Dueling POV - Revision history

Trolling Consumerium at 13:05, 23 June 2004

2004-06-23T13:05:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:05, 23 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Dueling POV''' is ~~what some think of as~~ the [[neutral point of view]]. Others would suggest the opposite, and claim that a system which allows, or even encourages, a duelling POV is somehow going against what was intended for a wiki which aimed to have NPOV as one of its guiding policies. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]].		'''Dueling POV''' is a better name for the so-called [[neutral point of view]]. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. The following is from [[w:User_talk:Angela]], indicating what a central figure [[User:Angela]] is in these debates (all text was also released under GFDL and is by [[w:User:Ark30inf]] whose further opinions should be solicited perhaps here).

	~~On a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, it was noted how~~ Jimbo ~~had once~~ said on the mailing list that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. ~~One user argued against this idea, explaining how it may be preferable for~~ partisans from both sides to write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.		"Jimbo said on the mailing list during the RK thing (paraphrased) that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.

	~~It has been argued that such an approach is preferable~~ to a ~~duelling POV and~~ that ~~this should be~~ the standard accepted and insisted ~~upon for achieving NPOV~~. ~~One benefit would be to prevent those~~ who want to be collegial ~~from becoming~~ frustrated and ~~leaving~~. ~~However, whilst many will be uncomfortable~~ with the oppositional philosophy ~~of duelling POVs, it could be argued that systems using this, such as Wikipedia, have got pretty far~~ with ~~using~~ it ~~so far~~.		I've always tried to avoid being a utopian. But I feel that most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were the standard accepted here and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf

			...

			Oppositional philosophy

			Angela, I think that's really a Jimbo thing. Jimbo believes that partisans fighting over articles produces the best articles. As long as that is true then many people who want to be collegial will be frustrated and leave. This place has gotten pretty far with the oppositional philosophy and I don't blame him for sticking with it. Its just not for me. -- Ark30inf"

Angela: turn into something more sensible

2004-02-08T23:27:54Z

turn into something more sensible

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 8 February 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Dueling POV''' is ~~a better name for~~ the ~~so-called~~ [[neutral point of view]]. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. The following is from [[w:User_talk:Angela]], indicating what a central figure [[User:Angela]] is in these debates (all text was also released under GFDL and is by [[w:User:Ark30inf]] whose further opinions should be solicited perhaps here).		'''Dueling POV''' is what some think of as the [[neutral point of view]]. Others would suggest the opposite, and claim that a system which allows, or even encourages, a duelling POV is somehow going against what was intended for a wiki which aimed to have NPOV as one of its guiding policies. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]].

	"Jimbo said on the mailing list ~~during the RK thing (paraphrased)~~ that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. ~~I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where~~ partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.		On a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, it was noted how Jimbo had once said on the mailing list that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. One user argued against this idea, explaining how it may be preferable for partisans from both sides to write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.

	~~I've always tried~~ to ~~avoid being~~ a ~~utopian. But I feel~~ that ~~most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were~~ the standard accepted ~~here~~ and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf		It has been argued that such an approach is preferable to a duelling POV and that this should be the standard accepted and insisted upon for achieving NPOV. One benefit would be to prevent those who want to be collegial from becoming frustrated and leaving. However, whilst many will be uncomfortable with the oppositional philosophy of duelling POVs, it could be argued that systems using this, such as Wikipedia, have got pretty far with using it so far.

	~~...~~

	~~Oppositional philosophy~~

	~~Angela, I think that's really a Jimbo thing. Jimbo believes that partisans fighting over articles produces the best articles. As long as that is true then many people~~ who want to be collegial ~~will be~~ frustrated and ~~leave~~. ~~This place has gotten pretty far~~ with the oppositional philosophy ~~and I don't blame him for sticking~~ with it. ~~Its just not for me. -- Ark30inf"~~

142.177.99.185: sorry, Angela is still the best/worst example - the more so if one considers her advocacy of the GodKing power structure and zeal of "enforcing" it - she can't be trusted to write on this

2004-01-07T08:48:11Z

sorry, Angela is still the best/worst example - the more so if one considers her advocacy of the GodKing power structure and zeal of "enforcing" it - she can't be trusted to write on this

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:48, 7 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Dueling POV''' is ~~what some think of as~~ the [[neutral point of view]]. Others would suggest the opposite, and claim that a system which allows, or even encourages, a duelling POV is somehow going against what was intended for a wiki which aimed to have NPOV as one of its guiding policies. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]].		'''Dueling POV''' is a better name for the so-called [[neutral point of view]]. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. The following is from [[w:User_talk:Angela]], indicating what a central figure [[User:Angela]] is in these debates (all text was also released under GFDL and is by [[w:User:Ark30inf]] whose further opinions should be solicited perhaps here).

