was deleted.  Before submitting again, please read
><this>, <that>, and <the other> policy, and if you have questions,
>please raise them at <an appropriate page>."

OK, I'll nibble at this particular bait.  How should I improve this
template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nn-userfy which I use
when userfying autobiographies tagged for speedy deletion?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Gerard-2
On 03/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:

> OK, I'll nibble at this particular bait.  How should I improve this
> template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nn-userfy which I use
> when userfying autobiographies tagged for speedy deletion?


A link to your talk page, preferably an "add a section" link?


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:07:56 +0100, "David Gerard" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>> OK, I'll nibble at this particular bait.  How should I improve this
>> template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nn-userfy which I use
>> when userfying autobiographies tagged for speedy deletion?

>A link to your talk page, preferably an "add a section" link?

Good thought.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Charles Matthews
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:23:39 +0100, <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the
>first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It
>is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking
>away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints
>ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin
>powers.

Judging by Tony Sidaway's Talk page, the wonks are winning.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Gerard-2
On 03/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:23:39 +0100, <[hidden email]>
> wrote:

> >discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the
> >first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It
> >is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking
> >away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints
> >ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin
> >powers.

> Judging by Tony Sidaway's Talk page, the wonks are winning.


[[WP:PRO]]. Quote from it since the worst process wonks are curiously
unable to read. Go through policies rewriting them for humans.

I come out against excessive process quite a lot. Process is actually
important, though - else people haven't a *goddamn clue* which way is
up, and our bureaucracy is confusing enough to newbies. So it is
vitally important that process be shaped so that it is fit for mere
humans.


- d.




- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Rich Holton
On 10/3/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I come out against excessive process quite a lot. Process is actually
> important, though - else people haven't a *goddamn clue* which way is
> up, and our bureaucracy is confusing enough to newbies. So it is
> vitally important that process be shaped so that it is fit for mere
> humans.


Thank you, David. This is a critical point for us all to remember.

Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of
process that causes problems.

However, as we fight excessive process and the abuse of process, we need to
retain process that helpful, especially for those who otherwise would not
know where to start or where to go next.

-Rich
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:04 -0500, "Richard Holton"
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of
>process that causes problems.

Actually the real evil is slavish adherence to process in the absence
of the ever-elusive Clue.  Wiki-process exists to guide and inform,
not to instruct, and far too many people fail to understand this.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Gerard-2
On 04/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:04 -0500, "Richard Holton"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of
> >process that causes problems.

> Actually the real evil is slavish adherence to process in the absence
> of the ever-elusive Clue.  Wiki-process exists to guide and inform,
> not to instruct, and far too many people fail to understand this.


It's an easy error to make - many a considerate editor will come here,
read up on the policies and guidelines and words and words and PAGES
AND PAGES of stuff and try to make sense of it all. Do they know which
way is up without a guide in the face of an incoherent morass of
millions of words of policies and guidelines? Of course they don't.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Stephen Streater
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG

On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:02, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:04 -0500, "Richard Holton"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the  
>> abuse of
>> process that causes problems.
>
> Actually the real evil is slavish adherence to process in the absence
> of the ever-elusive Clue.  Wiki-process exists to guide and inform,
> not to instruct, and far too many people fail to understand this.

The only way to find out is to be around for a bit.

Having a list of gurus would be useful. Even
keeping tabs on a few talk pages (such as
Guy's) is very educational.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Rich Holton
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
On 10/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:04 -0500, "Richard Holton"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of
> >process that causes problems.
>
> Actually the real evil is slavish adherence to process in the absence
> of the ever-elusive Clue.  Wiki-process exists to guide and inform,
> not to instruct, and far too many people fail to understand this.


I agree with you, Guy. I wasn't very clear, but I was primarily thinking of
slavish adherence to process when I wrote "abuse of process". That and
attempting to dictate process when not absolutely necessary.

There are places where following a strict process is important. Think about
a paper-based filing system, with filing cabinets. A strict process for
filing is essential.

Since we're computer based, and computers are excellent at strictly
following processes, we automate most of those situations. But sometimes
that isn't practical, or just hasn't been accomplished yet.

One part of having a clue is being able to distinguish between situations
where process is absolutely necessary, versus situations where process is to
guide and inform. Most Wikipedia processes are of the latter type.

The controversies on Wikipedia seem to involve processes where judgment is
required, and you can't automate judgment.

-Rich

[[W:en:User:Rholton]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Gerard-2
On 04/10/06, Richard Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The controversies on Wikipedia seem to involve processes where judgment is
> required, and you can't automate judgment.


The hard part is how to get across that that last isn't a bug.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by geni
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 00:50:11 +0100, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>If admins are going to operate outside the system it hardly seems
>acceptable to comunicate to those they effect as if they were part of
>such a sytem. No statements about personalised deletions should be
>personalised in term.

That's begging the question. In what way is deleting uncited,
unverifiable, unimportant, often vanity content "working outside the
process"?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:50:52 +0100, "David Gerard" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>It's an easy error to make - many a considerate editor will come here,
>read up on the policies and guidelines and words and words and PAGES
>AND PAGES of stuff and try to make sense of it all. Do they know which
>way is up without a guide in the face of an incoherent morass of
>millions of words of policies and guidelines? Of course they don't.

Not disputed.  The trouble is that most of the stuff tells you what
Wikipedia is *not* about, rather than what it *is* about.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

geni
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
On 10/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That's begging the question. In what way is deleting uncited,
> unverifiable, unimportant, often vanity content "working outside the
> process"?
>
> Guy (JzG)

Who are you to judge what is unimportant? We have verious processes
for deletion for exactly that reason.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:32:09 +0100, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> That's begging the question. In what way is deleting uncited,
>> unverifiable, unimportant, often vanity content "working outside the
>> process"?

>Who are you to judge what is unimportant? We have verious processes
>for deletion for exactly that reason.

The process allows for me to use my discretion.  

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123