Extreme Moderation
Chess One
7 and then 'appropriate'. Are we to assume that Dr.
7 Blair volunteers information to someone who
7 eliminates these entries, without any intent of his
7 own?
7
7 ROFL! ...
_
No. We are supposed to refrain from making up intent
that was not there. My intent was that Wikipedia rules
not be avoided. I had no idea what action would be
appropriate in view of Wikipedia rules.
***Here we go with another 50,000 words from Dr. Blair which do not address
the 50 words put to him. That is - /he/ selected material to send to
Wikipedia, and 'while having no idea', so he says, nevertheless sends such
material to people who certainly do have an idea, they eliminate other's
work completely. Is Dr. Blair being naive, or rather simple?
--- In fide-...@yahoogroups.com, "Chess One"
<innes8@...> (Phil Innes) wrote (March 13, 2007 6:59):
7 ... here we have coy language from our Louis which
7 is content to destroy them rather than amend them.
_
The reality is that I am "content" that Wikipedia
people apply the rules in the fashion that they
consider appropriate. I see no reason why I should
be obliged to be involved in "amend"ing Sam Sloan
material.
***Which is what I wrote in the first place, since if the material is not
amended, it is deleted. And Dr. Blair can't think why he should amend
anything. He can't see any reason! All the while Dr. Blair cannot admit that
he plays a significant role in the result! And this, folks, is the degree of
'moderation' we should expect in a forum.
***Extreme Moderation! A new Orwellian term, which moderates nothing, and is
a coy synonism for pure and complete destruction. The result is that
objectionable material by Sloan, [whether at Wiki or at USCF's forum] will
be 'Moderated' by people who have a hidden perspective and role of their
own, and moderated Absolutely!
***I thought, as I wrote before, that about 1/3 of the Sloan material could
be eliminated, [in some instances more, but 1/3 seemed right overall] since
it was trivial material [and sometimes unwarranted personal opinion] in
place of more substantive writing that objectively could appear in its
place. The rest of it was respectable enough. Now if Sam Sloan is rather
indulgent about always getting his own way, and resists amendment, that is
one thing - and maybe he is as stubborn as the people he resists. I suggest
that one remedy is to praise what is good - this is encouragement. To throw
away both the good and the bad is to encourage more acting-up behavior to
gain personal attention, since it doesn't matter any more if what is said is
true or false. This idea works for both the author of any writing, and any
critics of it.
***I am very obviously no Sam Sloan booster, in fact arguing anything based
on personalities [for or against!] is what ails us - and talking about clear
policies and systems is the way successful outfits work and evolve. But
where is any objectivity here? There are only personality issues involved,
and little or no discrimination. And yet we are to believe that these absent
qualities can still represent a standard of something?
***As result of all the above Chessville launched its Vignettes series,
which operates on the premise that anyone can write a short bio, or anecdote
about players, under the condition that it may be edited, but is otherwise
safe from being destroyed by 'fundamentalist elements'. It is, by all
accounts, a popular column!
Phil Innes
Louis Blair
<sloan@...> (Sam Sloan)wrote (Mar 13, 2007 4:27 pm):
7 ... The purpose of these postings were to get my
7 chess biographies deleted ...
_
I wrote (March 13, 2007 5:04 pm):
7 Nonsense. I was not asking for any specific action.
7 I only tried to help "Uses:JzG" and others at
7 Wikipedia to be aware of what was going on. It was
7 up to them to decide what action was appropriate. ...
_6:59 pm):
7 ... Are we to assume that Dr. Blair volunteers
7 information to someone who eliminates these
7 entries, without any intent of his own?
7
7 ROFL! ...
_
7 ... No. We are supposed to refrain from making up
7 intent that was not there. My intent was that
7 Wikipedia rules not be avoided. I had no idea
7 what action would be appropriate in view of
7 Wikipedia rules.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:09:33 GMT):
7 Here we go with another 50,000 words from Dr.Blair
7 which do not address the 50 words put to him. That
7 is - /he/ selected material to send to
7 Wikipedia, and 'while having no idea', so he says,
7 nevertheless sends such material to people who
7 certainly do have an idea, they eliminate other's
7 work completely. Is Dr.Blairbeing naive, or
7 rather simple?
_
I am pointing out that (1) I do not know all of
Wikipedia's rules, (2) I do not know everything that
Sam Sloan has written for Wikipedia, and (3) as a
consequence of (1) and (2), I do not know what would
happen when Wikipedia people set out to apply their
rules to Sam Sloan contributions.
_
--- In fide-...@yahoogroups.com, "Chess One"
<innes8@...> (Phil Innes) wrote (March 13, 2007
6:59 pm):
7 ... here we have coy language from our Louis which
7 is content to destroy [Sam Sloan's unedited entries]
7 rather than amend them. ...
_
I wrote (March 13, 2007 10:04 pm):
7 The reality is that I am "content" that Wikipedia
7 people apply the rules in the fashion that they
7 consider appropriate. I see no reason why I should
7 be obliged to be involved in "amend"ing Sam Sloan
7 material.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:09:33 GMT):
7 Which is what I wrote in the first place, since
7 if the material is not amended, it is deleted.
_
Is Phil Innes trying to tell us that ALL Sam Sloan
material is deleted unless I amend it? Even if that
is true (and I see no reason to believe that it is),
I fail to see how that creates any obligation for me
to help Sam Sloan write acceptable material for
Wikipedia. That is his problem if he wants to try to
do it.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:09:33 GMT):
7 And Dr.Blaircan't think why he should amend
7 anything.
_
I did not write "anything". I was referring
specifically to Sam Sloan's Wikipedia biographies.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:09:33 GMT):
7 He can't see any reason! All the while Dr.Blair
7 cannot admit that he plays a significant role
7 in the result!
_
I "admit" the role that I had: trying to help
Wikipedia to be aware of what was going on.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:09:33 GMT):
7 And this, folks, is the degree of 'moderation'
7 we should expect in a forum.
7
7 Extreme Moderation! A new Orwellian term,
7 which moderates nothing, and is a coy synonism
7 for pure and complete destruction.
_
I am not a moderator for Wikipedia and have made
no attempt to be a moderator for them. If any
"destruction" was done, it was done by them
because they believed it was the appropriate
action indicated by Wikipedia rules.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:09:33 GMT):
7 The result is that objectionable material by
7 Sloan, [whether at Wiki or at USCF's forum]
7 will be 'Moderated' by people who have a hidden
7 perspective and role of their own, and
7 moderated Absolutely!
_
Phil Innes, of course, identifies no specifics
with regard to this "hidden perspective" and the
evidence for it.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:09:33 GMT):
7 I thought, as I wrote before, that about 1/3
7 of the Sloan material could be eliminated,
7 [in some instances more, but 1/3 seemed right
7 overall] since it was trivial material [and
7 sometimes unwarranted personal opinion] in
7 place of more substantive writing that
7 objectively could appear in its place. The
7 rest of it was respectable enough. Now if
7 Sam Sloan is rather indulgent about always
7 getting his own way, and resists amendment,
7 that is one thing - and maybe he is as
7 stubborn as the people he resists. I suggest
7 that one remedy is to praise what is good -
7 this is encouragement. To throw away both
7 the good and the bad is to encourage more
7 acting-up behavior to gain personal attention,
7 since it doesn't matter any more if what is
7 said is true or false. This idea works for
7 both the author of any writing, and any
7 critics of it. ...
_
If Phil Innes wants to try to change Wikipedia
policy, he is welcome to do so, but, if that is
his intent, he is writing to the wrong place.