Arbcom case on WP:NOR, with sixty-five parties listed! Options

[Amarkov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...iginal_Research

It's claimed that there's an evil cabal controlling the policy page. Apparently, some editors have decided that instead of using the simple rules set down originally (Il Jimbo ha sempre ragione!), they want to use the process that the people who study history use. Of course, it is a great sin to actually listen to professionals on Wikipedia, so this is highly controversial. I wonder what kind of process they used to determine the involved parties?

[Jonny Cache]

Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#No Original Research.

It's claimed that there's an evil cabal controlling the policy page. Apparently, some editors have decided that instead of using the simple rules set down originally (Il Jimbo ha sempre ragione!), they want to use the process that the people who study history use. Of course, it is a great sin to actually listen to professionals on Wikipedia, so this is highly controversial. I wonder what kind of process they used to determine the involved parties?

Wikipedians who are interested in the history of WP:NOR may derive some benefit from the study that I began and got banned for back in the First NOR War Of 2006, when SlimVirgin's Armies of the Blight first began to putsch for her «Second Is The New First Theory Of Research» (SV:2=1 TOR).

I posted this data on a subpage of the policy talk page, Wikipedia Talk:No Original Research/Historical Datapoints, partly to correct the false statements that were being made about the history of the policy, but you know that they don't really believe in all that baloney about Verifiability, so SlimVirgin and Jayjg repeatedly swept the data out of sight and deleted the redirect, so it is for the moment located here —

User:Jon Awbrey/NOR Historical Datapoints

I have copies at other sites if they delete that.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th December 2007, 12:56am

[dogbiscuit]

Jon

It's a shame that document has been out of sight, as I know various parties over the last year have had to deal with the revisionist history of what policy has always said and have researched it over and over again - even though it should be irrelevant to determining what is good policy.

It is also a shame that it is Mr Ogden who is running with this, as I don't think he carries the pro-change group with him, though I do think he is going in the right direction. Over the last 6 months there have been several examples of overt disruption by the likes of OrangeMerlin when there were signs of a consensus emerging, it has taken the complete range of techniques to keep the policy in place, including holding it protected but allowing admins to pronounce what changes were suitable and then making them regardless, but it is mainly the technique of fingers in their ears.

I have no interest in a highly academic view of NOR policy, I just know that Slim was party to engineering it and used its specific wording to edit war. The main benefit of this has been to take crappy hearsay summary newspaper articles and hold them to be more accurate and useful than the considered efforts of professional researchers, scientists or the judiciary. The primary source stuff is just smoke screen for manipulation, it gets ignored most of the time, but useful if someone cites something you don't like (screech "primary source" loudly until they go away).

I was rather hoping that they would start refusing to accept The Grauniad as a reliable source based on Seth's articles as it would make a mockery of them refusing to qualify mainstream newspapers as "most reliable sources".

[Moulton]

Over the last 6 months there have been several examples of overt disruption by the likes of OrangeMarlin when there were signs of a consensus emerging, it has taken the complete range of techniques to keep the policy in place, including holding it protected but allowing admins to pronounce what changes were suitable and then making them regardless, but it is mainly the technique of fingers in their ears.

The "likes of OrangeMarlin" can be found among the signatories of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design.

The main benefit of this has been to take crappy hearsay summary newspaper articles and hold them to be more accurate and useful than the considered efforts of professional researchers, scientists or the judiciary.

I've seen biographies where a single ill-chosen adjective in a single headline in a single newspaper article was taken as more reliable than the direct quotes from within the cited article to unfairly tar the reputations of thoughtful scientists who hold technical views that depart from both the ID proponents and the diehard Darwinists.

Such sophomorish errors do a disservice to the public, and damage the reputation of Wikipedia as a site worthy of the label of public encyclopedia.

[Jonny Cache]

Jon,

It's a shame that document has been out of sight, as I know various parties over the last year have had to deal with the revisionist history of what policy has always said and have researched it over and over again - even though it should be irrelevant to determining what is good policy.

It is also a shame that it is Mr. Ogden who is running with this, as I don't think he carries the pro-change group with him, though I do think he is going in the right direction. Over the last 6 months there have been several examples of overt disruption by the likes of OrangeMerlin when there were signs of a consensus emerging, it has taken the complete range of techniques to keep the policy in place, including holding it protected but allowing admins to pronounce what changes were suitable and then making them regardless, but it is mainly the technique of fingers in their ears.

I have no interest in a highly academic view of NOR policy, I just know that Slim was party to engineering it and used its specific wording to edit war. The main benefit of this has been to take crappy hearsay summary newspaper articles and hold them to be more accurate and useful than the considered efforts of professional researchers, scientists or the judiciary. The primary source stuff is just smoke screen for manipulation, it gets ignored most of the time, but useful if someone cites something you don't like (screech "primary source" loudly until they go away).

I was rather hoping that they would start refusing to accept The Grauniad as a reliable source based on Seth's articles as it would make a mockery of them refusing to qualify mainstream newspapers as "most reliable sources".

I haven't looked at the last couple of outbreaks over WP:NOR, but I know from my earlier research that SlimVirgin, Inc. started pushing their agenda as early as January 2006, with another major assault coming in the summer of 2006, and with each push they pretty much succeed in blasting anyone who opposes their programme out of Wikipedia.

What's at stake is whether Wikipedia will have any grounding in reality and truth at all, or simply drift like a bubble on the winds of whatever cabal blows the hardest.

