Admin resignations

[Vigilant]

Readers don't give a flying fuck about FA/GA status.
It's internal wiki-masturbation and counting coup.

I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of readers have no interest in Wikipedia at all beyond quickly getting the information they want from articles.

Succinct, clear writing can be a joy to read (and a great way to make knowledge interesting), and anyone who facilitates this is highly worthwhile. The world's media is full of enough turgid drivel as it is, some of which seems to have the goal of driving off rather than engaging the reader......

And just how many wikipedia articles full of turgid drivel would you have to wade through to find this uranium unicorn of literary salve?

[Randy from Boise]

Readers don't give a flying fuck about FA/GA status.
It's internal wiki-masturbation and counting coup.

I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of readers have no interest in Wikipedia at all beyond quickly getting the information they want from articles.

Succinct, clear writing can be a joy to read (and a great way to make knowledge interesting), and anyone who facilitates this is highly worthwhile. The world's media is full of enough turgid drivel as it is, some of which seems to have the goal of driving off rather than engaging the reader......

What the GA/FA process is, in actuality, is a mutual admiration society of ladder-climbing copyeditors more interested in the size of dashes and the insertion of reference templates than in any meaningful qualitative improvements to the content of the articles which they victimize.

I'm fine with copyeditors fixing what needs to be fixed on new articles coming through the queue and so forth, but the Good Article process is a massive time sink and a wankathon...

RfB

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Readers don't give a flying fuck about FA/GA status.
It's internal wiki-masturbation and counting coup.

I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of readers have no interest in Wikipedia at all beyond quickly getting the information they want from articles.

Succinct, clear writing can be a joy to read (and a great way to make knowledge interesting), and anyone who facilitates this is highly worthwhile. The world's media is full of enough turgid drivel as it is, some of which seems to have the goal of driving off rather than engaging the reader......

What the GA/FA process is, in actuality, is a mutual admiration society of ladder-climbing copyeditors more interested in the size of dashes and the insertion of reference templates than in any meaningful qualitative improvements to the content of the articles which they victimize.

I'm fine with copyeditors fixing what needs to be fixed on new articles coming through the queue and so forth, but the Good Article process is a massive time sink and a wankathon...

RfB

Now, you are being sloppy. Reference templates are optional for good articles.

I have 4 good articles. Name one that was not substantially improved through the good article reviewing process.

[Wer900]

Readers don't give a flying fuck about FA/GA status.
It's internal wiki-masturbation and counting coup.

I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of readers have no interest in Wikipedia at all beyond quickly getting the information they want from articles.

Succinct, clear writing can be a joy to read (and a great way to make knowledge interesting), and anyone who facilitates this is highly worthwhile. The world's media is full of enough turgid drivel as it is, some of which seems to have the goal of driving off rather than engaging the reader......

What the GA/FA process is, in actuality, is a mutual admiration society of ladder-climbing copyeditors more interested in the size of dashes and the insertion of reference templates than in any meaningful qualitative improvements to the content of the articles which they victimize.

I'm fine with copyeditors fixing what needs to be fixed on new articles coming through the queue and so forth, but the Good Article process is a massive time sink and a wankathon...

RfB

In my experience, the only problem has been a lack of astronomy reviewers for my articles who are neutral and unbiased towards me (given the small size and extent of collaboration in that community). Otherwise, the process seems pretty solid, only it needs to be sped up for articles in the sciences. Plus, it's good that there is at least some form of editorial control deciding what gets onto the front of the Main Page.

I think that GA and FA are good, but need to become more like actual academic journal editorial boards, with the editors notifying disinterested editors to review the articles, rather than a mishmash of whoever boards the rain. In my experience, a mutual-admiration society is the last thing I've found GA and FA to be.

[Jaranda]

Mmmm. I wouldn't say that Inglot "can't write idiomatic English", or that the copy edits are particularly bad. Most of them appear to be just fine and at least some are quite legit (example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =560583368).

Fair enough. Having now clicked through a dozen other copy edits by Inglok (and done my bit to keep Wikipedia at no. 7 on Alexa ... 7? When did it drop?), I didn't see any more that were problematic.

It fell as far as 8 before getting back to 7 all within the past month and a half.

[Malleus]

Readers don't give a flying fuck about FA/GA status.
It's internal wiki-masturbation and counting coup.

