Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate/Alternatives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 /Alternative options 1.1 A Third System 1.1.1 Discussion 1.1.2 Refactoring problems 1.2 Internet time using the Unix epoch 1.2.1 Discussion

[edit] /Alternative options

[edit] A Third System

Design and implement a server-side (Wikicentric) dating system that can be displayed client-side as various dating formats via user preferences. Adraeus 18:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• Oppose. Instruction creep. Radiant_* 08:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  What does that mean? Adraeus 09:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  • m:instruction creep. It means you should not add new rules if they aren't needed. When in doubt, don't overcomplicate. Radiant_* 13:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Then your vote basically means, "In my opinion, this solution overcomplicates the issue." This solution doesn't overcomplicate; it simplifies. Adraeus 23:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current, popular systems of dating are not NPOV; therefore, since I do not perceive a problem, I oppose this alternative solution. ClemMcGann (Refactor: Adraeus 10:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC))

  • I do not recall posting those words above, perhaps they were moved (or refactored) out of context. What happened to the date stamp? - I did post the words below --ClemMcGann 13:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • We would need a way of encoding dates. That is an unnecessary complexity aside from any coding changes. At present we can just directly type the numerals. Even the mapping that is used from CE/BCE to BC/AD is not without its problems. Consider Bible#The_canon_of_Scripture. A sentence used to read “final decisions did not happen until shortly after the Temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed in AD 70.” Later this date was advanced to 100 CE. Now we have these recent changes. The date changes again [1] It reads 200 CE but that maps to 100 AD. A further change id made [2] Now it reads 200 CE, but that had a red mapping to and edit of 200_AD . So there is another change [3] to leave us with 100 CE mapping to 100 AD. Now that is what I call unnessary complexity. Experienced wikipedians have made errors even with CE to AD mapping. I continue to advocate "keep it simple". --ClemMcGann 01:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • While this solution does have developmental complexity, this solution simplifies the dating system for readers and editors by using a single dating system developed specifically for Wikipedia. I don't know what this Third System would look like; however, there would be no neutrality issues and none of the issues you've described because the Wikicentric dating system (the system used in converting the client-side display of dates) would be strictly syntactical. The dating system displayed would be controlled by the client and only the client would be able to see their preferred system. Instead of outright opposition, I suggest you think about this solution and what it entails, both for the developer and the editor/reader, more carefully. Adraeus 05:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • At least you recognise that this proposal involves developmental complexity. I have demonstrated that it would be error-prone. One of the advantages of Wiki is that anyone can edit it. Now not only would new editors have to learn a syntax for specifying dates, but readers would have to engage in some sort of dialogue to see the dates correctly. I see no merit in this proposal. What I do see is unnecessary complexity, obscurity, and error. Meanwhile the sentence referred to earlier would seem to be in a revert war. I wonder why are proposals made if some editors are just going to make their changes despite the lack of consensus for their proposal. Keep it simple. ClemMcGann 13:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Learning a simple, new syntax is not a problem. After all, isn't learning what an encyclopedia is all about? New editors already have to learn wiki syntax. That's why we have helpful editors and substantial documentation. In addition, readers would not have to engage in "some sort of dialogue to see the dates correctly". Like you said, "one of the advantages of Wiki is that anyone can edit it"; therefore, all this "sort of dialogue" would require is using the same simple, new dating syntax in discussion which, again, would display as users prefer. You seem to be throwing out random excuses for the developers, and none of which have substance. At least you are thinking. Regarding your comment about consensus, understand that human consensus does not generate reality. Were it able to do so, the sun would have taken to orbiting the earth some time ago. Adraeus 19:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I have illustrated that the method of mapping from BCE/CE to BC/AD is error prone. In that instance it took several edits to get it right. An encyclopedia is about learning, but it is about learning something new and useful. I fail to see any advantage in learning a new method of dating. There is nothing wrong with the existing method. If it aint broke – don’t fix it. When it comes to perceptions, then consensus is reality. Is there a perception that the months of July and August continue to honor Roman Emperors as Gods? ClemMcGann 19:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I say 'alleged solution' as there is no problem. I cannot see any merit in it. The days of the week are named after pagan (mainly Norse) Gods. When we speak of Thursday we do not honor Thor, nor Woden on Wednesday. Months are (mainly) named after Roman deities. We do not honor Mars when we speak of March nor Aphrodite for April. Knowing that these were originally named for these deities is a curiosity. It is nothing more. Knowing that BC/AD refers to the Christian deity is also a curiosity. It is nothing more. ClemMcGann 10:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Neutral [Replaces NPOV with MyPOV.] Guettarda 18:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, this solution is an implementation of the commonly used method for adherence to NPOV policy: describe the major points of view. Moreover, this would allow various dating formats, such as geological dating, instead of only the Julian/Gregorian calendar-based dating formats. Adraeus 23:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thus presented, you do have a point. Let me think about it a little more. Guettarda 23:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Assumming there is a way to modify the wikicode to automatically recognize and format dates with little server impact, I would strongly favor this solution. Dragons flight 23:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. If we had such a system date range searches would be facilitated because dates would be stored in a machine searchable internal format. The same could be done with other units, such as metric and imperial units.

