Talk:DNA/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Is this page protected from editing ? 09 march 2004

No. Please, just have the best of time on this page from now on.
Following some private discussions, I will just dare to remind you that no encyclopedic article is "done" on Wikipedia, and that no vote made a couple of weeks ago by 5 people, justify that a preambule stays frozen for the months to come. The discussions below suggest me, that some editors do not perceive the current "community" version as necessarily the best ever. I hope it improves :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 17:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Later... So, here is the deal. Here we have about 4 or 5 people who agreed upon a version. Now, a new editor comes along, and has been making many detailed comments on the talk page, explaining why he thought the "community" version not perfect, and proposing a new version.

You have two options.

Either you reject the right of this new editor to change the current community approved version. You revert him, or we protect the page. If you do so, you set a precedent : a set of editors, at one time can decide what the proper version should be, freeze that version, and protect it against winds and storms. In effect, the page is no more a wiki, and we could declare this page to be the first article on the first stable version for release.

Or you accept someone else opinion on the matter. Bensaccount made some comments on the community version...please give him a feedback on all these comments. Besaccount made some propositions for another version. Please give him some feedback on his version, and why you do not want to keep it.

If you do not find an agreed upon version, between all of you, ON THE TALK PAGE, by the end of the week, I suggest that next monday (or so), a list of all the propositions be made. You vote on whether to keep the old community agreed version or to have a new one. And you vote among the new ones. The agreed upon version (the old community approved or a new version) will be frozen for a full month from the moment it is voted. Any one feeling like changing his mind, or any new editor will have the opportunity to launch a new debate after that time.

Clear ? :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 12:50, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(if not clear, that means no change of the current version unless there is an agreement HERE).

I restored the HTML comment after Anthony removed it recently. However I worded it less strongly than it used to be. Please make it stronger again if you think that is appropiate. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I had removed it :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

Discussion on how to discuss together...

How to Discuss DNA

I think its important to address one point at a time, starting with the first sentence. Until we do so, we will just keep running in circles and archiving endless pages of concurrent debates. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree. Bensaccount 23:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
(This start-to-finish style of article construction disturbs me slightly but...) In the interest of making progress, I'd recommend that you consider the first paragraphs fixed for now. We all know that they aren't perfect (a symptom of consensus editting) but, optimistically, they can be fixed with iterative editting once the more important problems have been ironed out of the remainder of the article. Stewart Adcock 17:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Theres no harm in fixing up the rest of the article first so you can go ahead, but I want to fix the beginning because it is incorrect (and is the most important part in my opinion). Bensaccount 17:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My sole interest here is in addressing the beginning. Once that has been done, I plan to move on to some other article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

A comment from pom

[P0M:] Smarting a bit after 168's remarks that seemed to include me among "people who were not around during the discussions long ago [and] think they understand what is going on and they don't... [and should take it to heart that] Zen and pop psychology don't trump ignorance," I went back and read through the archives. I think it is clear that Lir has achieved a stunning victory against all others by playing "let's you and him fight," and I can understand why 168 does not like to be in the position of dealing with his victory. I don't think anybody else should be happy with that victory either. If anything has emerged from these discussions its seems to be a consensus regarding Lir's edits. That consensus should not, IMHO, argue in favor of any of the other candidate passages. P0M 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Other issues

[Peak to Bensaccount:] You may be well-intentioned, but you are clearly ill-informed about the amount of effort that many people, including some very smart ones and some experts, have invested in the effort so far. Yes, that means a lot of time has been spent doing the things you ask for: discussing details, disproving ideas, and attempting to get people to accept facts. If you read the archives, you will see that serious problems arise when a someone (e.g. a sysop or a subvandal) insists that UNANIMITY is required. This is an invitation for subvandals to create havoc. (E.g. in the present case, a very valuable contributor (168...) has (at least for now) quit Wikipedia.) So there are much larger issues here than the wording of one particular preamble. Peak 18:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[P0M:] I believe it has been shown possible for one person to insist that his/her take on reality is superior to all others, to change the text, and then to systematically revert all attempts by others to alter this perfect piece of writing. I don't recall having seen Peak take this attitude, nor have I seen him use demeaning language toward other, or characterize the positions as not being worthy of consideration (without offering a reason why some position won't work), but his attitude seems to be a rarity on these talk pages. Problems seem to arise when one person can establish and defend by revert a position that other have good reason to oppose, but problems also arise when one person can veto a change on the grounds that a unanimous vote to change is necessary. I suspect these two things are both versions of the Molly Sugden syndrome. She's the lady who always ends a fiat with the words, "I am unanimous in regard to that issue."
[P0M:] Another thing that I have noticed (and have commented upon before) is the frequency with which the techniques of verbal assault are substituted for reasoned analysis by some participants in debates. Criticisms of content are frequently prefaced by unflattering characterizations of the authors of said content.
[P0M:] A third tendency I have noticed is the frequent use of the technique of refusing to answer a major point that someone has raised by attacking something that is not of central importance. P0M 20:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[Ant to Bensaccount] Do not feel discouraged :-) If you find a better phrasing or content for the preambule, just do it :-) Otherwise, just let the time do its affair. It will depends on whether 168 chooses to come back or not. FirmLittleFluffyThing

