User talk:Marc Girod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bonjour Marc, et bienvenue :-) user:Anthere

Bonjour Anthere. Plus de six mois décidément. Marc Girod 19:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Marc, I've worked extensively on Age of Extremes. Please have a look at the article and its talk page (as I write this, I'm having trouble saving the talk page, but I imagine it should be OK by the time you are liable to read this). -- Jmabel 22:33, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry -- It took me too long to come back, only a similar disappointment in the French Wiki. Marc Girod 19:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalisation

I found to my surprise that somebody with an anonymous IP from Australia: CPE-138-130-8-11.nsw.bigpond.net.au (138.130.8.11), had found it funny to vandalise my user page on Sept 4th. Marc Girod 19:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Discussion

When you say the discussion pages impede neutrality, are you perhaps referring to the problem where consensus sometimes becomes a replacement for neutrality, and the majority view is endorsed rather than leaving all views unendorsed? I have noticed this can be a problem on controversial issues whenever a group of editors feels passionately about something. I see it happening in articles on a wide range of topics as I roam about Wikipedia. — Cortonin | Talk 08:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. Also, people feel --incorrectly in my view-- that POV belongs to discussion pages, which soon look only like a verbose cemetary... Thread style and verbosity are killers in practice. MG

I'd like to better understand this. Can you give a more specific example? — Cortonin | Talk 19:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems we need some greater clarification regarding the process of writing neutrally here. — Cortonin | Talk 08:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree and look forward to finding means to make progress there. MG

Well, when User:172 left Wikipedia a short while ago, he said something intriguing in his parting message. He pointed out that there are mechanisms in place for enforcing process (such as enforcing the 3RR and other such simpler rules), but no mechanisms in place for enforcing product (such as interpreting what NPOV means in various specific cases). I've seen people talking about those comments, and while he left in the midst of some turmoil, those things he said struck a nerve with some people it seems. Currently the only mechanism we have for enforcing NPOV is consensus of the most active, and unless they are willing to write against their own opinions (which it seems most people aren't), then this just reduces to the popular view of the most active being dominant. The arbitration committee often responds with "we don't engage in content disputes" when such are brought up to them, which is fine, because someone has to take care of dealing with all the cases about rules of process. But this means that we are left with no committee which ensures the NPOV of the product. — Cortonin | Talk 19:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone once told me that an unenforced rule isn't really a rule, and I think there's wisdom in that. — Cortonin | Talk 19:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing User:172's comments. What I understand and retain in them is that the community does not work in a responsible manner, by positioning on the contents, but rather leaves the field to administrators and the like who focus on applying more or less formal rules. The problem is thus both passivity of the majority, and activity of a minority. Do we need rules? As few as possible... Rules have also one important function: break, i.e. help practical understanding to emerge, by being proven inappropriate and counterproductive.

But what is the suitable --since my talk page is not-- place to develop on the failure of Wikipedia's enlighted democracy? Marc Girod 07:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe Wikipedia:Neutrality Committee and Wikipedia talk:Neutrality Committee? I think the reason rules break so much here is twofold. One, half of them aren't enforced, so people just wiggle out of them and put what they want anyway. And two, the rules are simply written text, and pieces are selected here and there from the text (often out of context) to support various interpretations, many of which don't match the intended spirit of neutrality as laid out by Wales. I think the latter problem would be fixed if there were some sort of judicial panel whose role would be to interpret the meaning of NPOV as it applies to specific examples, so that people have someone to turn to for an authoritative explanation of what true neutrality means in specific cases. — Cortonin | Talk 11:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition, it might be helpful to read Wikipedia:How to create policy. — Cortonin | Talk 11:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I simply disagree here. No need for any committee. Normal users should play this role. If they don't, we are doomed. We should try to make it sexy for normal users to behave in a responsible manner. That's all we can do. And it is not by making or enforcing policies. Marc Girod 18:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

And when they would rather label their own views as true rather than follow NPOV, despite its clear demarcation as a policy? What then? An unenforced rule isn't a rule. — Cortonin | Talk 19:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There are other strategies than suicide. Marc Girod 16:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)