I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of readers have no interest in Wikipedia at all beyond quickly getting the information they want from articles.

Succinct, clear writing can be a joy to read (and a great way to make knowledge interesting), and anyone who facilitates this is highly worthwhile. The world's media is full of enough turgid drivel as it is, some of which seems to have the goal of driving off rather than engaging the reader......

What the GA/FA process is, in actuality, is a mutual admiration society of ladder-climbing copyeditors more interested in the size of dashes and the insertion of reference templates than in any meaningful qualitative improvements to the content of the articles which they victimize.

I'm fine with copyeditors fixing what needs to be fixed on new articles coming through the queue and so forth, but the Good Article process is a massive time sink and a wankathon...

RfB

In my experience, the only problem has been a lack of astronomy reviewers for my articles who are neutral and unbiased towards me (given the small size and extent of collaboration in that community). Otherwise, the process seems pretty solid, only it needs to be sped up for articles in the sciences. Plus, it's good that there is at least some form of editorial control deciding what gets onto the front of the Main Page.

I think that GA and FA are good, but need to become more like actual academic journal editorial boards, with the editors notifying disinterested editors to review the articles, rather than a mishmash of whoever boards the rain. In my experience, a mutual-admiration society is the last thing I've found GA and FA to be.

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

[lilburne]

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

[Malleus]

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

[lilburne]

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

So I do. Now lets see who wrote it, and look who copy edited it.

[Wer900]

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

So I do. Now lets see who wrote it, and look who copy edited it.

That's a rarity for FA and GA. For really egregious problems in grammar, you should look no further than DYK. I've had to correct the grammar of articles written by Dr. Blofeld (T-C-L) himself, the king of DYK. DYK hooks are generally uninteresting, except for April Fools' Day. Nor is DYK that selective; four out of twenty articles I've written are DYKs, and those are just the ones that I bothered to nominate AFTER I found out about the nomination process. And never forget Gibraltar.

If the present RfC on FA governance is extended to GA as well, then those processes would be well on their way to being efficient peer review (FA and GA reviews individually are good, but the process overall is slow). Just have the FA coordinators get disinterested peer reviewers and all will be fine.

[Malleus]

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

So I do. Now lets see who wrote it, and look who copy edited it.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

[dogbiscuit]

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

So I do. Now lets see who wrote it, and look who copy edited it.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

But, but, the wisdom of the crowds. You don't need to know anything to magically evolve a perfect article.

(I'd probably not have spotted it).

I wonder where Ironholds copied paraphrased the text from.

[lilburne]

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

So I do. Now lets see who wrote it, and look who copy edited it.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

But, but, the wisdom of the crowds. You don't need to know anything to magically evolve a perfect article.

(I'd probably not have spotted it).

I wonder where Ironholds copied paraphrased the text from.

He grabbed most of it from two journal articles written in the 1920s. Whether the source had mistaken Richard II for Edward III, or Keys got his date wrong is any one's guess. If was the source then who knows what else is wrong, if Keys then what else did he garble. What we do know is that it went all the way through GA and FA reviews without any one noticing.

Though the direct idiocy has been removed the article still makes the claim that Richard II was king in 1345.

Academics estimate that the Court of Chancery formally split from and became independent of the curia regis in the mid-14th century, at which time it consisted of the Lord Chancellor and his personal staff ...
...
By 1345 the Lord Chancellor began to be seen as the leader of the Court of Chancery, rather than as a representative of the King, and writs and bills were addressed directly to him. Under Richard II it became practice to consider the Chancery separate from the curia; academic William Carne considers this a key moment in confirming the independence of the Court of Chancery.

Have fun unraveling all that. Feature article one of the best

[Wer900]

Ssome kind of editorial board is maybe not a bad idea, but as it would suggest there was actually someone in charge that would be anathema to WP. As to your general comments about your experiences with GA/FA I absolutely agree; a mutual admiration society it most certainly is not. Stiil, very few here are interested in the facts, or have any experience on which to call.

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

So I do. Now lets see who wrote it, and look who copy edited it.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

But, but, the wisdom of the crowds. You don't need to know anything to magically evolve a perfect article.

(I'd probably not have spotted it).

I wonder where Ironholds copied paraphrased the text from.