  NullC and I discussed this solution in IRC recently:

  <NullC> It would be a good chunk of work for developers.

  <Adraeus> I don't think it would.

  <Adraeus> They have a number of ways to display dates.

  <Adraeus> They just need to add a few variables here and there to the date_display() function.

  <NullC> I looked at the code that postgres uses to turn dates into its internal representation; it copes with all kinds of formatting and it's several thousand lines long.

  <NullC> right but *reading* the stuff people type is the hard part.

  <NullC> because people will have to do something like {date 1st jan AD 1970} and it will need to figure out what the heck that means!

  If feasible, this solution would be more useful than its opponents let on. Adraeus 00:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think I know what you're talking about. Is it what Chameleon suggested on Talk:Jesus under "major proposal"? As long it doesn't have a lot of server impact. --Silversmith 00:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. ...because it allows people to use and read whichever format they prefer, which seems to work well for other date formats. Angela. 15:21, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, obviously — Chameleon 21:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  For those wondering about the location of Chameleon's reasons for support, check the Talk page. Adraeus 23:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. ...due to untimeliness, and because the implementation of this solution, for those who have not set preferences and for those who lack the ability to do so, has not been explained. This proposal is not phrased as a recommendation to the developers. Gene Nygaard 03:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC) (Refactored: Adraeus 10:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC))

  What do you mean by "untimeliness"? The default display of dates would use the homegrown Wikipedia-system. Adraeus 10:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Voting on features on the wiki is unlikely to get anything done. Please submit feature suggestions through Bugzilla, and leave it to technically qualified persons to sort them out. Eloquence* 22:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of voting on wiki features is accumulate a significant supporter base in order to affect the prioritization of a feature request. There's no sense in requesting a feature that nobody knows of or supports. Adraeus 23:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Bugzilla has a voting system. In my experience, the developers are not driven by votes, however, but by reasonable, well-presented arguments. Eloquence*

That assumes a lot of wisdom in the developers, for which I have seen no evidence. Additionally, are you saying that they get to decide what features we have? Surely they should work by community mandate, not by personal motivation. If they do, it is a case of systemic bias that needs to be addressed, not accepted. Chameleon 23:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting option. I do not think I support it (because I still think that in the matter of dates there is still both an NPOV and an educational issues involved) but I can't say I oppose this (yet), Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Remember, Slrubenstein: BCE/CE is also inherently POV because of its Christian origins. The Common Era is defined as "the time period beginning with the supposed year of Christ's birth". [4] I don't support the choosing of the lesser of two evils. I prefer to support a really sound and true NPOV solution, like the alternative I proposed. Adraeus 01:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please explain this in english? Just want to make sure I know exactly what I'm voting on here. Thanks. --Silversmith 00:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think NullC can elaborate on this solution more effectively since he's a programmer. Currently, there is a single alternative option listed, and another option is discussed in the main talk page. Both are similar except that this solution requires software engineering while the other discussion solution is an attempt to use templates and Cascading Style Sheets as a temporary workaround. Voting for an alternative solution is not abstaining from the "general election"; voting for an alternative option is like voting for the Green Party in the sense that your vote may not gain any ground in the current "general election". Adraeus 00:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Voting for (or against) an alternative option does not and should not preclude you from voting against the original proposal (or for it, for that matter). That is a vote strictly about changing to the proposal given there, or leaving things as they are. Any alternatives are side issues, not on the main ballot. Gene Nygaard 13:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

...and you're somehow the word of God on this issue? Adraeus 19:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you read, Adraeus? What are the section headers on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate/Votes? Here they are:

• Votes in favor of the proposal (71)
• Votes opposed to the proposal (84)

