What are you doing, SV?, A brief review of Slim & "Animal Rights" Options

[Cla68]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

[Proabivouac]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Hell Freezes Over]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

I think the thread should not have been split. I was asked to comment -- basically to explain my position on animal rights and why I edit the articles the way I do -- and now that I've started explaining, it's moved to an off-topic area, and the claim that I'm POV pushing and somehow misusing Wikipedia is allowed to stand, unaddressed.

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[Noroton]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

I think the thread should not have been split. I was asked to comment -- basically to explain my position on animal rights and why I edit the articles the way I do -- and now that I've started explaining, it's moved to an off-topic area, and the claim that I'm POV pushing and somehow misusing Wikipedia is allowed to stand, unaddressed.

I was one person suggesting splitting the discussion, and I still think it makes sense. What may or may not make sense (or be fair) is expecting you to address, at once, both criticisms of animal rights as a political issue and your own actions in editing Wikipedia. That's a lot to put on anyone's plate at once.

I made this point at the other thread in response to a comment by Gomi: The issue of whether someone with a point of view, even a strong point of view, is separate from whether or not that person is making a WP article biased. (It's also separate from whether that person is violating behavioral norms.) Whatever your positions are on animal rights, they're irrelevant to this thread. Anyone who wants to charge that a Wikipedia article is biased needs to provide evidence of that. I haven't seen that evidence presented. Given what I've seen in the "Animal rights" article, I'd say someone would have to show where the article ignores or wrongly emphasizes or de-emphasizes some essential part of the subject. No one has done so.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I was one person suggesting splitting the discussion, and I still think it makes sense. What may or may not make sense (or be fair) is expecting you to address, at once, both criticisms of animal rights as a political issue and your own actions in editing Wikipedia. That's a lot to put on anyone's plate at once.

I made this point at the other thread in response to a comment by Gomi: The issue of whether someone with a point of view, even a strong point of view, is separate from whether or not that person is making a WP article biased. (It's also separate from whether that person is violating behavioral norms.) Whatever your positions are on animal rights, they're irrelevant to this thread. Anyone who wants to charge that a Wikipedia article is biased needs to provide evidence of that. I haven't seen that evidence presented. Given what I've seen in the "Animal rights" article, I'd say someone would have to show where the article ignores or wrongly emphasizes or de-emphasizes some essential part of the subject. No one has done so.

A couple of people here were saying that, in representing animal rights as an ownership issue (I forget what they said exactly, but it was something like that), I was misrepresenting animal rights and pushing my own POV, and structuring the articles in such a way as to make that POV prominent.

But I'm doing none of those things, and I was hoping if I explained some of the basic issues, people would see that.

If someone thinks the AR articles that I've worked on are POV, please give details of what's there and shouldn't be, or what's missing. The main [[animal rights]] article, for example -- I've worked hard on that to try to make it comprehensive. There's still stuff that needs to be added, but anyone reading it will get a fairly good idea of where the ideas came from, how they evolved, who the key players are, what they say, what the criticisms have been etc.

So what is actually wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

[Cla68]

So what is actually wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

I think that particular article is ok as currently written, although like I said before it gives a predominently western view of animal rights. After I first mentioned this I did a google search and found that it appears that most Asian animal rights organizations pattern their philosophy and activities on the western animal rights organizations. What I suspect, therefore, is that traditional Asian philosophy may not have clearly stated opinions on animal rights, instead encompassing it in the Buddhist philosophy of "harmony with nature" that humans are supposed to achieve (and I know I'm way oversimplifying Buddhist philosophy with that statement).

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

[Hell Freezes Over]

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

I know who he is, and that he's doing it to irritate me. That's why I reacted. It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

[Cla68]

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

I know who he is, and that he's doing it to irritate me. That's why I reacted. It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

(Sorry, lecture mode)...Assuming Good Faith doesn't mean that you can never doubt the intentions of another editor, but I personally don't see any reason why you couldn't have AGF in that instance with Tryptofish. Although he was pushing your buttons, his idea about changing the article wasn't completely ridiculous or foolish, so it needed to be handled courteously and honestly.

[Noroton]

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

I know who he is, and that he's doing it to irritate me. That's why I reacted. It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

(Sorry, lecture mode)...Assuming Good Faith doesn't mean that you can never doubt the intentions of another editor, but I personally don't see any reason why you couldn't have AGF in that instance with Tryptofish. Although he was pushing your buttons, his idea about changing the article wasn't completely ridiculous or foolish, so it needed to be handled courteously and honestly.

SV, this sounds like a reasonable point. It also doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on? Congratulations on passing through the Wikipedia Review Good Article gantlet.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on?

Fair point, and I do agree. Will try to sit on my hands in future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

[Kato]

Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on?

Fair point, and I do agree. Will try to sit on my hands in future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

What you should do, short of quitting Wikipedia altogether, is limit yourself to writing new material, rather than trying desperately to protect the old for the rest of your life. Because if you opt for the latter, you will fail. Badly. And spend the rest of your life trapped in a Task of Sisyphus that is exponentially antagonistic at every turn.

[Cla68]

Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on?

Fair point, and I do agree. Will try to sit on my hands in future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

What you should do, short of quitting Wikipedia altogether, is limit yourself to writing new material, rather than trying desperately to protect the old for the rest of your life. Because if you opt for the latter, you will fail. Badly. And spend the rest of your life trapped in a Task of Sisyphus that is exponentially antagonistic at every turn.

SV, referring to your statement earlier that, "It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart...", I think you're going to have to get used to it. It's a wiki. Articles deteriorate, or change, over time, especially controversial ones. It's one of the weaknesses of the wiki model, or strengths, depending on your point of view.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Hell Freezes Over]

SV, referring to your statement earlier that, "It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart...", I think you're going to have to get used to it. It's a wiki. Articles deteriorate, or change, over time, especially controversial ones. It's one of the weaknesses of the wiki model, or strengths, depending on your point of view.

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

[Bottled_Spider]

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

Admins have buttons too, don't they? For instance, Crummy (amongst others) seems to have a big, red button labeled "Push For Help" when things get tough. Don't shoot me; these things have to be said.

[Obesity]

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

Admins have buttons too, don't they? For instance, Crummy (amongst others) seems to have a big, red button labeled "Push For Help" when things get tough. Don't shoot me; these things have to be said.

Crum375 was a character from the 2006-07 season and hasn't controversially tagteamed in ages.

Ever since Poetguy's memorably humiliating prank (and perhaps even before than), he has been remarkably well behaved, as has Slim herself (for the most part) since she was ritually defrocked last year.

Where on earth have you been? You need to get with the times.

[Jon Awbrey]

Crum375 was a character from the 2006–07 season and hasn't controversially tagteamed in ages.

Ever since Poetguy's memorably humiliating prank (and perhaps even before than), he has been remarkably well behaved, as has Slim herself (for the most part) since she was ritually defrocked last year.

Where on earth have you been? You need to get with the times.

Less Socking !!!

More Defrocking !!!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)