Just from my observations so far, I'm guessing it will be that second thing.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th December 2007, 1:31pm

[Moulton]

What's at stake is whether Wikipedia will have any grounding in reality in truth at all, or simply drift like a bubble on the winds of whatever cabal blows the hardest.

To avoid a lamentable descent into the tragic death spiral of yellow journalism, Wikipedia would have to adopt as a primary value the highest standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

There is scant evidence that Wikipedia has any desire or intention of embracing or pursuing that value.

[Jonny Cache]

What's at stake is whether Wikipedia will have any grounding in reality and truth at all, or simply drift like a bubble on the winds of whatever cabal blows the hardest.

To avoid a lamentable descent into the tragic death spiral of yellow journalism, Wikipedia would have to adopt as a primary value the highest standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

There is scant evidence that Wikipedia has any desire or intention of embracing or pursuing that value.

That tells us rather nicely what desires and intentions they do not have.

The question is —

• What desire does the community have?
• What intention do the controllers have?

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th December 2007, 1:48pm

[Moulton]

Request for Analysis

The question is —

• What desire does the community have?
• What intention do the controllers have?

Based on frequent boasts, it would appear that Wikipedia desires a large quantity of articles (in as many languages as possible), covering as many diverse subjects as possible, with emphasis on subjects of popular culture and public controversy.

It appears that those in power intend to institutionalize and maintain their hold on power, in the spirit and manner of Machiavelli.

[dogbiscuit]

The "likes of OrangeMarlin" can be found among the signatories of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design.

It would be nice if there was a handy guide to allegiances somewhere around. With that one handy list, I see now why several of the guys are in cahoots. It is useful of giving a context, they are proud and paranoid about their efforts in that high profile project, which is the litmus test of the stuff that Jimbo panics about, I assume.

The trouble is that they cannot see beyond their own needs and simply assume that anything that they see as impacting on their view of policy is a de facto attack on them, and part of some grand Durova style plot: "You want to make sensible changes to policy: does not compute, you must therefore be a troll, sockpuppet and liar."

In a sense that is the problem, after a while, you realise that no rational person should expend the amount of effort required to modify policy - they are right, nobody who wants to change policy that much can be trusted to change policy. Yet, the opposite does not apply, the cabal techniques for blocking changes are lightweight and energy efficient. "Troll", "It has served the community well for years", "it could be improved, but I've yet to see a change suggested that improves it", condescension or aggression as appropriate, with a smattering of TLAs to ice the cake.

[Jonny Cache]

Request for Analysis

The question is —

• What desire does the community have?
• What intention do the controllers have?

Based on frequent boasts, it would appear that Wikipedia desires a large quantity of articles (in as many languages as possible), covering as many diverse subjects as possible, with emphasis on subjects of popular culture and public controversy.

It appears that those in power intend to institutionalize and maintain their hold on power, in the spirit and manner of Machiavelli.

Once again, boasts are simply a high-decibel way of calling attention to Espoused Values, and some of that attention-calling may indeed be functioning as a distraction from the hidden agenda or the ulterior motive that issues in the Enacted Values.

A more empirical way of assessing motives is to ask «Cui Bono?» — to consider the possibility that «What Is Happening» (WIH) is determined by «What Someone Or Other Wants To Happen» (WSOOWTH).

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th December 2007, 2:41pm

[Moulton]

Another apparent desire is search-engine dominance, via search-engine gaming.

[Jonny Cache]

In a sense that is the problem, after a while, you realise that no rational person should expend the amount of effort required to modify policy — they are right, nobody who wants to change policy that much can be trusted to change policy. Yet, the opposite does not apply, the cabal techniques for blocking changes are lightweight and energy efficient. "Troll", "It has served the community well for years", "it could be improved, but I've yet to see a change suggested that improves it", condescension or aggression as appropriate, with a smattering of TLAs to ice the cake.

I did not have the opportunity to complete the study of WP:NOR History that I began, but I recommend that you examine the data that I gathered. One of the reasons that I went back to the record of WP:NOR policy page changes from 2003 forward is precisely because I became suspicious of the claims of several self-styled "Old Hands" that they really had been "Doing Things This Way All Along".

For a couple of things, that Clamor Against Original Syn (CAOS) and that Deprecation Of Primary Sources (DOPS) were fairly late inventions.

Jon Awbrey

Another apparent desire is search-engine dominance, via search-engine gaming.

Sure, but no one desires search-engine dominance for its own sake.

Why would anyone desire search-engine dominance?

Jon Awbrey


This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th December 2007, 2:55pm

[Moulton]

Why would anyone desire search-engine dominance?

A pathological need for attention from total strangers?

[Jonny Cache]

Why would anyone desire search-engine dominance?

A pathological need for attention from total strangers?

Do you go out of your way to avoid the obvious, or does that just come natural?

Jon Awbrey

[Moulton]

The obvious is so banal. There's usually more interesting stuff just beneath the surface.

[Jonny Cache]

The obvious is so banal. There's usually more interesting stuff just beneath the surface.

What's superficial and what's deep depends on knowing which way is up.

Jon Awbrey

[Moulton]

That's the mystery of the Yin and Yang of it.

[Jonny Cache]

That's the mystery of the Yin and Yang of it.

sehr tief

[Moulton]

That's what Mercury said, too, when he dipped to the chilly side.

[Jonny Cache]

That's what Mercury said, too, when he dipped to the chilly side.

He probably forgot to make that relativistic correction.

Jonny