Comments on: Undeleted http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/ Same old blog, brand new place Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:02:06 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: MisEntropy http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-93226 MisEntropy Sat, 11 Oct 2008 06:46:54 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-93226 <strong>The future of: Wikipedia...</strong> A recent post by Doc Searls narrating the near-deletion experience of his Wikipedia entry set me thinking about the debate between Wikipedia inclusionists and deletionists.To paraphrase the debate, the inlcusionists believe that since "Wikipedia is no... The future of: Wikipedia…

A recent post by Doc Searls narrating the near-deletion experience of his Wikipedia entry set me thinking about the debate between Wikipedia inclusionists and deletionists.To paraphrase the debate, the inlcusionists believe that since “Wikipedia is no…

]]> By: LifeTimeLine : truegrit http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-75573 LifeTimeLine : truegrit Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:22:11 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-75573 [...] Place quotes Doc Searls: I need to do more of something I’ve always sucked at: investing my time wisely and deliberately, [...] [...] Place quotes Doc Searls: I need to do more of something I’ve always sucked at: investing my time wisely and deliberately, [...]

]]> By: jeremy http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-75544 jeremy Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:41:56 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-75544 yes... then you 'edit your article, in good faith' and see who pops up to claim it wasn't in the next round of deletion. there is the de juris wp policy and the de facto, the latter tends to win out. yes… then you ‘edit your article, in good faith’ and see who pops up to claim it wasn’t in the next round of deletion. there is the de juris wp policy and the de facto, the latter tends to win out.

]]> By: Anon http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-75374 Anon Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:59:54 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-75374 I love wikilawyering, so I've got to point out that jeremy's implication that "work on your own article that will count toward any future deletion under wp:coi" is somewhat off-base. Wikipedia:Autobiography , wp:coi and others _never_ prohibit editing an article about oneself outright. It is strongly discouraged on the assumption that most people are not able to post neutrally and appropriately about themselves. If you instead follow Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it makes sense for someone to edit the article about himself, because he is an expert on himself and would stand to contribute very valuable edits. (Even if you believe a biographical encyclopedia article is more about one's interaction with the world than just that person in a vacuum, you're eroding that person's expertise on the subject, not their right to edit the article). This is from someone who built an article up to GA status and then intentionally fulfilled the FA requirements but did not submit as a FAC, because I don't trust the FAC analyzers to do as good a job as me. ; ) So take it with a grain of salt. I love wikilawyering, so I’ve got to point out that jeremy’s implication that “work on your own article that will count toward any future deletion under wp:coi” is somewhat off-base.

Wikipedia:Autobiography , wp:coi and others _never_ prohibit editing an article about oneself outright. It is strongly discouraged on the assumption that most people are not able to post neutrally and appropriately about themselves.

If you instead follow Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it makes sense for someone to edit the article about himself, because he is an expert on himself and would stand to contribute very valuable edits. (Even if you believe a biographical encyclopedia article is more about one’s interaction with the world than just that person in a vacuum, you’re eroding that person’s expertise on the subject, not their right to edit the article).

This is from someone who built an article up to GA status and then intentionally fulfilled the FA requirements but did not submit as a FAC, because I don’t trust the FAC analyzers to do as good a job as me. ; ) So take it with a grain of salt.

]]> By: jeremy http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-75326 jeremy Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:43 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-75326 Of course, if you work on your own article that will count toward any future deletion under wp:coi which is conflict of interest. Similarly if any closely held friend that is recognizable does the editing someone might whine about coi. Of course, if you work on your own article that will count toward any future deletion under wp:coi which is conflict of interest. Similarly if any closely held friend that is recognizable does the editing someone might whine about coi.

]]> By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-75308 Doc Searls Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:56:31 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-75308 Tim, Jeremy, Thanks for clearing that up. I'm gathering also that the WP processes aren't as opaque as they seem at first. Also that my time would be better spent "building referenceable material." Good way of putting it. And Mike, it's good to have your offer of help too. Tim, Jeremy,

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m gathering also that the WP processes aren’t as opaque as they seem at first. Also that my time would be better spent “building referenceable material.” Good way of putting it.

And Mike, it’s good to have your offer of help too.

]]> By: jeremy http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-75294 jeremy Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:00:32 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-75294 snow as in snowball, a snowball is part of wikipedia's 'common sense' and 'anything goes' . When you have a consensus building exercise like the AFD, if it all goes one way and there is no dissent, you end up with a snowball effect, which i called and the admin's closed the debate as snowball. snow as in snowball, a snowball is part of wikipedia’s ‘common sense’ and ‘anything goes’ . When you have a consensus building exercise like the AFD, if it all goes one way and there is no dissent, you end up with a snowball effect, which i called and the admin’s closed the debate as snowball.

]]> By: Tim Jarrett http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-75293 Tim Jarrett Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:58:50 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-75293 I think "a clear case of snow" refers to the Wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snow" rel="nofollow">"snowball clause,"</a> i.e. "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." The fact that the response to the proposed deletion of the article was a uniform "keep" meant that running it any further through the AfD process was pointless. Agreed, too, about the lawyering. Wikipedia is not an easy community to join precisely because it's a community--one that has more well-defined norms than most because it's a community built around writing, collaborative editing, and building consensus. Unfortunately that means that at the edges you run into things that feel like law. The nice part is that almost all of these are well documented in the WP: namespace of Wikipedia (that is, Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia). So you can go to Wikipedia and search on WP:SNOW, WP:RFD or WP:CITE (to pick on three relevant examples) and find all you wanted to know about the community processes. But I agree with your conclusion--I'd much rather see you building out more referenceable material in the public eye and let other people write your biography based on those items. I think “a clear case of snow” refers to the Wikipedia “snowball clause,” i.e. “If an issue doesn’t even have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.” The fact that the response to the proposed deletion of the article was a uniform “keep” meant that running it any further through the AfD process was pointless.

Agreed, too, about the lawyering. Wikipedia is not an easy community to join precisely because it’s a community–one that has more well-defined norms than most because it’s a community built around writing, collaborative editing, and building consensus. Unfortunately that means that at the edges you run into things that feel like law. The nice part is that almost all of these are well documented in the WP: namespace of Wikipedia (that is, Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia). So you can go to Wikipedia and search on WP:SNOW, WP:RFD or WP:CITE (to pick on three relevant examples) and find all you wanted to know about the community processes.

But I agree with your conclusion–I’d much rather see you building out more referenceable material in the public eye and let other people write your biography based on those items.

]]> By: Mike Warot http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/comment-page-1/#comment-75289 Mike Warot Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:36:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/08/07/undeleted/#comment-75289 I too am tangentially challenged. Sign me up to help out in the off line stuff... I want to help shape the future. --Mike-- I too am tangentially challenged.

Sign me up to help out in the off line stuff… I want to help shape the future.

–Mike–

]]>