It's Oliver Keyes. He has plenty of friends. Remember, even respected academic journals make a few retractions a year.

[lilburne]

It's Oliver Keyes. He has plenty of friends. Remember, even respected academic journals make a few retractions a year.

Yes they do, and perhaps the Texas Law journal that Keyes took the above from made a retraction, or issued an errata page. The problem here isn't that Keyes or Mally made a mistake, the problem is that the load of them are writing historical articles, pretending that they are academic and yet having little understanding of the context in which they are writing. With Richard II Shakespeare wrote a major play about him, so one has to assume that they are ignorant of literature too.

History is not something wikipedia is particularly good at. Once you start to look you'll find this sort of shite everywhere.

[SB_Johnny]

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Or maybe you just don't think having the facts right is important when it comes to "good" encyclopedia articles.

[Wer900]

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Or maybe you just don't think having the facts right is important when it comes to "good" encyclopedia articles.

Peer reviews and other editorial processes are for fact-checking. Copy-editing merely improves the prose and flow of the article, although I am inclined to do a little fact-checking on the side if I deem it prudent.

[DanMurphy]

It's Oliver Keyes. He has plenty of friends. Remember, even respected academic journals make a few retractions a year.

Yes they do, and perhaps the Texas Law journal that Keyes took the above from made a retraction, or issued an errata page. The problem here isn't that Keyes or Mally made a mistake, the problem is that the load of them are writing historical articles, pretending that they are academic and yet having little understanding of the context in which they are writing. With Richard II Shakespeare wrote a major play about him, so one has to assume that they are ignorant of literature too.

History is not something wikipedia is particularly good at. Once you start to look you'll find this sort of shite everywhere.

ItsZippy (T-C-L) is a 19-year old administrator. When he's not playing bannination! he's...

Irenaean theodicy (T-H-L) - expanded to Good Article status. Hope to get to Featured Article at some point in the future.
Augustinian theodicy (T-H-L) - created and brought to Featured Article status.
Privation (T-H-L) - expanded this to be more than just a definition; don't know what else I'll do here.
Ontological argument (T-H-L) - expanded to Good Article status. Still have a few improvements to make; may take to FA in the future.
Teleological argument (T-H-L) - have worked with Machine Elf 1735 in the past to expand & improve. May pick it up again later.
Prosperity theology (T-H-L) - worked on with Mark Arsten and reached Featured Article status.
Theodicy (T-H-L) - would like to improve and expand; have done a little work but not exactly sure what I intend to do yet.
Problem of evil (T-H-L) - would also like to improve; have done a little work by plan to look at it in greater detail in the future.
Problem of religious language (T-H-L) - created out of a disambiguation page and reached Featured Article status. DYK on 7 March 2012.
Kantian ethics (T-H-L) - created out of a redirect and worked with Fan Singh Long to reach Good Article status. DYK on 17 March 2012.

I am honestly afraid to look.

[Wer900]

It's Oliver Keyes. He has plenty of friends. Remember, even respected academic journals make a few retractions a year.

Yes they do, and perhaps the Texas Law journal that Keyes took the above from made a retraction, or issued an errata page. The problem here isn't that Keyes or Mally made a mistake, the problem is that the load of them are writing historical articles, pretending that they are academic and yet having little understanding of the context in which they are writing. With Richard II Shakespeare wrote a major play about him, so one has to assume that they are ignorant of literature too.

History is not something wikipedia is particularly good at. Once you start to look you'll find this sort of shite everywhere.

ItsZippy (T-C-L) is a 19-year old administrator. When he's not playing bannination! he's...

Irenaean theodicy (T-H-L) - expanded to Good Article status. Hope to get to Featured Article at some point in the future.
Augustinian theodicy (T-H-L) - created and brought to Featured Article status.
Privation (T-H-L) - expanded this to be more than just a definition; don't know what else I'll do here.
Ontological argument (T-H-L) - expanded to Good Article status. Still have a few improvements to make; may take to FA in the future.
Teleological argument (T-H-L) - have worked with Machine Elf 1735 in the past to expand & improve. May pick it up again later.
Prosperity theology (T-H-L) - worked on with Mark Arsten and reached Featured Article status.
Theodicy (T-H-L) - would like to improve and expand; have done a little work but not exactly sure what I intend to do yet.
Problem of evil (T-H-L) - would also like to improve; have done a little work by plan to look at it in greater detail in the future.
Problem of religious language (T-H-L) - created out of a disambiguation page and reached Featured Article status. DYK on 7 March 2012.
Kantian ethics (T-H-L) - created out of a redirect and worked with Fan Singh Long to reach Good Article status. DYK on 17 March 2012.