I can guarantee you that if they had not been correct, they would have been changed. Gene Nygaard 03:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You're avoiding my question. By the way, if we allow people to oppose and support as many alternative options as they like combined with their support or opposition to the primary proposal, the vote statistics become invalid due to illegitimate troll-votes, much like yours. You're suggesting that it's okay for troll-voters to exist and oppose or support every proposal. There are good reasons for rules in elections. Adraeus 04:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Adraeus, you mean a preference system just like with "September 1" versus "1 September", right? I suggested that ages ago.[5] It is surely not that difficult to implement. We already virtually have it. Pages would be left with either BCE/CE or BC/AD in the code (and be left alone!) according to whatever the creator of the article first used, but what we see would depend on preferences. Most people would be fine with seeing whatever the author intended. Others could choose BC/AD. Others could choose BCE/CE. We could even allow people to see a combination of both... or how about automatically converting to dates by the Muslim, Jewish, French Revolutionary, Roman or Computer year reckoning systems. Keep everyone happy! — Chameleon 00:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally. Someone understands me. I'm happy. Adraeus 05:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe people are voting against it. Do people not understand the concept of compromise? I would like BC/AD to be the standard, but there are people with a lot of different opinions making consensus impossible, so my proposal is to allow people to see whatever they prefer. — Chameleon 16:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose I use BCE/CE when ever possible. I am Christian, but was not always so. I took offense neither before nor after, though I understand why many may. The change to BCE/CE is a noble movement to secularize langauge so we have an increase in common ground. This is good, at this point however, neither the academic nor general comunity has consensus, let alone Wikipedia. Wikipedia, I believe should /reflect/ the community, in all its aspects, rather than attempt to define a standard for them. I similarly am opposed to AD/BC only, again, we are not here to define standards but to reflect those of the community. This is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal. If it was, I'd be mass blanking pages with inadequate refrences. The choice to use AD or CE dating systems is the choice of each writer an editor. What we must make clear is that Changing dating systems so much they become edit wars is highly abusive, and should not be tolerated, whatever side we are on. --- Copied verbatim from my opinion on the main proposal. Again, not wikipedia's job.--Tznkai 22:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly support, as long as it doesn't place too much work on the server. I agree with Chameleon; I don't see how this is different from the software reading [[September 1]] in an article and formatting it as [[1 September]] according to my preferences. As long as the formatting requirements aren't too strict (eg if [[2005 AD]], [[AD2005]], [[2005 BC]], [[2005]] etc. are all accepted by the software) I don't see a problem. It would be great if this was extended to allow people to see the year in non-Gregorian formats for fully wikified dates (it wouldn't work well for years on their own because of the year changing on different days in different calendars). I haven't looked at the WP source but I'm a software developer and can't imagine this would would be that difficult to implement. Cantthinkofagoodname 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring problems

A couple of important points for you to keep in mind, Adraeus, from Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages:

• "Try to avoid refactoring when a conversation is still going on. This can cause additional confusion, and may not be liked by those involved in the discussion.
• "Do not try to refactor a discussion where you have a strong point of view. The summarised version needs to reflect the original meaning, and this may be obscured by your own biases."
  

Gene Nygaard 12:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware. I don't agree with either point. Firstly, if an ongoing conversation is being driven off-topic for any reason, the discussion should be refactored to re-orient the participants. Secondly, the second point should read "do not refactor a discussion with your point of view" rather than "don't even try it, you can't be trusted, yadda, yadda, yadda". Wikipedia:Assume good faith. That directly contradicts the second point. Should we tell prospective and new editors, "Do not try to add or edit an article because your biases may affect the result?" No. This is a wiki. As such, anyone can edit it. Adraeus 19:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

So the rules just don't apply to you, Adraeus? That's good to know, that "you're somehow the word of God on this issue".

That part which says you should not be refactoring does not in any way violate any guidelines about assuming good faith. That Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages rule doesn't fall into the scope of that guideline at all. Rather, if anything, it is a rule which will avoid the appearance of impropriety. Then people won't have to question your good faith. Note that "good faith" is a rebuttable presumption. Let some disinterested party do any refactoring. At the very least, limit your refactoring to threads in which you are not an active participant. Gene Nygaard 10:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This "discussion" is relevant to Wikipedia_talk:Refactoring_talk_pages. Let's move it there. By the way, Gene, those aren't rules. Those are guidelines—suggestions. Adraeus 14:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is relevant to this article; it belongs here. It has to do with your not following those established rules on this article's talk page. If you want to start a different discussion on that talk page, and try to get consensus there for a change in the rules, fine. You even have permission to copy my comments here to that talk page, as long as they are copied in full and identified as being copied from here.

They are rules; a term which does not have any special meaning in Wikipedia jargon, AFAIK, except in specific phrases such as "three revert rule". Gene Nygaard 16:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• No, they're not rules. I'm not going to argue with you. You believe you're right, and believers can't accept anything but their own truths. Adraeus 17:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I see now that you had already copied my original comment and your first reply to Wikipedia_talk:Refactoring_talk_pages even before you suggested here that we do so. You did that without pointing out there that this is what you had done, giving the misleading impression that I had started a discussion there. Nor did you let on in your later discussion here that you had already done so.

Note also that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines uses "rules" as a generic term to refer to either.

But you are also hoist by your own petard. In that unexplained copying of our original discussion, the header you used there was Refactoring rules; then later you come here, proclaiming "those aren't rules"! -- Gene Nygaard 20:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet time using the Unix epoch

I move that we use a bot to change all pages to conform with Internet time, starting from the Unix epoch. See also Category:Calendars. Radiant_* 13:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion