Talk:QDB
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|---|
| 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Mediator's response to the arguments
Analysing past, or even current, behaviour or alternative accounts/IPs of other editors, is not relevant here at all. Finding proof of bias in the other editor does not mean that the point of view being presented does not mean anything. It seems to me that both of you are taking this issue too close to heart - whichever the option the chances are that it will make NO impact on the popularity of either site, and any inconvenience to one group of readers would only be minor no matter what the page ends up to be. In terms of the reader it all ends up on a matter of one extra click or seeing some extra contact that you're not too interested in. I see some bias on both sides - which is probably the reason for this dispute.
I think this issue itself is not such a big deal to warrant such a huge multi-screen mostly-personal argument; this is all being blown out of proportions. So if we continue the discussion please don't go into each other's actions at all, nor the historical issues with QDB the project and the two sites.
The part of the discussion on the topic itself didn't really get anywhere above. I personally don't see any more points to bring up to help this get resolved, everything is just going around in a circle. It is my feeling that after so much argument neither one of you would be willing to agree to the opposite of what you were arguing for; and because this is rather a simple matter there is not much room for a compromise.
So what I think is best to do here is to ask for a straw poll and for both sides to agree to stick to the result of the poll (if it is conclusive enough, say 60% or 75% support). True, this won't necesserily provide the fairest result and it may have a random element involved on who turns up and how well they will think about the issue. But it seems to me that the arguments between you two are too hard to resolve probably more on a personal level than a factual level. This is what I would suggest and I would be happy to organise one for you if both sides agree to stick to the result. But any other suggestions of how to resolve this (save blocking the account of your opponent =P) are welcome.--Konstable 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blaxthos Response
Indeed, there was a lot of needless data included in this discussion.
I thought the meat of the issue was what you originally posted -- if one site is overwhelmingly more popular than the other, the redir should occur. Is this not the case?
The redir and wikipedia in general really doesn't affect usercount to bash.org at all... the site is popular on its own, and we stopped concerning ourselves with count stats years ago. I simply believe that a redir is most appropriate and best serves the interests of wikipedians writ large.
Also, I am uncomfortable with the straw poll for this reason: the QDB.us crowd was, for the most part, fired from bash.org a few years ago. They have proven to be highly motivated by the ideasof spite and vengence, and I have no doubt that they would mobilize their readership to participate in the straw poll. We are not willing to call attention to such a petty dispute, and would make no such announcement to our readers. Bottom line: the interests of wikipedia (and the criterion which you posted) would be subverted by an artifical indication engineered by a highly motivated crowd of disgruntled ex-associates who revel in trying to detract from something which they no longer have influence. (heck of a sentence, eh?)
I have no interest in prolonging this issue, however I would much rather see it resolved based on the criteria provided by the moderator -- I have read through the discussion once more, and I find myself repeatedly asking for a counterargument based solely on the criteria you posted, but I can't find any relevant reply. I think it would be a travesty to let this issue be decided by "who can motivate the most people to come and vote." Frustration is only more exascerbated by the fact that it seems like a very cut-and-dry issue based on what you (the moderator) posted originally.
Thanks for your help!
/Blaxthos 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all that was just my oppinion and what seems to be an unofficial convention, I could not find any policy regarding this. And secondly it is not exactly clear that users searching for QDB on Wikipedia would want to see Bash.org - even though it is more popular it does use the name Bash, and as the article Bash.org itself says it is more common to refer to the site by the name "bash". So Bash.org having an "overwhelming majority" here is not so clear-cut. Anyway, I am not meant to be a more genius person out of you, me and Markusbradley - so my opinion is only just that - an oppinion. As a mediator I am not here to enforcing my own opinions but rather to help others overcome a problematic argument.