I am honestly afraid to look.

I think that they'd be okay, given that the GA and FA processes involve outside review.

[lilburne]

Peer reviews and other editorial processes are for fact-checking. Copy-editing merely improves the prose and flow of the article, although I am inclined to do a little fact-checking on the side if I deem it prudent.

I've seen copy editing introduce errors due entirely to improving the prose and flow. Peter Damian has a long list of examples where ignorant copy editing has created nonsense.

[thekohser]

I think that they'd be okay, given that the GA and FA processes involve outside review.

What do you mean by "outside"? I thought it was just a bunch of Wikipediots reviewing another Wikipediot's work.

[SB_Johnny]

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Or maybe you just don't think having the facts right is important when it comes to "good" encyclopedia articles.

Peer reviews and other editorial processes are for fact-checking. Copy-editing merely improves the prose and flow of the article, although I am inclined to do a little fact-checking on the side if I deem it prudent.

Well, in newspaper publishing, yes. Newspaper copyeditors also do what typesetters used to do because they're also involved in implementing page layouts.

Copyeditors for academic papers (i.e., publications that use references) are responsible for checking the footnotes to make sure they're citing the correct reference, and citing it correctly. It's an actual job that people have historically been trained to do and have made their profession of, as opposed to the rank amateurs giving out the grades at GA and FA.

[Casliber]

Peer reviews and other editorial processes are for fact-checking. Copy-editing merely improves the prose and flow of the article, although I am inclined to do a little fact-checking on the side if I deem it prudent.

I've seen copy editing introduce errors due entirely to improving the prose and flow. Peter Damian has a long list of examples where ignorant copy editing has created nonsense.

When I review articles for GA or FA I often add a "please revert me if I inadvertently guff the meaning" blurb somewhere...

Regarding fact-checking - yes it is important. Depends on how much free time I have and what I can prioritise really

[Casliber]

Readers don't give a flying fuck about FA/GA status.
It's internal wiki-masturbation and counting coup.

I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of readers have no interest in Wikipedia at all beyond quickly getting the information they want from articles.

Succinct, clear writing can be a joy to read (and a great way to make knowledge interesting), and anyone who facilitates this is highly worthwhile. The world's media is full of enough turgid drivel as it is, some of which seems to have the goal of driving off rather than engaging the reader......

And just how many wikipedia articles full of turgid drivel would you have to wade through to find this uranium unicorn of literary salve?

"There is no black or white but only shades of grey (.....or brown in this case)" XD

[Malleus]

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Or maybe you just don't think having the facts right is important when it comes to "good" encyclopedia articles.

And maybe you just don't think at all, or are incapable of it beyond an elementary level.

[Vigilant]

Readers don't give a flying fuck about FA/GA status.
It's internal wiki-masturbation and counting coup.

I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of readers have no interest in Wikipedia at all beyond quickly getting the information they want from articles.

Succinct, clear writing can be a joy to read (and a great way to make knowledge interesting), and anyone who facilitates this is highly worthwhile. The world's media is full of enough turgid drivel as it is, some of which seems to have the goal of driving off rather than engaging the reader......

And just how many wikipedia articles full of turgid drivel would you have to wade through to find this uranium unicorn of literary salve?

"There is no black or white but only shades of grey (.....or brown in this case)" XD

A new tagline

Wikipedia : 50 shades of brown.

[Vigilant]

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Or maybe you just don't think having the facts right is important when it comes to "good" encyclopedia articles.

And maybe you just don't think at all, or are incapable of it beyond an elementary level.

Eric,
We have standards for insults here.
Like any fine establishment with a dress code, we can offer to lend you a house insult if you arrive improperly prepared.

[Casliber]

Readers don't give a flying fuck about FA/GA status.
It's internal wiki-masturbation and counting coup.

I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of readers have no interest in Wikipedia at all beyond quickly getting the information they want from articles.

