Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 9 April 2008

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Misplaced Pages, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Archives

Barnstars Humor Mainpage ToDo Staging Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

dilution math corrections

Just a remainder in case you forgot, I'm still waiting on Talk:Homeopathy that you tell me how my dilution math is incorrect --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know that it is. I will get back to you when I get a spare moment. I have lots of other calculations to do.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you were busy on other talk pages. I just wanted to check my math before demolishing Peter Morrell's claims that the pheromones concentrations are actually are low. I think that most of the concentrations he talked about were between 2C and 3C, and there are problems about dogs breathing many liters of air, so they are sampling a lot more molecules (I need to check how many molecules a cubic meter of air has, and how much air a dog breathes) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Back of the envelope gives 1.1872 * 10 molecules in a deep breath. This assumes 1.2 g/L density (air at sea level) and 100% nitrogen (not bad, and a smaller source of error than the next assumption) with 4.6 L vital capacity (good for a 70 kg human). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nylon Bug

Someone already started it, and it's got substantial content. :) Elecmahm (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Old weight systems

I have collected a lot more information to extend the article on apothecaries' weight. I am still working on it, but you might be interested in what I have already in my sandbox. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I really appreciate it. I am poking around looking into miscibility calculations using Euler relations. To really do this reasonably accurately, one has to do quite a bit of real mathematics and real science, which is somewhat surprising. However, I think when it is done properly, we will have produced the most accurate contribution ever to this area; far more accurate than anything else I have seen in the literature. Plus learned a tiny bit too.--Filll (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

question

I noticed on the expelled talk page that you mentioned that you edit on conservapedia. Do you have the same user name there. I edit there and think it has a lot problems and would like to be in contact with someone that actually might make some good contributions. Thanks. Saksjn (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

question

I noticed on the expelled talk page that you mentioned that you edit on conservapedia. Do you have the same user name there. I edit there and think it has a lot problems and would like to be in contact with someone that actually might make some good contributions. Thanks. Saksjn (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not edit on Conservapedia. I might have created an account there, but if I did, it was so long ago that I no longer remember it. I keep track of other wikis where people interested in creationism and evolution and intelligent design might like to edit however. For one thing, some people are able to be more productive on these kinds of wikis than ours, since we need NPOV, and they do not have that rule, which many people find very difficult to deal with.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Filll/AGF Challenge

Interesting. Do people just do these exercises for themselves? I'd be curious to see answers people actually come up with. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I havent unleashed them on anyone yet, although Durova did one of them (verbally). I am curious to know what people would say as well, and compare responses between people, or maybe have some multiple choice responses eventually and poll people.

Some of these exercises are supposed to present people with a dilemma that is a bit tricky. Some are supposed to drive home the point that it is impossible to make everyone happy. Some of the exercises are meant specifically for people who I hear constantly claim that it is bad faith to insist that people follow the rules. Some are meant for those who suggest that everyone follows the rules and the mean old WP admins are just too harsh with people and unreasonable. Some are meant to probe the thoughts of those who say that WP rules are terribly restrictive and should be changed.

Some exercises are meant to focus attention on what sort of document we are building, and what sorts of information people should reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia, and how reliable it should be. Many people claim that rules are bad, or that rules should be bent in one case or another just for them, or that the Misplaced Pages standard interpretation of the rules is bad. These exercises are all drawn from cases where various editors were incensed at the way the rules were being applied by WP admins and other WP editors.

It is always easier to be objective about a situation where one is not engaged personally, with lots of feelings involved. It is also easier to see the situation boiled down to its bare essentials, rather than try to follow the dispute across many kilobytes of discussion and many pages and many hours, or days, or months. Situations also can get clouded by side issues and distractions like arguments over CIVIL; these are stripped out of the exercises for clarity.

If we developed some standard responses as part of WP training, that might be useful as well, possibly. We could even broadcast what responses WP would suggest and prefer from editors and admins in a case that looked like "exercise number 3a", to remove more ambiguity and confusion in these situations for admins and editors and critics, and mollify some of the complaints from critics. Of course, some of these exercises might need a bit more "sanitizing" and anonymizing and copyediting before they are used more extensively, but they represent a start.--Filll (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you take notes? I'd be especially interested in Durova's approach at that! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Also, did I mention I love questions like these? :-)

No, I unfortunately did not take notes. Durova gave a very detailed and complete answer however. I am sure that we could persuade her to write some answers for these exercises, however. I would love to get them from a wide range of people, and to stimulate debate and discussion in an atmosphere that is less fraught with drama than one finds normally on an article or user talk page, or in some sort of administrative proceeding like an RfC or an Arbcomm case.--Filll (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am undecided about how to present these and to who, exactly. Durova "interviewed" me for her blog, but I do not know if the article about these exercises is in her blog yet or not.--Filll (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since our PowerToy discussion, this page stayed watchlisted and I came across this topic. I would love to answer the questions posed, but, the problem I see is that would be idealism. If faced with the same situation in reality, I might not react the same way. There is no guarantee what state of mind I might be when I am presented with such situations - I might be involved in a strenuous trying-to-get-POV-warriors-to-see-reason session or something else that has made me frustrated beyond-wits or sanity. That would significantly lower the threshold of how much good faith I can assume. So, such exercises will be as futile as assuming someone does not assume good faith seeing just an action or two of his. --soum 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean you wouldn't always be rational? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rational? Yes. Bitey? Can't say! While my intentions will always remain same, how politically correct my words (if I start dialog with the editors) will be depends on the situation. Take for example the Arrow of Time situation, if I am fighting a losing battle with a dozen of articles-should-promote-only-my-POV-no-other-reason-is-worthy-of-existing editors, how long can I be polite to the Arrow-of-Time editor is severely diminished. Given his actions, I might retort with a go-f***-yourself-ish answer. Does that mean I am mean, rude, arrogant, abusive and bitey? Converse with me rationally and see for yourself! Many of the experts actually spend a lot of time painfully finding references and cross checking their knowledge is correct and then formulating it the way it fits out policies. Not being given an inch of respect - or worse, accused of something they didn't even think of - does land a heavy blow in their belief in the virtues they think they were promoting, and shakes their foundation in the wikipedia policies itself. It takes a much longer time to heal, and if you (a generic you) do not assume good faith with them, the chances of them unilaterally assuming good faith is slim, if not non-existent. --soum 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the goal here is to try to identify some "Misplaced Pages Best Practices" for dealing with difficult situations. Of course, in the heat of battle one might say or do something nonoptimal. But can we think of good ways or standard ways to handle these situations? Can we start a dialogue on whether our policies should be changed in some cases?--Filll (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can think of something. But its still the same - instruction creep. When somebody is not in a position to WP:AGF, what would you think would seem a better choice Misplaced Pages:5 Steps to Anger Management or WP:IAR (though whether or not the latter will be invoked in the spirit of the rule is a different question altogether)? --soum 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what the right approach is. But I want to open the discussion.--Filll (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@Filll As to how or where to present these... heh, how much traffic can you handle? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question. It partly depends on the format in which they are presented. I have two ideas:

