User talk:Fluri/archives/2007Aug

MOS discussion

Fair enough but, at the risk of belabouring this, my point is that the reason we can't agree on "whether the MOS should advise editors to capitalize common names or not" is precisely because we can't agree on what you call the philosophical question of what our target audience is. What we're doing is like arguing with a car salesman about the price of a pick-up truck when we're really trying to buy a Vespa scooter. As I said earlier, I maintain that our target audience is the average netizen who reads at about a grade 10 level or less. At least that's the impression I get from the talk pages and from the casual, drive-by, anon IP contributions to the articles on my watchlist. Very seldom does someone come by the Atlantic salmon article, for example, to ask about the species' place in the detailed phylogeny of the Salmoniformes or about the relative 'r-K' selectedness of the fish. Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that those things need be excluded from the article but that, if we include them, they should be written in a style that a grade 10 student would understand. This is the sort of analysis I'm encouraging. Finally, let me also state what is, perhaps, obvious. If we write articles in a style appropriate for specialists and keen amateurs, well, specialists and keen amateurs are the only ones likely to wade through them and read them. So, in a very real sense, a writer selects his audience. That's why I maintain that our inability to agree on our audience is the root cause of our disagreement on style and that we're, in my view, unlikely to solve the one, once and for all, without first agreeing on the other. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was drifting off topic, so I decided to continue it here. It's an interesting question: Who are we writing for? Who should we write for? If we find an article that looks like it was written by 10th-graders, should we simply make a few corrections and minor improvements and then leave it at that level? Not in my opinion: I want precision and depth as well. Would that be equivalent to hijacking the articles from the 10th-graders in favor of the specialists? Perhaps, although I prefer to think of it as stamping out ignorance and giving people a chance to know the truth if they want it. This is actually why I started writing for Wikipedia in the first place: to improve things -- not just to create more of the same, or to correct what was already there. I also have a more self-centered argument: You'll have to pay me if you want me to write this stuff for 10th-graders, but otherwise I'm doing this for fun! :-)

Look at it this way. Previously, as a casual visitor, I had already been impressed by many Wikipedia articles. I seemed to be able to look up almost any subject and could find interesting, well-written articles. This included information regarding my own profession, which is in the IT business. Usually, there was more information in the articles than I cared to read, but the fact that it was there and that one or more people had put in so much effort served in increase my confidence in them. However, there is one obscure and specialized area, an old hobby of mine, that I still happen to know a lot more about than most people: snakes. I suppose I regarded Wikipedia's information on this subject as an indicator of sorts. Over several years I would periodically browse through certain snake articles, but each time there was little improvement. They were badly organized and, unlike so many of the others I had seen, looked like they were written by a bunch of teenage boys who had been inspired by the Crocodile Hunter. Eventually, in 2006, I lost my patience and decided that no one was going to improve these articles unless I did. I've been working on a relatively small section ever since, but as you can imagine, I've taken it all to a level at which not many people are able to help out. Worse, most of the contributions I've observed have been unhelpful: everything from vandalism to factoids to exaggerated claims, and always unreferenced. But then, since snakes have always played a much larger role in people's imaginations then they have in their educations, what more can one reasonably expect? Oh, well. Part of the reason I started doing this was to stamp out that kind of ignorance anyway.

For what it's worth, that's my opinion, but what do you think? Should Wikipedia aspire to improve all of its articles to a specialist level, or do you think we really should limit them all to 10th grade level, because, as you say, everything beyond that would be lost on the average netizen anyway? --Jwinius 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. In response, let me say that I maintain that there's a big difference between style and content. Even the most complex thoughts can be discussed in common language. One need only read anything by Einstein or Feynman to see an example of what I mean. If you read Einstein's collection of essays on Relativity you'll instantly be impressed with his ability as a writer to take exceedingly complex issues and to express them in a way that any literate person can understand. So, I differ with what I see as the fundamental premise of your thesis. I don't see, in any way, how writing in language that the average netizen would understand cheapens our articles nor do I see it as dumbing down what we do. In fact, I maintain that it takes great skill to convey complex terms in simple language. I also don't feel that Wikipedia should be a collection of projects written by specialists. I feel it should be a collection of articles that are accessible to the vast majority of people around the world. To give you an example, I really don't think that an article on the blue racer needs to go into detail on the step-by-step processes involved in gametogenesis. If people want to learn about that, that should be in an article on gametogenesis, in general and, if necessary, on gametogenesis in snakes, in particular. Frankly, I think we do ourselves a disservice if we think that we are somehow "removed from" the average reader of Wikipedia. Again, I maintain that Wikipedia should be accessible to everyone and that we should take great pains to avoid turning it into articles that only specialists will understand and that only specialists could ever wade through. Now, I understand how certain subjects are more problematic (harder) to explain simply than are other subjects. But that just means we need to try that much harder to make those subjects accessible. I also accept that certain articles (such as one on gametogensis, say) are less likely to attract "the average netizen" and, hence, can perhaps support a slightly more advanced level of language. But, again, I think this should be the exception rather than the norm. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case perhaps I haven't been doing so badly! By "specialist" I meant someone who appreciates more depth and accuracy on a particular subject. Otherwise, I like to think the language I've used is easy enough for most people to understand. As for gametogenesis, I would never think of explaining that in an article unless it was the main subject. As a matter of fact, I even like to keep the descriptions of the characteristics of the higher taxa out of the articles for the lower ones. --Jwinius 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An apology