Succinct, clear writing can be a joy to read (and a great way to make knowledge interesting), and anyone who facilitates this is highly worthwhile. The world's media is full of enough turgid drivel as it is, some of which seems to have the goal of driving off rather than engaging the reader......

And just how many wikipedia articles full of turgid drivel would you have to wade through to find this uranium unicorn of literary salve?

"There is no black or white but only shades of grey (.....or brown in this case)"

A new tagline

Wikipedia : 50 shades of brown.

In monobook or whatever the newer one is called...?

[Malleus]

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Or maybe you just don't think having the facts right is important when it comes to "good" encyclopedia articles.

And maybe you just don't think at all, or are incapable of it beyond an elementary level.

Eric,
We have standards for insults here.
Like any fine establishment with a dress code, we can offer to lend you a house insult if you arrive improperly prepared.

I have no idea why Zoloft lifted his block, but if you don't like my comportment or my dresss sense then please feel free to lock my accouint again. No skin off my nose.

[Wer900]

I think that in editorial matters Casliber, Malleus, and I broadly agree. Like Carrite/RfB, we are critics of Wikipedia's operation, governance, and atmosphere, but have no wishes to tear it down to PR wars as Gregory Kohs would like.

[Zoloft]

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Or maybe you just don't think having the facts right is important when it comes to "good" encyclopedia articles.

And maybe you just don't think at all, or are incapable of it beyond an elementary level.

Eric,
We have standards for insults here.
Like any fine establishment with a dress code, we can offer to lend you a house insult if you arrive improperly prepared.

I have no idea why Zoloft lifted his block, but if you don't like my comportment or my dress sense then please feel free to lock my account again. No skin off my nose.

I ain't gonna block you again. You fancy up the joint.
*dusts you off and stands you up near the sideboard*

[Vigilant]

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Or maybe you just don't think having the facts right is important when it comes to "good" encyclopedia articles.

And maybe you just don't think at all, or are incapable of it beyond an elementary level.

Eric,
We have standards for insults here.
Like any fine establishment with a dress code, we can offer to lend you a house insult if you arrive improperly prepared.

I have no idea why Zoloft lifted his block, but if you don't like my comportment or my dress sense then please feel free to lock my account again. No skin off my nose.

I ain't gonna block you again. You fancy up the joint.
*dusts you off and stands you up near the sideboard*

Like a bear that rides a tiny, tiny bicycle with while wearing a cute top hat and carrying an equally tiny umbrella.

[lilburne]

I think that in editorial matters Casliber, Malleus, and I broadly agree. Like Carrite/RfB, we are critics of Wikipedia's operation, governance, and atmosphere, but have no wishes to tear it down to PR wars as Gregory Kohs would like.

On editorial matters y'all have lost. There is more well meaning ignorance added every day then the "band of brothers" here can hope to defeat. You have no superior tactics and your fellows have been busy cutting your bowstrings, and replacing good yew with balsa.

[EricBarbour]

On editorial matters y'all have lost. There is more well meaning ignorance added every day then the "band of brothers" here can hope to defeat. You have no superior tactics and your fellows have been busy cutting your bowstrings, and replacing good yew with balsa.

Agreed, and I also point out: "content disputes" have a magical way of boiling down to , which Malleus can be accused of
promulgating, along with hundreds of other "content writers". Wikipedia equals juvenile name-calling and lunacy, not "content". The
"content" is there to support the name-calling.

[Malleus]

On editorial matters y'all have lost. There is more well meaning ignorance added every day then the "band of brothers" here can hope to defeat. You have no superior tactics and your fellows have been busy cutting your bowstrings, and replacing good yew with balsa.

Agreed, and I also point out: "content disputes" have a magical way of boiling down to , which Malleus can be accused of
promulgating, along with hundreds of other "content writers". Wikipedia equals juvenile name-calling and lunacy, not "content". The
"content" is there to support the name-calling.

You have a point of view and I have another, rather different one, which I would venture to suggest more matches the evident facts. But what do you care about facts?

[Malleus]

I think that in editorial matters Casliber, Malleus, and I broadly agree. Like Carrite/RfB, we are critics of Wikipedia's operation, governance, and atmosphere, but have no wishes to tear it down to PR wars as Gregory Kohs would like.

I believe that's the case, which is why we get so much hassle both here and on WP. Our middle ground is unacceptable to both parties.

