Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cult television
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Cult television
[edit] Statement by the mediator
This is the mediation page for the editing dispute concerning . It looks as though everyone here is happy to continue this discussion on the wiki. If anyone would prefer the mediation to happen over email or IRC, we can see if we can accommodate that.
I haven't had a good chance to look at the entire history of the edit war, but I can tell you some things straight off. First, it is not my job to decide what counts as cult television and what doesn't. I'm not going to make a final decision on any specific television programs. The point of this is hopefully to convince each other, or, if that's not possible, perhaps to convince others through Request for comments or Third opinion. Second, I think the guiding principle of this specific mediation needs to be No original research. With something as subjective as "cult television", it's far better to compare the relative authorities of outside references than to compare the relative authorities of wikipedia editors.
In the interests of preventing edit-warring during the discussion, it would be very helpful if all interested parties could voluntarily refrain from editing the article during the mediation, at least for the first three days while things get organized. I'd like everyone involved not to edit Cult television until 12/12/05, and refrain from edit warring during the entire mediation.
— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreement: I agree not to edit the Cult television page until this issue is resolved. HowardBerry 22:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreement: I also agree not to edit the Cult television page until this issue is resolved. Stephenb (Talk) 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The issues at stake
I haven't yet understood whether the main issue here is the contents of the list or the structure of the list. It would be really helpful if you each could write what you think the best solution to the current problem would be (or sign someone else's), preferably starting with Sanhedrin, since (s)he's the one arguing against the status quo:
I don’t have daily access to the Internet, so you’ll have to be more patient.
The definition of cult television Group A proposes is too broad to be useful. As it currently stands, it says a cult television show is hugely popular, moderately popular, or unpopular, and may have any number of these qualities in various degree in any number of television markets around the world. In other words, the world’s most watched show will make the list if it has cult status in a single locality. As the tastes of each television market vary, a list culled from this definition would include practically every show ever produced, and lose all value as a work of reference.
This is a binary. A show can’t be cult and non-cult at the same time. As it currently stands, there are American shows on the list that are NOT considered to be cult in their original market, which is where I live.
Including show that were deemed cult in their original market and creating separate lists of foreign shows that are deemed cult in individual markets would solve these problems. Sanhedrin 14:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the "binary" for a start - a show can obviously be cult in one market and not another (for example, Buffy and Star Trek are both considered cult in the UK; Absolutely Fabulous is cult in the US but not in the UK). The article in question does not specify that the show has to be cult in the original market - indeed, it is just an article on cult television in general, not "Cult television in the original market for television shows". Hence, any show considered cult anywhere has a right to be included on the list. I would agree that that makes the list potentially (almost) limitless, but that's a problem with many lists on Wikipedia (personally, I prefer categories).
I disagreed with Sanhedrin's edits because they were initially unexplained, then didn't match the generality of the article (as explained earlier). Also, this article has been edited by many people since its inception and Star Trek etc. have been there a long time without being removed, as have the rules - so, in a consensual encyclopedia, they should remain until another consensus emerges (i.e. Sanhedrin's is just one opinion). While I probably wouldn't disagree with articles such as "Cult television in the U.S." (while being linked from the original page) I'm not sure that isn't overkill with the article as it stands (and note Sanhedrin didn't attempt to do this, and this is the only article he has ever contributed to).
As another thought, shows like "Star Trek" will only be added in again if his edits stood. You'd have to make the article more specific to stop that, but why should an article on "cult television" linit itself to shows only deemed cult outside of their original market? Doesn't make sense to me!
In summary, I think the best solution is to leave the article "as is" and for Sanhedrin to accept its generality and the editing consensus. Stephenb (Talk) 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Sanhedrin, the list on the article currently defines itself as:
- "A list of programs that achieved cult television status (in various countries) might include:"
Do you think that any of the shows on the list do not qualify under this definition, or are you looking to change the definition itself? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hello?
Is this actually going anywhere, or can this all be done away with? Personally I feel that this has gone on long enough without a suitable reply from the person who actually requested this mediation in the first place - Sanhedrin. Apart from replying once, no other replies have been forthcoming.
This statement is something I actually consider quite rude: "I don’t have daily access to the Internet, so you’ll have to be more patient. "
- If you don't have daily access to the internet, how come you were able to engage in a revert/edit war on the Cult Television page so frequently?
- How long do you expect myself and Stephenb to wait before you reply?
- Why should Stephenb and myself agree to not edit the page for (what is now) almost a month, because you can't be bothered to answer to your own mediation request?
- Do you realise that by holding this up, you are preventing us from actually contributing to an article that we both have added a considerable number of edits to, and actually take a great interest in?
Sorry, but just because you waltzed in and removed half the page without even discussing it, I don't think you have the right to then take it to a stage where those who opposed you are just having to sit and do nothing because you can't be bothered to reply here.
I could go on and on, but it's not worth it. If there is no answer to this within 24 hours, I shall relieve myself of my statement to not edit Cult Television. I've been more than co-operative, but enough is enough. Personally, I would take it that you no longer wish to argue your viewpoint, and that you have conceded that Stephenb and myself are correct in leaving the article as it stands. Howie ☎ 17:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stall
Hi all,
I would have stepped in sooner, but was unfortunately away on break over the holidays.
First: I agree this mediation has stalled. No progress has been made, mainly because barely anything has been said. I'm closing this mediation, and relieving everyone of any expectation not to edit the page. If Sanhedrin wishes to continue mediation, s/he will have to make a new request. That said...
Second: When I agreed to this mediation in the first place I was already unsure that this was the right place to discuss this. This was a content dispute that was not very old, and could probably have been resolved through talk page discussions or, if those really failed, a request for comment (on the article, not a user). A mediator can't make the kinds of decisions you were asking. Therefore, I do not recommend filing another mediation.
The only thing that I can recommend if the fight starts up again, is that if there are valid problems with the article as it now stands, I believe that they ought to be solved by re-structuring. Deleting entries is not the way to go about making this kind of change, especially if any of the deleted entries could, by some definition, be included in the article. I would think Sanhedrin's time would be better served by trying to improve the structure of the article, rather than simply killing half of it.
Good luck,
— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
