As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, > and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with > "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later > get it done with "populated places" and the like too. > > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub > "article". > > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to > show sourcing immediately. > > Todd > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing >> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has >> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples. >> >> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we >> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the >> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last >> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, >> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I >> would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and >> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, >> zzzzz" >> >> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the >> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued >> for, among other things: >> >> >> 1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly >> to blocks. >> 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article >> creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find >> them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours >> 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits. >> >> >> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic >> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example >> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict >> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where >> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one >> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists >> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline >> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct. >> >> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be >> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people >> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions >> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their >> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other >> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might >> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being >> nuanced and diplomatic. >> >> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated >> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF >> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem >> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some >> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. >> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what >> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might >> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support >> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason >> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now >> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but >> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in >> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >>>> Hoi, >>>> I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I >>>> find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost >>> the >>>> community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and >>>> finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on >>> en.wp >>>> practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. >>>> Thanks, >>>> GerardM >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