[Wer900]

On editorial matters y'all have lost. There is more well meaning ignorance added every day then the "band of brothers" here can hope to defeat. You have no superior tactics and your fellows have been busy cutting your bowstrings, and replacing good yew with balsa.

Agreed, and I also point out: "content disputes" have a magical way of boiling down to , which Malleus can be accused of
promulgating, along with hundreds of other "content writers". Wikipedia equals juvenile name-calling and lunacy, not "content". The
"content" is there to support the name-calling.

You have a point of view and I have another, rather different one, which I would venture to suggest more matches the evident facts. But what do you care about facts?

There isn't much name-calling I have done.

[EricBarbour]

Agreed, and I also point out: "content disputes" have a magical way of boiling down to , which Malleus can be accused of
promulgating, along with hundreds of other "content writers". Wikipedia equals juvenile name-calling and lunacy, not "content". The
"content" is there to support the name-calling.

You have a point of view and I have another, rather different one, which I would venture to suggest more matches the evident facts. But what do you care about facts?

Thank you for verifying my point.

[Randy from Boise]

...I also point out: "content disputes" have a magical way of boiling down to , which Malleus can be accused of promulgating, along with hundreds of other "content writers". Wikipedia equals juvenile name-calling and lunacy, not "content". The "content" is there to support the name-calling.

The area of drama and controversy is a microscopic part of the whole. People can and do contribute productively with no drama for years and years and years if they want to. This does imply steering clear of hot topics. In my own case, that would mean staying away from Haymarket affair (T-H-L) while feeling free to create The Alarm (newspaper) (T-H-L) or not touching Alger Hiss (T-H-L) with a 20 foot pole while diving right into Harold Ware (T-H-L).

Certain controversial topics — generally the articles representing the highest traffic, most basic rendition of the subject — are no holds barred cage matches filled with annoying people. The same essential subject, on pages tailored to specialists and academics rather than the general public — no problem.

There should be a POV police. The current Alger Hiss brouhaha could be ended by "pairing" (to use the legislative term) the one Ludwigs2-like character on the talk page with a strong opponent like Andy the Grump and tossing both of them, leaving the rest to work things out. Problem solved. I'm not sure how to accomplish that in practice but that is what's needed.

RfB

[Wer900]

...I also point out: "content disputes" have a magical way of boiling down to , which Malleus can be accused of promulgating, along with hundreds of other "content writers". Wikipedia equals juvenile name-calling and lunacy, not "content". The "content" is there to support the name-calling.

The area of drama and controversy is a microscopic part of the whole. People can and do contribute productively with no drama for years and years and years if they want to. This does imply steering clear of hot topics. In my own case, that would mean staying away from Haymarket affair (T-H-L) while feeling free to create The Alarm (newspaper) (T-H-L) or not touching Alger Hiss (T-H-L) with a 20 foot pole while diving right into Harold Ware (T-H-L).

Certain controversial topics — generally the articles representing the highest traffic, most basic rendition of the subject — are no holds barred cage matches filled with annoying people. The same essential subject, on pages tailored to specialists and academics rather than the general public — no problem.

There should be a POV police. The current Alger Hiss brouhaha could be ended by "pairing" (to use the legislative term) the one Ludwigs2-like character on the talk page with a strong opponent like Andy the Grump and tossing both of them, leaving the rest to work things out. Problem solved. I'm not sure how to accomplish that in practice but that is what's needed.

RfB

I did write a high-level proposal for Wikipedia reform on W:AN/I (T-H-L), but it has been largely met with derision by the admin who hatted it with snarky comments and a crop of [f|t]ools who, without reading beyond the first paragraph, rallied behind AndyTheGrump (T-C-L)'s simple, vapid "No."

[lilburne]

On editorial matters y'all have lost. There is more well meaning ignorance added every day then the "band of brothers" here can hope to defeat. You have no superior tactics and your fellows have been busy cutting your bowstrings, and replacing good yew with balsa.

Agreed, and I also point out: "content disputes" have a magical way of boiling down to , which Malleus can be accused of
promulgating, along with hundreds of other "content writers". Wikipedia equals juvenile name-calling and lunacy, not "content". The
"content" is there to support the name-calling.

You have a point of view and I have another, rather different one, which I would venture to suggest more matches the evident facts. But what do you care about facts?

