User talk:Kavri/Archive 1

Welcome

NOTE: The Following was edited by me for brevity. The links and information provided by QuackGuru can be found on the Welcome Info page.

Hello Kavri! Welcome to Wikipedia! ... Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing and above all else enjoy your time here! QuackGuru ^TALK 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Click here. I did my best. Is this what you were talking about? QuackGuru ^TALK 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the attempt at help, the fact that I put it up for 'suggestion' on the talk page, that is where I would have preferred you to make a note of agree/disagree. I wasn't sure about how to roll back to the original, and feeling that there was already assent of you, I, and Risker, I went ahead with my proposed change, and am asking you and Gwen Gale to comment on the talk page before making any changes. Basically, I feel the syntax improved version should stand, unless there is significant reason for it not too. I have made a note in the talk pages saying much the same. Thanks for the help, though, the article is tension filled enough that discussion on the talk page first is probably a good idea. Cheers. -- Kavri 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just go ahead and edit away. Or if your prefer talk first. You did identify a weak part in the lead. Good job. Your suggestion greatly improved the article. The lead is getting up to par now. Keep it up. Can't wait to see your next idea. BTY, most editors actually make their edits and add first. Some articles are fully developed and do not even have a single edit on talk page. QuackGuru ^TALK 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

Please feel free to call me on my bitchy remarks, even if I stand by them :) Gwen Gale 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See comments on Essjay discussion. I feel that your edit was disingenious by reverting back to a pre-compromise version, and hence re-verted it back to the version that has been around since that compromise was made. And, generally I try to leave people to their own fights, however, I will at times toss my opinion into the ring, regarding 'bitchy remarks' or any other type of negative charges towards someone. :) -- Kavri 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A comparison in review

Wikipedia critics

Larry Sanger, Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium and a founder of Wikipedia, was reported to have called Essjay's response "a defiant non-apology" and elsewhere characterized Essjay's actions as "identity fraud." Longtime Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski harshly criticized Jimmy Wales for hiring Essjay at Wikia and appointing him to the Wikipedia arbitration committee after Essjay had apparently admitted his previously claimed academic and professional credentials were false.Orlowski wrote in The Register that Essjay's actions betrayed a dangerous community mindset within Wikipedia, quoting Sanger as saying, "Wikipedians have plainly become a very insular group: they have their own mores and requirements, which are completely independent of the real world. Indeed, that's what this story is about, after all: real-world identities and credentials are rejected as unnecessary by Wikipedia." Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said that Wikipedia "fundamentally runs by an extremely deceptive sort of social promise," of which he claims Essjay is a product. Dan Blacharski of ITworld wrote, "Legitimate writers, scholars and industry experts have very little motivation to contribute to Wikipedia – leaving the project with wannabes and posers like Essjay with too much time on their hands to churn out content." Finkelstein also described attracting contributors to Wikipedia as selling a dream of getting academic prestige by working for free, letting Wikia investors reap the rewards and with "Essjay" as "that dream's poster child." Finkelstein saw Essjay as having been encouraged by Wikipedia to play out a detailed fantasy role along with "a cadre of acolytes willing to devote their lives (without payment) to the organisation's projects."

Wikipedia critics

Larry Sanger, Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium and a founder of Wikipedia, called Essjay's response as "a defiant non-apology" and elsewhere characterized Essjay's actions as "identity fraud." Sanger and longtime Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski harshly criticized Jimmy Wales for hiring Essjay at Wikia and appointing him to the Wikipedia arbitration committee after Essjay had apparently admitted his previously claimed academic and professional credentials were false. Orlowski wrote in The Register that Essjay's actions betrayed a dangerous community mindset within Wikipedia, stating, "Wikipedians have plainly become a very insular group: they have their own mores and requirements, which are completely independent of the real world. Indeed, that's what this story is about, after all: real-world identities and credentials are rejected as unnecessary by Wikipedia." Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said that Wikipedia "fundamentally runs by an extremely deceptive sort of social promise," of which he claims Essjay is a product. Dan Blacharski of ITworld wrote, "Legitimate writers, scholars and industry experts have very little motivation to contribute to Wikipedia – leaving the project with wannabes and posers like Essjay with too much time on their hands to churn out content." Finkelstein also described attracting contributors to Wikipedia as selling a dream of getting academic prestige by working for free, letting Wikia investors reap the rewards and with "Essjay" as "that dream's poster child." Finkelstein saw Essjay as having been encouraged by Wikipedia to play out a detailed fantasy role along with "a cadre of acolytes willing to devote their lives (without payment) to the organisation's projects."

• Here are two different versions of the critics section. Which one do you believe is well written or more encyclopedic. Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer the first version over the second.

I believe both are well written, and both are Encylopedic, though the second one makes the error of attributing a quote of Sanger's to Orlowski ("...stating, "Wikipedians have plainly become...). I believe the first reads stronger, but having a source quoting Sanger, as opposed to it being Sanger's quote directly from his blog. Also, having already made it clear that both Sanger and Orlowski had grave concerns, I find the inclusion of Sanger's name spurious in the section "...Sanger and longtime Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski harshly criticized...".

I have no way of checking out the references from here, and other than checking out the atribution of the quote above, did not check all the references. I presume that both version have good references, and if it is specifically a reference issue, it would be pertinent to ask my opinion on the reference itself.