	~~On a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, it was noted how~~ Jimbo ~~had once~~ said on the mailing list that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. ~~One user argued against this idea, explaining how it may be preferable for~~ partisans from both sides to write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.		"Jimbo said on the mailing list during the RK thing (paraphrased) that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.

	~~It has been argued that such an approach is preferable~~ to a ~~duelling POV and~~ that ~~this should be~~ the standard accepted and insisted ~~upon for achieving NPOV~~. ~~One benefit would be to prevent those~~ who want to be collegial ~~from becoming~~ frustrated and ~~leaving~~. ~~However, whilst many will be uncomfortable~~ with the oppositional philosophy ~~of duelling POVs, it could be argued that systems using this, such as Wikipedia, have got pretty far~~ with ~~using~~ it ~~so far~~.		I've always tried to avoid being a utopian. But I feel that most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were the standard accepted here and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf

			...

			Oppositional philosophy

			Angela, I think that's really a Jimbo thing. Jimbo believes that partisans fighting over articles produces the best articles. As long as that is true then many people who want to be collegial will be frustrated and leave. This place has gotten pretty far with the oppositional philosophy and I don't blame him for sticking with it. Its just not for me. -- Ark30inf"

Angela at 08:40, 7 January 2004

2004-01-07T08:40:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:40, 7 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Dueling POV''' is ~~a better name for~~ the ~~so-called~~ [[neutral point of view]]. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. The following is from [[w:User_talk:Angela]], indicating what a central figure [[User:Angela]] is in these debates (all text was also released under GFDL and is by [[w:User:Ark30inf]] whose further opinions should be solicited perhaps here).		'''Dueling POV''' is what some think of as the [[neutral point of view]]. Others would suggest the opposite, and claim that a system which allows, or even encourages, a duelling POV is somehow going against what was intended for a wiki which aimed to have NPOV as one of its guiding policies. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]].

	"Jimbo said on the mailing list ~~during the RK thing (paraphrased)~~ that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. ~~I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where~~ partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.		On a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, it was noted how Jimbo had once said on the mailing list that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. One user argued against this idea, explaining how it may be preferable for partisans from both sides to write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.

	~~I've always tried~~ to ~~avoid being~~ a ~~utopian. But I feel~~ that ~~most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were~~ the standard accepted ~~here~~ and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf		It has been argued that such an approach is preferable to a duelling POV and that this should be the standard accepted and insisted upon for achieving NPOV. One benefit would be to prevent those who want to be collegial from becoming frustrated and leaving. However, whilst many will be uncomfortable with the oppositional philosophy of duelling POVs, it could be argued that systems using this, such as Wikipedia, have got pretty far with using it so far.

	~~...~~

	~~Oppositional philosophy~~

	~~Angela, I think that's really a Jimbo thing. Jimbo believes that partisans fighting over articles produces the best articles. As long as that is true then many people~~ who want to be collegial ~~will be~~ frustrated and ~~leave~~. ~~This place has gotten pretty far~~ with the oppositional philosophy ~~and I don't blame him for sticking~~ with it. ~~Its just not for me. -- Ark30inf"~~

142.177.104.127: revert Angela - would prefer to work on this article, but not possible as long as Angela retains sysop powers at an enemy project with directly contradictory goals and self-contradicting policies

2004-01-07T06:50:43Z

revert Angela - would prefer to work on this article, but not possible as long as Angela retains sysop powers at an enemy project with directly contradictory goals and self-contradicting policies

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:50, 7 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Dueling POV''' is ~~what some think of as~~ the [[neutral point of view]]. Others would suggest the opposite, and claim that a system which allows, or even encourages, a duelling POV is somehow going against what was intended for a wiki which aimed to have NPOV as one of its guiding policies. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]].		'''Dueling POV''' is a better name for the so-called [[neutral point of view]]. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. The following is from [[w:User_talk:Angela]], indicating what a central figure [[User:Angela]] is in these debates (all text was also released under GFDL and is by [[w:User:Ark30inf]] whose further opinions should be solicited perhaps here).