I'm sorry for being so unreasonable in the Common Names discussion when you are working hard to be respectful and put together a workable consensus. Especially since you weren't the one who made any disparaging remarks about wiki projects editors, when you actually have some basis for making some.... KP Botany 20:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't give it another thought. I understood your consternation completely. Let me also apologise if I inadvertently said anything that appeared harsh or excessively critical. As always, it's a true pleasure to exchange views with you. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You were fine. Besides, I know you're a careful researcher, can read, and write, and are looking for a position of compromise that makes it easier for all of us. KP Botany 02:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hi Dave,

You portrayed yourself very understandingly of all issues in MOS talk and that impressed me. I wanted to look at your edits so that I could pick up some pointers. So I'll be wiki-stalking you :-) for a while. I noticed that you edited {{Ptychocheilus]]. However the article has a red-linked talk page. May I suggest whenever you encounter such a red link talk-page that you blue-link it by adding a WikiProject Fishes template, namely {{Fishproject}}. It hardly takes a moment but over time as you edit articles slowly each fish article will come within WikiPrpoject Fishes and be counted up in the Project article assessment drive. I hope I have not offended you by suggesting what I consider a good wikihabit. Regards, AshLin 12:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I take no offence from it whatsoever. It's a great point and it's something that hadn't occurred to me. Thanks very much for raising it. And thanks for your exceedingly kind words, as well. I only hope that I can do them justice over the long term! ;-) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A request

Hi Dave,

The issue of 'scientific names' vs 'common names' came up for policy discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera. All the project members had been informed by me on their talk page in advance. All those who posted agreed, but one without specifically agreeing or disagreeing expressed some issues. Since then I tried to address them and posted him on his talk page. He has not replied after that despite being online and carrying out other exchanges. I assume his choice is consensus by silence. Since this is the first time anywhere in TOL that scientific names have consensus over common names (for the WikiProject only) I wanted to be sure we met the requirements of WP:CON. Could I request you to go over the posts and confirm to me? If you agree that consensus has been reached, I would go ahead and incorporate it in the WikiProject Guidelines. After that only, actions would follow. Regards, AshLin 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a look and let you know what I think. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I spoke too soon. Two points of view came in after I summarised. This breaks my belief that consensus existed. I still have questions. Can I foreclose and say sorry chaps too late, I would love to but feel its wrong. One of them is not a member of our WikiProject. Does this fact effect the legitimacy of discussing in a WikiProject in any way? Though Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, can we say we have consensus if we have a majority vote? This worries me. If we have one dissenter, can Wikipedia ever come to create reasonable policies? I am presently posting them and requesting them to change their stance.

Your comments would still be of value to me. Sort of like mentoring as I am sure many such volatile issues will come up in future in this caterpillar state WikiProject. Please post here only as I feel that this issue on my talk page may create unnecessary issues.

Thanks AshLin 15:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, as you know, I'm sure, whether or not a person is a member of the project, as far as I can tell from reading WP:CON and various other policies and guidelines at AfD, etc, can in absolutely no way bear on the degree to which one values his vote.

Secondly, it appears to me that you have at least a supermajority and, probably, a consensus for change, there, but I think you need to test to what extent the naysayers would be willing to support the consensus decision. As you might guess, there are those who are opposed to the consensus view who, although they may have spoken against it, don't truly care enough to become disruptive. It might help if you were to ask, directly, a question, perhaps on their talk page, something like: "I see from your comments that you prefer 'A'. At the same time, it appears we have a consensus or a near-consensus for 'B'. Given that, do you think 'B' might be something you could live with with the understanding that, if disaster should ensue, we can always revisit such a decision at some point?"

Thirdly, I think it could be useful if, once you've arrived at a draft (proposed) decision, you could see your way clear to posting it on the main ToL talk page, say, as a "notice of decision" for Lepidoptera or whatever, as it were. Although there is no formal requirement to do so, I'd venture that, if you were to signal your intention to do that, it may mute some of the dissenting voices who have raised themselves over the last couple of days. Some editors may feel that, if they don't speak up right away, a decision may be made that goes against those of like mind who have not, as yet, been apprised.

Finally, I think it would go a long way to ensuring a good faith attempt at securing true consensus if you could announce, when you post the decision notice on ToL talk, that you will leave it open for a few days (maybe three or four?) before implementing it. After all, we've gone this far under the current "hegemony", what's a few more days? What's the worst that could happen -- the status quo and living to fight another day?

I wonder if, perhaps, my comments are not what you anticipated and are not what you'd wished. I must admit that I'm a relative n00b, here, and that I'm somewhat taken aback to see another editor asking for my advice on a matter of any import.

Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, You have given me food for thought. Your own point of view was exactly what I wanted, not mine fed back to me reworded. |'ll mull over my next course of action. Regards, Ashwin

MOS

Please come back: good work, but needs to ferment a little. Change is hard work in a forum like this, but will be well worth it. Tony 06:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User warnings

I noticed the spam warnings you placed on User talk:75.62.232.106. I found them rather confusing because you placed them several hours after I had reverted the user's edits and given him warnings myself. I would normally only add new warnings if there were new reasons for placing them after the most recent warning on the talk page. Did you have any special reason for doing it the way you did? Han-Kwang (t) 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)