Contents
Casual use of "hatting" to "censor" talk page discussions
Jimbo, sorry to use the word "censor" but I can not think of a milder term in this instance. Please have a look at this discussion thread and the "hatting" threats and applications thereof related to the thread, i.e. diffdiffdiffdiffdiff
There appears to be thoughtful interest and discussion from many editors on both sides of the issue of that thread.Apparently they had already hatted it once before being unhatted. Your thoughts? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would have hatted that discussion, had I been involved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. I am really surprised. I must be way out of sync with current norms and mores re: artificial limits being placed on constructive discussion. So be it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Would you care to give your reason? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- He's being disruptive by derailing and hijacking discussions about article improvement to rant about... well, conspiracy theories and such. Just like he's doing here. So yeah, hat it. Volunteer Marek 06:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I want to add, Jimbo, that any deep thought about the details of the preceding section and this section demands a conclusion that the content of Wikipedia is, with your blessing, subject to being controlled by a MSM which, in turn, is subject to being controlled by a political establishment or political establishment/MSM partnership. That is kind of historically usual, and thus, maybe acceptable, except for 2 diametrically opposed positions which you are taking, i.e., your commitment of Wikipedia to NPOV and your opposition to governments like Turkey controlling their messaging. Turkey just does it directly rather than via a MSM that it influences (via access restrictions or monetary opportunities), as is the case in many other countries. Imo, the situation you are blessing (more than condoning) is a relationship of agency; i.e. Wikipedia being an agent of MSM, which in many instances are themselves an agency of a political power such as the Liberal International Order. Your WikiTribune project idea seems to want to deliver only fact based journalism, so at some level you must be aware of the current junky status of MSM. I hope you can use this awareness to help improve Wikipedia going foreward. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Nocturnalnow: You don't need to ping the bloke on his own talk. It is generally an irritant of the grandiose kind. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
- @NN. You seem to have tapped into a buzzword (the Liberal International Order) which usefully serves a paranoid, right wing narrative without understanding that particular neologism in the context in which it was intended. Per your link: "The International Order is defined as the body of rules, norms, and institutions that govern relations between the key players on the international stage. Today, this body includes a nexus of global institutions, such as the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization; bilateral and regional security organizations; and liberal political norms, as well as what the authors describe as "liberal political norms.'" — In other words, democratic civil society as part of an interrelated international community; as opposed to the "existential threat" to that post-World War II system presented by authoritarian nationalism, which is more akin to the anti-democratic movements that dominated Europe during the 1930s. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Its not a zero sum game, the left wing/right wing "struggle" is a staged wrestling match with the management laughing all the way to the bank, imo. Its all about control and whether we have sovereign countries controlled by the people of those countries or regional/group authorities controlled by technocrats and corporations and professional politicians or something somewhere in between. You can call it "the establishment", which is the best term and if you like where the world is and where its heading, then that's fine, no problem. I am interested in the USA's MSM's bullshit, both left and right, dominating many of Wikipedia.en's articles and what can be done about it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
My take is that Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia, because a good article would rely on information that is not currently public knowledge. It's simply WP:TOOSOON to do a good job on the topic. The sophistry on both sides as to how to handle the lack of sourced material for parts of the article is too stupid for me to respond to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Surely you mean "because a good article would not rely on information that is not currently public knowledge? Agree with the utter surrealism of that article and some conversations about its contents. — JFG talk 23:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I mean that the version of the article in Wikipedia 2050 will be of much better quality, because it will rely on sources that do not currently exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Re "information that is not currently public knowledge" – I have an idea of what type of information that is for that article's subject, but I'm curious about what type of information you think it is. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I mean that the version of the article in Wikipedia 2050 will be of much better quality, because it will rely on sources that do not currently exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki:, I wholeheartedly agree that it is too soon and, therefore, we can't exclude the possibility that it could end up looking like the Gulf of Tonkin incident article by 2050. Unfortunately, if that is its destiny, a lot of damage could be done by promotion/publishing of existing non-public assertions. I wonder how you'd feel about the article being deleted as it has such an obvious WP:TOOSOON status? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of discussion that should be hatted and archived. SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Schools (again)
I was wondering if you'd changed your mind regarding the notability of secondary/high schools. Is it not the case that many schools in many places around the world are unlikely to have the kind of coverage we'd expect to see for other topics, and that if we allow AfD to routinely kill schools because of a lack of online sources then we're in effect promoting cultural bias on WP? To me it seems obvious that the vast majority of secondary schools that are real must sit on a whole pile of official government paperwork which may not be available online but which suggest that the thing is notable. So if we can find some third party reference to the school showing it exists, then it must follow that this other stuff exists. Others have strong views in the opposite direction, but to my mind if one allows the deletion of pages this is almost inevitably going to affect children in developing countries who will look at WP and be told that their school (which might be very large) is not notable when a small village school in Scotland is notable. Personally I don't think that kind of cultural bias is really a good thing. And if the general consensus is promoting cultural bias, then maybe WP needs to make it clear that we shouldn't be doing that. JMWt (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Need help reporting user
How can I report a user who is constantly vandalising articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SevenIndicus (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
You are my inspiration!! บุญพฤทธิ์ ทวนทัย (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
You have idea, for your webside (Wikipedia). บุญพฤทธิ์ ทวนทัย (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC) |