When is a page unsuitable for Appropedia?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Chris Watkins
Jun 19, 2012, 1:23:15 PM6/19/12
to Appropedia community
I recently started Safety of energy sources based ona blog post which I thought asked important questions - but I wasn't sure about the answers it gave. I gave a summary, added a warning that the calculations weren't verified, and made additional observations. An anon (a pro-nuclear friend from Facebook) added something about dangers of electrocution from solar panels during installation (but without solid evidence).
My feeling was (and is) that Appropedia can be a place where people can post important questions and a possible answer, or first attempt at an answer. The pages can then evolve towards good answers and complete perspectives. I see this page moving in that direction already.
However, two respected Appropedia contributors (Prof Pearce and Fixer) proposed the page for deletion. Now, I've explained in more detail on the talk page why I'd rather not see it deleted, but I want to discuss it further, and see if we can satisfy the concerns on each side.
My thought: I really would like to see good answers there, to better answer my pro-nuclear friends. The page has improved quite a lot, IMO, it still contains a large warning. If the particular blog causes offence, the page can still be ruthlessly edited to answer the questions while not linking to that particular blog (e.g. if there's good reason to think the blog is untrustworthy).
I realize that I'm advocating a messy approach. I'm ok with mess, especially in a young wiki. But if it's really a problem for Appropedia, such pages could be moved to userspace, or we could make an Article Incubator. The downside: it would be much harder to get any attention for such pages.
I like the fact that this page got attention and a start has been made at deconstructing the pro-nuclear claims that were made. I don't like that it caused worry to valued friends in the Appropedia community. Can we have our cake and eat it? Could we have a standard clear warning for such pages, and a mutual understanding that such pages are works in progress - would that help the page fit into Appropedia's article space?
(Another thought: We could have a process of flagging such pages and looking for expert input? We could have a competent intern taking charge of administering this... Which raises issues of resources and funding. We can't do that now, but maybe soonish.)
How would you resolve this?
I'm sorry to write such a long email - if I had more time i would have written a shorter one.
Chris
My feeling was (and is) that Appropedia can be a place where people can post important questions and a possible answer, or first attempt at an answer. The pages can then evolve towards good answers and complete perspectives. I see this page moving in that direction already.
However, two respected Appropedia contributors (Prof Pearce and Fixer) proposed the page for deletion. Now, I've explained in more detail on the talk page why I'd rather not see it deleted, but I want to discuss it further, and see if we can satisfy the concerns on each side.
My thought: I really would like to see good answers there, to better answer my pro-nuclear friends. The page has improved quite a lot, IMO, it still contains a large warning. If the particular blog causes offence, the page can still be ruthlessly edited to answer the questions while not linking to that particular blog (e.g. if there's good reason to think the blog is untrustworthy).
I realize that I'm advocating a messy approach. I'm ok with mess, especially in a young wiki. But if it's really a problem for Appropedia, such pages could be moved to userspace, or we could make an Article Incubator. The downside: it would be much harder to get any attention for such pages.
I like the fact that this page got attention and a start has been made at deconstructing the pro-nuclear claims that were made. I don't like that it caused worry to valued friends in the Appropedia community. Can we have our cake and eat it? Could we have a standard clear warning for such pages, and a mutual understanding that such pages are works in progress - would that help the page fit into Appropedia's article space?
(Another thought: We could have a process of flagging such pages and looking for expert input? We could have a competent intern taking charge of administering this... Which raises issues of resources and funding. We can't do that now, but maybe soonish.)
How would you resolve this?
I'm sorry to write such a long email - if I had more time i would have written a shorter one.
Chris
Danyl Strype
Jun 21, 2012, 11:00:48 PM6/21/12
to appropedia...@googlegroups.com
Kia ora
Wikipedia has evolved some best practice around these issues. I often
see pages flagged with standard messages saying things like:
* the neutrality of this article is disputed
* this article needs sources to support its claims
* the notability of the this article is disputed (to have a page on
Wikipedia requires the subject to be publicly noteworthy)
* this article is written in a press release style, not encyclopedia style
* this page is stub, please help expand it
The talk pages are used to work on these issues, and when there is
consensus that they are resolved, the flag is removed. I think it
would be worth having a similar set of standard flags for Appropedia.
Hei kōnā
Strypey
> --
> For the public archive and subscription options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/appropedia-community?hl=en
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> appropedia-commu...@googlegroups.com
--
Danyl Strype
Community Developer
Disintermedia.net.nz/strype
"freedom is participation in power.”
- Cicero
"Uncomfortable alliances are not just necessary; they reflect and
speak to the tremendous possibility of our political moment."
- Harmony Goldberg and Joshua Kahn Russell
http://www.nationofchange.org/new-radical-alliances-new-era-1337004193
"Allowing the university to be turned into the tool of business is
allowing it to be corrupted."
- Richard Stallman
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/Stallman.xml
Wikipedia has evolved some best practice around these issues. I often
see pages flagged with standard messages saying things like:
* the neutrality of this article is disputed
* this article needs sources to support its claims
* the notability of the this article is disputed (to have a page on
Wikipedia requires the subject to be publicly noteworthy)
* this article is written in a press release style, not encyclopedia style
* this page is stub, please help expand it
The talk pages are used to work on these issues, and when there is
consensus that they are resolved, the flag is removed. I think it
would be worth having a similar set of standard flags for Appropedia.
Hei kōnā
Strypey
> For the public archive and subscription options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/appropedia-community?hl=en
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> appropedia-commu...@googlegroups.com
--
Danyl Strype
Community Developer
Disintermedia.net.nz/strype
"freedom is participation in power.”
- Cicero
"Uncomfortable alliances are not just necessary; they reflect and
speak to the tremendous possibility of our political moment."
- Harmony Goldberg and Joshua Kahn Russell
http://www.nationofchange.org/new-radical-alliances-new-era-1337004193
"Allowing the university to be turned into the tool of business is
allowing it to be corrupted."
- Richard Stallman
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/Stallman.xml
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages