83,675
edits
User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Wikilinks
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "WikiIndex:ServerName" to "WikiIndex:Proposal: domain name change") |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:::I would see nothing wrong with writing such an article. On Meta-Wiki, you might not have as much free speech, because they could claim to see your continued complaints about the matter as disruptive or harassing. But [http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/What-Is-The-Difference-Between-Public-Relations-And-Journalism.htm the story isn't complete without interviewing the people who are most affected by the action being taken]. Who will interview you? No one, because they don't care or they've already been kicked off Meta. | :::I would see nothing wrong with writing such an article. On Meta-Wiki, you might not have as much free speech, because they could claim to see your continued complaints about the matter as disruptive or harassing. But [http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/What-Is-The-Difference-Between-Public-Relations-And-Journalism.htm the story isn't complete without interviewing the people who are most affected by the action being taken]. Who will interview you? No one, because they don't care or they've already been kicked off Meta. | ||
:::So, the involved party (i.e. you) has to put on his journalist hat and write an account of the situation from his point of view. But as we saw in my case, such essays are not welcome at Meta. However, you could post a lengthier account to your bliki (or other website) and summarize it on a relevant page here. Then others could fact-check your claims and edit your summary if needed to make sure it fairly presents what happened and gives both sides of the story. | :::So, the involved party (i.e. you) has to put on his [[:Category:Journalism|journalist]] hat and write an account of the situation from his point of view. But as we saw in my case, such essays are not welcome at Meta. However, you could post a lengthier account to your bliki (or other website) and summarize it on a relevant page here. Then others could fact-check your claims and edit your summary if needed to make sure it fairly presents what happened and gives both sides of the story. | ||
:::There never was a requirement that a person be a wiki founder in order to have an article about him posted here. He merely needed to be a "wiki person". Anyone who has ever edited a wiki might fall in that category, if it's broadly construed. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | :::There never was a requirement that a person be a wiki founder in order to have an article about him posted here. He merely needed to be a "wiki person". Anyone who has ever edited a wiki might fall in that category, if it's broadly construed. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 231: | Line 231: | ||
:::::::It's not my wiki. The policies lie about what it is. They say what those who write the policies ''want'' it to be, or imagine that it is, but not what it actually is. And as users realize this, they leave, mostly quietly. If they try to change it, within the structures that have been set up, they burn out. So I have Plan B, which happens to be Wikiversity. Wikipedia is the tail wagging the dog. Encyclopedias were written by academics, who, in academia, develop deep knowledge of subjects. One of the Wikipedia tropes is that "neutral editors" can casually assess evidence and sources on complex subjects, that can take years to understand. So, create the deep study! And see what happens. | :::::::It's not my wiki. The policies lie about what it is. They say what those who write the policies ''want'' it to be, or imagine that it is, but not what it actually is. And as users realize this, they leave, mostly quietly. If they try to change it, within the structures that have been set up, they burn out. So I have Plan B, which happens to be Wikiversity. Wikipedia is the tail wagging the dog. Encyclopedias were written by academics, who, in academia, develop deep knowledge of subjects. One of the Wikipedia tropes is that "neutral editors" can casually assess evidence and sources on complex subjects, that can take years to understand. So, create the deep study! And see what happens. | ||
:::::::So far, I made one attempt to add a sister wiki link to the WP article on cold fusion, to the Wikiversity resource. It was immediately removed by a blatant factional editor. I was topic banned again shortly after that, after arranging for a recent peer-reviewed review of the field, in a mainstream journal, to be considered reliable source. A difficult discussion ensued, with editors who don't like the conclusions of that review, arguing tendentiously against it. The conclusion: RS. And I was almost immediately topic banned. The source is still listed in the bibliography, but no fact has been sourced to it, last I looked, and it radically contradicts what is shown in far weaker tertiary and media sources, which are used and cited. | :::::::So far, I made one attempt to add a sister wiki link to the WP article on cold fusion, to the Wikiversity resource. It was immediately removed by a blatant factional editor. I was topic banned again shortly after that, after arranging for a recent peer-reviewed review of the field, in a mainstream [[:Category:Journal|journal]], to be considered [[reliable source]]. A difficult discussion ensued, with editors who don't like the conclusions of that review, arguing tendentiously against it. The conclusion: RS. And I was almost immediately topic banned. The source is still listed in the bibliography, but no fact has been sourced to it, last I looked, and it radically contradicts what is shown in far weaker tertiary and media sources, which are used and cited. | ||
:::::::Then, another editor added a link, a bit over a year ago. Immediately removed, same person, I think. Basically, there are those who will resist allowing readers of wikipedia to access deeper wiki resources. They are violating Wikipedia policy and consensus, but to fix this takes users who understand how to handle situations like that, and those that do it have often been banned. Most just give up. I address the "copyright" issue on one page, and it took weeks of process, to get one link in. Last I looked, it was still there, there were attempts to remove it, but enough editors now watching that they were reverted. But -- notice! the ban discussion repeats the rejected claim of copyright violation. | :::::::Then, another editor added a link, a bit over a year ago. Immediately removed, same person, I think. Basically, there are those who will resist allowing readers of wikipedia to access deeper wiki resources. They are violating Wikipedia policy and consensus, but to fix this takes users who understand how to handle situations like that, and those that do it have often been banned. Most just give up. I address the "copyright" issue on one page, and it took weeks of process, to get one link in. Last I looked, it was still there, there were attempts to remove it, but enough editors now watching that they were reverted. But -- notice! the ban discussion repeats the rejected claim of copyright violation. | ||