Talk:International Society for Philosophical Enquiry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21:03, 23 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn (cleanup required). |
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
This page needs a description of the criticisms and conflicts that led to the formation of the Triple Nine Society, as well as some significant de-puffing. Ziggurat 02:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: NPOV
The content of the page is based directly on the "ISPE Charter" and facts about ISPE. Your opinion that the content requires "some significant de-puffing" is vague and subjective. The entry does not claim to be complete. The history of the formation of The Triple Nine Society should be on the page for the Triple Nine Society.
[edit] Objection: Notability Indication
Please see the sections "Scope of Activities" and "External Links" in the entry for verifiable information that appears to satisfy the notability criteria of the proposed policy.
The stub has benefited from trying to apply the the proposed editorial policy: it was written by contributors who may have been unaware of the guidelines. It now contains new sections that describe the international scope of ISPE, and references to it in third-party published materials.
Further verifiable information could be provided if this is required. Wikipedia's use of verifiable sources is in agreement with the editorial policies for scholarly articles of ISPE's journal "Telicom".
There are citations in the entry to the ISPE Charter and the ISPE Roster. The Editor can obtain copies of these documents from the ISPE for verification purposes if required.
The comment in the banner that "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy one of the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia on one of the following topics" presumably refers to 'Organizations (proposed)'.
'Organizations (proposed)' is a proposal only, although it seems to be adopted as current policy, which may be an oversight. If it refers to another guideline or policy, please provide full details so that additional changes in accordance with Wikipedia policies can be made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OfficiousBystander (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Re: "(cleanup required)"
Please be specific about the changes required.
OfficiousBystander 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: FYI Mega Society Judgement
These comments are not related to this page which is for discussion of the ISPE entry.
It would be better to follow this up elsewhere.
--OfficiousBystander, 6 August 2006
- There is a connection. --Michael C. Price talk 14:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FYI Mega Society Judgement
As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:
- Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
- It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
- When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).
Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.
The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:
- Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.
- The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)
- If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "
faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:
- .... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
to which I received this rather off-hand reply:
- User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".
Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!
--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Userboxes for ISPE members
Editors who want to advertise their membership may use the "{{User ISPE}}" template to create a userbox on their page and add it to Category:Wikipedians in the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry ... then add "{{User IQ}}" if you really want to show off. —141.156.240.102 17:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