-
- I don't think Markusbradley would go asking QDB.us users/staff to vote here as you suggested. It probably wouldn't be much use even trying since those cases are usually easy to see - either anons or brand-new users with almost no other edits. I have participated in several polls myself and I have never really seen any real problem with such things. But the advantage here is that you will get some idea of what everyone thinks rather than you two here, plus me - and will help reach a consensus.--Konstable 03:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Markusbradly himself made a wiki account with the sole purpose of causing friction in this arena. What makes you think it is an isolated incedent? /Blaxthos 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-
Well the discussion seems to have ended without a result. But this is a dead end situation with no consensus here. With no guarantee that the issue wont come back again, maybe between different editors over the same issue. So I think I will organise a survey here nevertheless to see what everyone else thinks. I don't see how it could make the situation worse.--Konstable 06:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am interested in the result of the poll as well. I never thought about it being obvious if underhaded tactics are employed. I do not see any other alternative, really, since there is no real policy on redir's. /Blaxthos 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
quick note that my activities are not limited to this article. and again, i'm cool with the poll -- however it turns out. -Markusbradley 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Markusbradley response
- the redir -- or lack thereof -- doesn't hurt or help either sites by any measurable amount
- you can't be "fired" from a place that isn't an employer where you don't work and have no contract
- people haven't seen highly motivated in spite and vengeance until they've seen someone cling to and protect a site that defines as good as they'll ever get
- a straw poll sounds fine, i'm not going to object
- blaxthos' slam against the qdb.us crowd doesn't take his own hypocrisy into consideration, which is humorous
- i'm perfectly cool with however the poll turns out
-Markusbradley 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poll
A poll on whether QDB should be a redirect to Bash.org or whether it should point to a disambiguation page.
[edit] Redirect to Bash.org
Put your votes below, give a reason, and sign with ~~~~.
- Direct Redir - The QDB Project at bash.org is the original source of the letters QDB. bash.org is overwhelmingly more popular than any post-facto "QDB" (by at least 3 orders of exponential magnitude). It is highly likely that anyone searching Wikipedia is looking for bash.org, and may visit the ambiguation notice at the top of the page if interested in another use of QDB. The meat of the issue should be what best serves most Wikipedians, not giving equal attention to all possible uses. See examples CIA or NSA. /Blaxthos 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect to a Disambiguation page
Put your votes below, give a reason, and sign with ~~~~.
- Agree with the reasoning stated below. QDB.us contains QDB in the name, the traffic numbers are in the same order of magnitude, and bash.org is most frequently referred to as either "bash" or "bash.org" Peaceduck 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Keep the disambiguation page as is. The QDB label applies to more than just Bash.org, and it is the formal name of at least two projects. -Markusbradley 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree Computerjoe's talk 12:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. There are actually many QDBs, and QDB.us has been a relevant part of the QDB world for nearly a year to date --Utopianfiat 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree -- if there is more than one interpretation of QDB, disambig it. In one extra click, you are at your supposed/original destination. And maybe along the way you said "Gee, I didn't know that." — MrDolomite | Talk 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
- There has been a long over-sized discussion about this, which has now been archived at Talk:QDB/Archive 1. The two parties involved failed to reach a consensus between themselves and are in stalemate. Basically QDB.us and Bash.org are two popular IRC quote databases that are similar in design to each other and both use the same acronym QDB as their official name. According to statistics of Alexa.com, Bash.org is more popular ranked #10,049, compared to QDB.us ranking #83,247. This was the main argument used for a straight redirect to Bash.org, this does not mean there would be no disambiguation page at all - but it would act like NSA and CIA. However it was pointed out that Bash.org is generally referred to as Bash rather than QDB (though that is its original name), and even though the site QDB.us is a lot less popular than Bash.org it still gets thousands of unique users per day. Also the acronym QDB may be used for other articles in the future.--Konstable 06:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another consideration that should be made: both Bash.org and QDB.us (and a general plurality of QDBs) identify their service as being a "QDB" quote database. I support a QDB_(disambiguation) page, but what might be better would be better would be to make QDB a general article on quote databases and refer to the page list_of_quote_databases (which should be red at the moment). Remember gentlemen, this isn't a popularity contest as it would seem. I understand both parties have vested epeen interest in their QDB being THE QDB, but this is an encyclopedia, not WikiAds.--Utopianfiat
Well the poll is closed. The result seems pretty clear cut, so I guess that's that.--Konstable 11:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