Since this issue has been discussed in the talk page, I stand by what I said there, and here, that the change of references I believe makes a stronger case, not weaker, to what was said. I have no problem with you questioning the move, but do feel that your assertions of it being a major and incorrect change were a bit...dramatic? It is my belief that the only way to have any kind of even-handedness and get on with the business of Wikipedia, is to be able to compromise, especially on the non 'do or die' scenarios. It truly is a case that if both sides don't like it, it's probably the best compromise you'll come up with. I also believe in picking one's battles. Seeing as the article has been requested to be deleted on more than one occassion, my interest is more focused on making sure it stays, than to become overly focused on what I see as minor detail. So long as Sanger and Orlowski are on record, with quotes, I'm reasonably happy. Personally, I have strong opinions on some aspects, but realizing that my views would be 'editoralizing' I've not mentioned them (just really really wished some outside source would say them...*grins*). Obviously my rewrite of the intro paragraph that did not get support shows some of my bias and leaning towards editoralizing.

Hope this helped, feel free to discuss further if you want. -- Kavri 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I believe the inclusion of more references strengthened this section. Some refs have been eliminated. A direct quote is more precise and better NPOV. For example, using the word "called" is better than using the word "reported." If you take a closer look over the histroy you find almost every sentence has been modied. Very well written work has been re-written over. I have never seen this happen in any other article to such a degree. Any sentence with a certain tone and flow is being written over. On a different note the "academics" section of the article is in need of expansion. Also, there is a discussion of including a quote from Wales' apology. If your interested in finding sources to address certain aspects of 'editoralizing' feel free to look a my user page and you will find many references and sources. The reference about Sanger and Wales as the founders actually state co-founders and not a founder. I never heard the term a founder before. It fails the NPOV of policy. But, at least, I finally was able to include the ref after much objection from multiple editors. Why didn't any admin who is watching say anything and support the facts. I think the Wikipedia community and how they really edit articles would make such a great news story. Would it ever. Just read the talk page after I gave so many refs and they still objected. After all that, still I bet someone will try to remove it again within the next 24 hours. But, hopefully not and we will move on to other parts of the article. Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still new to Wikipedia and it's policies, however, I feel a news source quoting a blog, is stronger than a direct quote from a blog. In fact, there is very little modification, other than to accomodate the changes in references. As well, the quote in the second version is attributed incorrectly. I have no problem if there is relevant material to seeing the academics issue expanded. I also have no problem with Wales apology being quoted, though I'd be watching to see in what manner it was quoted. From what I understand, there are a variety of quotes for both sides of the 'co-founder' debate. It will not be resolved by one side 'winning' over the other. The compromise suggested by Denny seems the closest to NPOV that can be attained. Generally speaking, if both sides don't like it, it's probably the best your going to get to NPOV/compromise. The term 'a founder' is perfectly correct. The definition of co-founder is: "one of a group of founders". However, in common use, the term is sometimes used in the weaker definition of cohort "a company of companions or supporters". Wales and others want to make it clear that this sort of companion/buddy relationship didn't exist, and want to deny the use of co-founder. The people supporting Sanger as co-founder recognize his working relationship with Wales, and more importantly that he was the one that suggested the Wikipedia format. Using the term 'a founder' is a way of saying someone was involved in founding of the organization, but at the same time not pressing the point that he and Wales were necessarily joined at the hip. One could easily make a point that some of the earliest people that were working on the project were also founders, and individually could be referred to as 'a founder'. I don't believe using the term fails policy or NPOV, though again, I am new and not familiar with everything yet. I think that reasoned group consensus seems to support the use of 'avoid founder mentioned at all, or, use 'a' founder'.... this seems like about the best compromise we can get between both camps, and support for its use in all articles is in my opinion, a better use of time, over trying to 'win' the war and have 'co-founder' applied Sanger in every reference to him. It would perhaps be a different case if Sanger himself was on record as fighting for the recognition of 'co-founder', but that would be another matter entirely. I'm guessing he would realizes that it would be little more than a pissing contest. I have also seen the post about including a quote from Wale's apology, I'll peek at how it processes...at the moment it seems like there is a bit of internal in-joke funning going on ala the date in the New Yorker...though I'm not sure. Again, I'd like to be remind you that it might be more productive to take a step back to look at the bigger picture, and to choose your battles. There will seldom be complete agreement on any point, in a community as large as this. Cheers -- Kavri 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Birds of a feather

Somehow, when reading your comments about the Essjay controversy, I just knew we had something in common beside editing philosophy. I could also imagine you taking a long walk in the snow from time to time during some of those heated discussions. Your post about the Macleans article confirmed it - glad to see another Canadian aboard. Risker 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• waves*...yah, couldn't help but get my dander up a bit over the 'incredibly incompetent' remark...mind you, I think the article isn't that well written, but still *grin*. By the way, take a look at my recent french additions... I hope I dont' get too burned for trying to forward the 'dont use founder, or use 'a' founder' policy approach...I almost want it as a signature line or something. *grins*. Plus, if Wikipedia has a 'father' wouldn't it have a 'mother' (Sanger) too? *lol* <-- that will make sense when you check the post over at Essjay talk. Later. -- Kavri 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission Request

I would like to see the c-quote style in the article per your suggestion. It is a subtle visual effect compared to the grey quotes. If you give me permission, I can give it a try. I would like to see the difference in the quote formats. Thank You. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My response is on your talk page -- Kavri 23:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy talk page

I have responded to your comments on the talk page. I have tried to remain civil and calm in my response, and I have again provided the complete list of my edits to the talk page for any editor, including yourself, to examine. As I said on the talk page, these edits provide no support for your comments that I failed to sign my edits to the talk page, or that I engaged in any kind of disingenuous "retro-editing." I appreciate your kind words about my being "in the top group of editor/posters I've run across on my short time here," and I have tried to avoid giving any offense to anyone in the contentious Essjay controversy article. My suggestion is that we leave this issue as is, and move on to more fruitful discussions. Casey Abell 06:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)