User talk:Netesq/Back burner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Stale disputes

I've made a unilateral decision to remove some content here from my Wikipedia Talk page that narrated my personal take on various disputes in which I was involved here at Wikipedia. Most of the other parties involved in those disputes have moved on, and those who haven't moved on are not important enough for me to give them the air time here on my Talk page. Moreover, after very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that my Wikipedia Talk page is not a particularly useful platform for narrating my mixed emotions about Wikipedia and/or my misgivings about particular Wikipedians, particularly in view of various Wikipedia policies that inhibit me from speaking my mind as I might otherwise be able to do. // NetEsq 00:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and noteworthy views in practice at wikipedia

Hi. I've noticed in some of your recent talk posts that you advocate the position that "if a noteworthy person [or] group of people makes a factual assertion, it is our job to report that factual assertion and the factual assertions made by other noteworthy persons or groups, taking great care to note who said what and leaving the reader to determine the credibility of competing authorities." I agree that that position should be a part of NPOV, but there are a number of wikipedians who oppose this. They argue that: 1) it would be too burdensome too include ALL "noteworthy" (or some similar standard) views on a wiki topic; 2) it would (as if by some kind of default) lend equal validity to less normative or accepted views; and/or 3) the controversy would detract from the article. I think the articles The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Controversies regarding Mormonism is a good model to use as a way of handling topic X and alternate views of topic X in wikipedia. We should work together to advocate the "all noteworthy (counter)views" standard. B 21:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am astonished to hear that there is a significant and/or noteworthy group of Wikipedians who oppose what I have always considered to be a very straightforward interpretation of Wikipedia's NPOV Policy. However, as I reflect upon the many NPOV disputes in which I have been involved, it seems clear that there are many Wikipedians who really don't understand what NPOV means in the context of Wikipedia, and I agree that we should work together to advocate the "all noteworthy views" standard. -- NetEsq 02:38 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Would you agree

Would you agree that:

  1. This "semi-policy" is absolute drivel and wholly inconsistent with Internet troll which argues a much wider range of interpretations, policies and possible ways to reduce conflict
  2. That MeatballWiki is equally bad and incoherent on the subject and not even as good as Wikipedia's own article, and that the useful research in it should become part of a policy background paper?
  3. That Jim Wales' priveleged position both defines and propagates 'trolls' who can be defined as "anyone who doesn't believe that Jim Wales really understands and always operates in the best interests of the project" - that is that "a troll" is "anyone who persistently disagrees with Wales and doesn't submit to him absolutely"
  4. That vigilante moderators have always been, and will for the time being remain, a worse problem than any number of so-called "trolls"
  5. That discussions on this issue are always hijacked by majoritarians who want to kick people out just because they have a minority view
  6. That "troll" is an absolutely non-operational term, particularly when used in the singular, with no conceivable objective meaning? That you would argue this in any court of law at any time yourself?
  7. More useful users have been driven off by bad administration and Wales than by the worst "trolls"
  8. User:Anthere's attitude on these matters has always been more useful and intelligent than any of the other board members, and that she, not Wales, should do more public speaking on this project
  9. That a more neutral list of problems from Clay Shirky's moderation wiki is a better terminology from which to address Wikipedia problems.
  10. That it's high time Wikipedia had an article on sysop vandalism rather than remain the world's biggest example of it?
  11. That, given the scale of the project, more sophisticated approaches to m:governance and issue definition and resolution should now be tried?
  12. That given the Wikipedia:Criticisms made lately, that the people who made the same criticisms early in the project ought to be consulted and maybe brought in to some kind of advisory board, etc.? For instance there was much early discussion about considering the needs of readers who do not edit, and developing nations' users, all of which Wales just ignored
  13. That useful projects of all kinds have been stalled simply because of Wales' ideology and incomprehension of his own cognitive limits?
  14. That enactivism (psychology) is a more valid psychological basis for moderation and governance than any rules-based or label-based dogma?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/t/User_talk%7ENetesq_Back_burner_d8ad.html"