Edit Boldly Where Angels...

[P0M:] For many actions one may take, the social context is vitally important. Changing any line in an article written by one of the Lords of the Universe is asking for an instant revert with a snotty "summary" message to the effect that sophomoric attempts by lesser beings are reprehensible. Some of my edits have met that response. On the other hand, editing a line written by an objective writer who can see the advantage to the new formulation can sometimes even yield a commendation. On the third hand, editing a line or a block of text that has been a focus of irrascible debate for the past several weeks or months is an exercise in futility. It may even be an exercise in futility if one gets the formulation exactly right -- because people are incapable of being objective. Getting it exactly right involves writing with a physicists sense of elegance. I don't know of any renown physicists who dare characterize their own work -- in words or in formulae -- as elegant. Perhaps it is part of the training in objectivity that does it. Perhaps it is the unsympathetic response of experiments to fervent entreaties that does it.

[P0M:] We are advised to "edit boldly". I've been criticized (mildly) for bringing something up on a talk page instead of just jumping in and changing something. I've also been told, when proposing a change (in outline) on a talk page, "Just you try it, and see what I will do about it." (I'm paraphrasing, and maybe bringing into my paraphrase some of the emotion that stuck to the written message as a result of preceding acrid remarks from that contributor.)

[P0M:] Personally, I'm not eager to waste everybody's time, and to have my actions entail confusion to the general reader who finds a different article every time 'e returns to it. I would rather take the proposed change to talk page and hash it out -- even though my efforts may be characterized in various unflattering ways. If I can make my point clearly enough, I seem to be able to change other people's opinions or see the light in regard to what others have said.

[P0M:] I think the main problem with the precious preamble, over which so much virtual blood has been spilled, is that nobody is clear on what ideas need to be conveyed. If one does not have a clear intention, a clear mental picture, of what needs to be conveyed, no amount of skill, no accumulation of paraphrases, no... Nothing is going to help. We have been arguing about buzz words and catch phrases, but we have failed to nail DNA.

I think what you are looking for is "what the preamble is". It is a definition (a simple association). I hope nobody want to argue about this because I am sick of sidetracking. Bensaccount 00:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Edit boldly? Well, o.k., but how about thinking clearly and how about being aware of the inevitable consequences of some actions? P0M 23:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More comments by Pom 16/03/2004

[P0M:] "Edit boldly" is advocated by the administration of the Wikipedia. Maybe they like to see edit wars? It strikes me that having a reversion war is a waste of everybody's time, yet it is inevitable if somebody makes an insensitive change.

POM, you understand well the very concept of Wikipedia :-) Wikipedia thrive on edit wars. It is needed to make the blood of editors run more quickly, and to hook them in. A wiki were no one dare editing other people words (french and japanese are certainly far less bold than american people :-)) is not a healthy wiki. Now, there is a limit when edit war becomes more destructive than constructive, and it is certainly directly connected to the level of obstination :-)

[P0M:] Ritualized behaviors to head off aggression are essential to every culture. The rules can be different in different cultures, but within a culture the individual fares better if 'e can go by the rules. I believe that it's o.k. to knock and enter in Japan. If you knock and enter through a closed door in Germany, I'm told, you may be handed your head. (Virtually, at least.) Each place has its own conventions.

[P0M:] If, for instance, Dysprosia and Mav have been working for a month on a paragraph on antidisestablishmentarianism and have just patched up a (virtual) blood feud, and I come on the scene, delete the paragraph and replace it with my own version, surely the two of them will not applaud my efforts unless my insight and my prose outshine theirs the way that Rumi outshines Ogden Nash. Rather than affronting them, if I have any desire to make a positive contribution then it would seem to me the better strategy to negotiate the changes -- and to not try to negotiate from a posture of arrogance either.

Yes. But that was worth trying no ? Ok, that did not work. I was curious.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/n/a/Talk%7EDNA_Archive_10_0b59.html"