• ask each person taking the AGF Challenge to copy the page to their own space, and then answer the questions, and provide a link back to their answer page on the AGF Challenge talk page (for example, User:Kim Bruning/AGF Challenge Answers placed on User_talk:Filll/AGF_Challenge).

• Make a set of multiple choice links at the end of each challenge exercise that would take the reader to a subpage of the AGF Challenge. For example, after the Library exercise, one could be given choices like
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Put this article up for deletion
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Try to improve this article
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Contact the author of this article and ask for more information to include
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Warn the author of this article not to place such nonsense in Misplaced Pages
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Merge this article with the article for the town of Smithville, Iowa
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Other

Someone responding to the Challenge could then place their signature on one or more of these choices, and possibly discuss the merits of each choice on the talk pages of each option. Of course, if the problem is too difficult, they could just ignore them all and move on to the next exercise. After a few people responded, we would start to see some interesting information emerging I suspect. Comments?--Filll (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to replace the standard questions at requests for adminship, actually... O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow! I never thought of that. Wow that would get a HUGE number of responses for sure.--Filll (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The questions did remind me of my RfA. :-) --soum 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

<Scratches head> Of course... that might get different answers than you'd get from say an anonymous survey, due to the fact that people would have to take political considerations into account... hmmm ... --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, they're too sensible. For RfA you need questions like "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. Is it eligible for speedy deletion?" Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Original intended purposes of the AGF Challenge

I originally envisioned this document as having several potential uses:

(1) a way to stimulate discussions with those who believe that wikilove and AGF and CIVIL will solve all problems.

(2) A set of concrete realistic examples that people can discuss instead of these vague generalities and theoretical situations, or getting embroiled in actual ongoing tendentious situations, which many are loathe to do

(3) A way to engage those who have never actually had their hands dirty on contentious issues, and demonstrate to them how ambiguous and difficult these can be

(4) A way to collect data and suggestions from those who abstractly claim that they have better techniques than anyone else, but never demonstrate them or show them. Let's ferret out these supposedly better techniques they are in possession of, examine them, and if they are reasonable, try them in these sorts of difficult situations

(5) Possibly eventually turn this into a poll or survey and collect data about attitudes from a wide range of editors as a research project

(6) Most editors who complain about Misplaced Pages have a blind spot about their own particular hot button issue. However, when they consider the full range of situations, they often have attitudes that are quite different than the attitudes they express on topics in which they have a personal vested interest. This set of exercises can be part of a tool for studying this phenomenon, and possibly bringing this to these editor's attention as a training tool.

(7) There are repeated calls from User: Kim Bruning and others to train admins better in how to handle difficult situations. This could form part of a nucleus of training exercises and instructions for new admins.

(8) Discussions around these exercises could help to focus attention on some of our vague and ambiguous policies

(9) A way for internal and external critics to contemplate specific cases, suitably shortened and sanitized, presented objectively. It is easy to criticize others in the abstract. It is complicated to address real ongoing disputes with many people involved and many kilobytes of discussion to look at. This lets the critics focus on specific examples so they can offer their suggestions in a more concrete context.--Filll (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to get someone like Jason Scott Sadofsky to take the AGF Challenge. Plus those on WR. --Filll (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

While you know I applaud your goals, in working toward them recently you have created a lot of heat in addition to light, even in the face of several requests for the latter. Now, however, I admit I am impressed with this innovative and constructive idea. Just a suggestion: keep the scenarios as diverse as possible to undercut any future insinuations that you are using the page and any responses as a de facto consensus builder for any one particular content dispute. I hope you can see the merit of that suggestion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I want to make these as different from real content disputes as possible to reduce the chances of this. So they might need more sanitizing. Which can you recognize as real content disputes? I will make them more obscure.

Also, if you or any of your friends have suggestions for further "exercises", let me know. This is just a first crack at these.--Filll (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only recognize one that might be a sanitized version of a conflict I have seen discussed, but whose article I have never myself read, so I cannot say for sure. But even if so, IMO diversity is a better solution than sanitizing as it would be more widely applicable across the project, and it would reduce the chance of subtly altering the nature of the issues via sanitizing. My motive was purely preventative, by the way; no actual issues now with its content.

I've watchlisted it so will be constantly reminded of it, so if inspiration comes I'll bring it here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual integrity

I don't have any clue why you do it, but please refrain from lying about other users. It makes it very difficult to collaborate, and is quite uncivil. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)