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Such a lack of self awareness.

The area of drama and controversy is a microscopic part of the whole. People can and do contribute productively with no drama for years and years and years if they want to.

It doesn't matter. The site is so toxic with bitch fighting that it is leaking out into the press. The content is in many areas dire, and there is no guarantee that even the articles you write will be in any acceptable state at the point that some sap loads the page.

The person that was making a lot of changes to the Battle of Crecy article the other year was working from a base that was heavily influenced by Froissart, who wikipedia insists on calling French, and the addition of a whole bunch of nonsense gawd only knows where it came from. The current article is much better and the person that worked on it did a valiant job but not all of the base idiocy has been removed. Indeed I was listing to a podcast the other day which was repeating a load of the earlier nonsense.

[lonza leggiera]

...

Whatever! the GA/FA reviewers still let "in 1345 under Richard II" though the net.

So you claim.

So I do. Now lets see who wrote it, and look who copy edited it.

...

...
I wonder where Ironholds copied paraphrased the text from.

He grabbed most of it from two journal articles written in the 1920s. Whether the source had mistaken Richard II for Edward III, or Keys got his date wrong is any one's guess.

Come on! Of course it was Keyes misinterpreting his source (although it was the reigning king rather than the date that he got wrong):

About the middle of the 14th century (1345, 19 Edw. III), the Chancellor comes to be regarded as the head of the council, and petitions come to be addressed directly to him: "Al Chaunceleret as autres Seigneurs diuCounsail notre Seigneur le Roy." This fact seems to show that the Chancellor had come to act without delegation from the council. Under Richard II it became the settled practice and marks a stage in the separation of the Chancery from the Council.

[Malleus]

I've never considered fact checking to be a part of copy editing.

Such a lack of self awareness.

Such a lack of common sense.

[Hex]

[HRIP7]

There is a proposal for a bureaucrat-led desysop process at Wikipedia's Village Pump. It arose from the recent discussions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, where there is also a related bureaucrat poll.

[EricBarbour]

There is a proposal for a bureaucrat-led desysop process at Wikipedia's Village Pump. It arose from the recent discussions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, where there is also a related bureaucrat poll.

Wiki is totally dysfunctional, far worse than before. That's why this is needed. Hopefully crats will step up to the plate, because arbcom sure isn't. PumpkinSky talk 23:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Partly because of you, Randy......

[Poetlister]

There is a proposal for a bureaucrat-led desysop process at Wikipedia's Village Pump. It arose from the recent discussions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, where there is also a related bureaucrat poll.

On the whole, and with the odd notable exception, bureaucrats tend to be relatively sane. I'd say any bureaucrat-led process can't be worse than the present [lack of] system. And if bureaucrats lose their rename powers, they have to be given something else to do.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Talking of Bishonen (T-C-L),

- Bishzilla (T-C-L)
- Bishapod (T-C-L)
- Darwinfish (T-C-L)
- Darwinbish (T-C-L)
- Little Stupid (T-C-L)
- Cassandra at the peak of her insanity (T-C-L)

This is one of the people entrusted to "administer" the people who can alter the first page of Google results for any topic (commonly referred to as "Wikipedians"). Aren't we lucky.

Bishonen has done a lot of work and should be allowed her in jokes, which don't harm anybody and amuse many.

An encyclopedia should welcome intellectuals whose personalities were not stamped-out of a cookie cutter.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Bishonen (T-C-L) is talking about getting in on the exodus as well.

Good.
I hope she get's hit by a bus.

Watch your apostrophes now. Oh, and the *waves* faux bodily harm thing too.

Damn.
Foiled by the grammar Nazis.

I'm really, really tired from five hours of dirty construction work for a worthy cause.

Now, if I'd said, "I hope I get to run her over with my bus!", I'd be a shoe-in for a WMF contract.

Bishonen hasn't abused her tools. In fact, she is likely to think and write before blocking, which means that she doesn't block much.

Violent images can only hurt the reputation of Wikipediocracy.

[Hex]

An encyclopedia should welcome intellectuals whose personalities were not stamped-out of a cookie cutter.

And people who enjoy spending their time engaging in puerile (and not a little creepy) play-acting as well, evidently. Well, if that's your bag, go have fun doing it.