sure, and that's largely how it goes down. copyvio 1) potentially threatens the integrity of the whole project and 2) reflects zero damn effort from the contributor, though, so it's not handled the same way as an honest noob attempt
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
1) No it doesn't, as the worst thing that could happen is a takedown request that would be complied with anyway. 2) That is unnecessary hostility that leads to unnecessary haste. It should be treated like any other rule violation by a new editor.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lethargilistic
1) legal opinions vary 2) it's called a criterion for *speedy* deletion for a reason. anyway, these are things you can argue should be the way it's done, but they're *not* the way it's done, and it's not reasonable to expect the admin to suddenly have started doing it this way
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
1) They don't tho. One copyvio article existing for a day wouldn't threaten the project any more than 600 over 4 years. 2) I agree, but it was a bad end. It's important to point out why & how to improve. Arguing from "the way its done" gives undue weight to current bad practice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lethargilistic
1) "other problems exist in an unsolved state" is not a very a good argument for "let's not solve this problem". 2) enh, Chesterton's Fence, but sure, if process can reasonably be made better, argue for it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @lethargilistic
but maybe probably don't start from a position of reading misogynist bias into process massively overdetermined by clear non-bias factors, because that's basically just a ginned up threat and that's a shitty way to deal with people
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @lethargilistic
which is not to say that asking "are there feasible ways we could tweak process to avoid creating the *appearance* of bias that some people perceived in this situation?" is unreasonable
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
I would and do make the claim that it is used disproportionately and "speedier" against minority topics because, in my WP experience, that is overwhelmingly what WP rules lawyering results in. But talking general improvement is a more palatable approach.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lethargilistic
okay. my experience was more that if you include two reliable source citations you'll be okay and if you don't you're straight up rolling the dice with very little in the way of roll modifiers, but idk. you participating in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias …?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
Nope. I mostly roll through US Supreme Court articles and copyright-related stuff and run into a bunch of peeps who use the rules as a stonewall for their opinions. But I used to edit Wookieepedia, so I was used to nonsense. Most people don't get it, and they shouldn't have to.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
*nodnod* tendentious editing? in *my* Wikipedia? (it's more likely than you think!) i have a grudge against that Wikiproject because they didn't want to help me when people were trying to get the title Sephiroth to go to the goddamn Squenix character, but they might help you
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.