	~~On a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, it was noted how~~ Jimbo ~~had once~~ said on the mailing list that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. ~~One user argued against this idea, explaining how it may be preferable for~~ partisans from both sides to write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.		"Jimbo said on the mailing list during the RK thing (paraphrased) that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.

	~~It has been argued that such an approach is preferable~~ to a ~~duelling POV and~~ that ~~this should be~~ the standard accepted and insisted ~~upon for achieving NPOV~~. ~~One benefit would be to prevent those~~ who want to be collegial ~~from becoming~~ frustrated and ~~leaving~~. ~~However, whilst many will be uncomfortable~~ with the oppositional philosophy ~~of duelling POVs, it could be argued that systems using this, such as Wikipedia, have got pretty far~~ with ~~using~~ it ~~so far~~.		I've always tried to avoid being a utopian. But I feel that most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were the standard accepted here and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf

			...

			Oppositional philosophy

			Angela, I think that's really a Jimbo thing. Jimbo believes that partisans fighting over articles produces the best articles. As long as that is true then many people who want to be collegial will be frustrated and leave. This place has gotten pretty far with the oppositional philosophy and I don't blame him for sticking with it. Its just not for me. -- Ark30inf"

Angela: An extract from a talk page is not an article. Rewritten

2004-01-05T22:39:43Z

An extract from a talk page is not an article. Rewritten

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 5 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Dueling POV''' is ~~a better name for~~ the ~~so-called~~ [[neutral point of view]]. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. The following is from [[w:User_talk:Angela]], indicating what a central figure [[User:Angela]] is in these debates (all text was also released under GFDL and is by [[w:User:Ark30inf]] whose further opinions should be solicited perhaps here).		'''Dueling POV''' is what some think of as the [[neutral point of view]]. Others would suggest the opposite, and claim that a system which allows, or even encourages, a duelling POV is somehow going against what was intended for a wiki which aimed to have NPOV as one of its guiding policies. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]].

	"Jimbo said on the mailing list ~~during the RK thing (paraphrased)~~ that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. ~~I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where~~ partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.		On a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, it was noted how Jimbo had once said on the mailing list that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. One user argued against this idea, explaining how it may be preferable for partisans from both sides to write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.

	~~I've always tried~~ to ~~avoid being~~ a ~~utopian. But I feel~~ that ~~most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were~~ the standard accepted ~~here~~ and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf		It has been argued that such an approach is preferable to a duelling POV and that this should be the standard accepted and insisted upon for achieving NPOV. One benefit would be to prevent those who want to be collegial from becoming frustrated and leaving. However, whilst many will be uncomfortable with the oppositional philosophy of duelling POVs, it could be argued that systems using this, such as Wikipedia, have got pretty far with using it so far.

	~~...~~

	~~Oppositional philosophy~~

	~~Angela, I think that's really a Jimbo thing. Jimbo believes that partisans fighting over articles produces the best articles. As long as that is true then many people~~ who want to be collegial ~~will be~~ frustrated and ~~leave~~. ~~This place has gotten pretty far~~ with the oppositional philosophy ~~and I don't blame him for sticking~~ with it. ~~Its just not for me. -- Ark30inf"~~

142.177.99.226: why Wikipedia is dueling POV not "neutral", how Wales propagates conflicts to reduce challenges to his own power, why Wikipedia is not collegial, etc.

2003-12-25T00:01:39Z

why Wikipedia is dueling POV not "neutral", how Wales propagates conflicts to reduce challenges to his own power, why Wikipedia is not collegial, etc.

New page

'''Dueling POV''' is a better name for the so-called [[neutral point of view]]. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. The following is from [[w:User_talk:Angela]], indicating what a central figure [[User:Angela]] is in these debates (all text was also released under GFDL and is by [[w:User:Ark30inf]] whose further opinions should be solicited perhaps here).

"Jimbo said on the mailing list during the RK thing (paraphrased) that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.

I've always tried to avoid being a utopian. But I feel that most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were the standard accepted here and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf

...

Oppositional philosophy

Angela, I think that's really a Jimbo thing. Jimbo believes that partisans fighting over articles produces the best articles. As long as that is true then many people who want to be collegial will be frustrated and leave. This place has gotten pretty far with the oppositional philosophy and I don't blame him for sticking with it. Its just not for me. -- Ark30inf"