Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 69:
== Threaded discussion ==
I've removed all threaded discussion from the support/oppose/neutral columns on the poll page. I've left discussion in the comments section for now because I feel it's important (although should it get out of hand, I'll start moving things to the talk page). '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:Unfortunately this leaves no way to address the current dynamics with 4 of the last 5 oppose voters to autoformatting (108–111) apparently thinking this is about date ''linking''. For 3 of them I have no idea how they would have voted without the misconception. I am pretty sure that this kind of thing, when uncontradicted, makes the following voters more likely to make the same mistake. There are similar misconceptions among support voters, but of course the losing side is more likely to claim the poll was invalid because of such issues. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::Hans: I do not agree with the assessment that these four voters have confused formatting with linking. Voters are under no obligation to give ''all'' of their reasons. A challenge should be regarded as exceptional, and should be via Ryan, now and not after the poll closes. We do not want unseemly horse-trading on the validity of individual votes after the close. In any case, I think (1) challenges would result in very few, if any, changes by voters; and (2) there would be challenges on both sides (I can see ''plenty'' of "Supports" I'd like to challenge). Is it worth all the fuss, or should we trust voters' inner reasoning? [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 76:
== Notice placed at top of [[Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses]] ==
To try and clear up any confusion regarding autoformatting and linking, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses&diff=prev&oldid=280958917 placed a notice] at the top of the autoformatting responses. It's important that people commenting are 100% sure of what they are commenting on. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:Thanks Ryan—helpful. However, I believe that there is ''not'' the confusion of the two terms that is being assumed. The headings are clearly labelled "I support the ''general'' concept of date autoformatting" and "I oppose the ''general'' concept of date autoformatting". People know what DA is, and if there was any confusion in their minds, it would soon have been dispelled when they proceeded to Questions 2 and 3, specifically on "linking".
:Critically, I want to scotch ''now'' any sense that Locke Cole et al. will wait until the poll closes and then brand it invalid on the basis that there was such confusion. I say now to the linking camp: If you seriously believe this, you should post a query at the talk page of every voter of whom you suspect such confusion. I do not believe this is necessary, but here is your chance—'''not''' after the poll. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 04:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 88:
== Mailing list ==
I posted a note on wikien-l telling them about the poll. There may be some people who are interested who have missed our other notices. Worst case we get no extra opinions - I don't think any harm will be done by prodding people a little more :-). '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
==''Deprecation''==
Line 139:
::<big>Hear me. READ MY POST. '''Hear <i>meeeeeee!</i>'''</big>
:* I don’t oppose the practice of long- treatise-like vote comments because I think the practice gives anyone an advantage of any sort. Indeed not. I oppose the practice because it’s an ineffective form of cheating. Editors who come late to RfCs and spew gigantic comments fifty times bigger than the average Joe have, in my opinion, an overinflated sense of self-esteem because they 1) think they have something ''new'' to say, and 2) have deluded themselves that anyone ''actually reads'' these tomes. For the most part, they are wrong on both counts. It’s just a form of “hear ''me'' – hear '''''meeeee!'''''<p>Further, it’s just a desperation move by those who now recognize there isn’t a [[WP:SNOWBALL]] chance that a consensus could ''ever'' form that the Wikipedia community wants UC Bill’s “Son of autformatting” (I thought he deleted his code and quit Wikipedia) or any of the other ideas being proposed by a small cabal of volunteer developers. Ignore these long RfC comments and take satisfaction that they now perceive the need to fly their Kamikaze posts into the flotilla of inevitability. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
*Whilst there are some very large comments on the poll, they all form part of a vote. At the minute, I don't think it's getting out of hand and the comments are useful - my main concern was the poll turning into a load of threaded discussion making it difficult to navigate. I've removed a few replies from the poll, but for now I'm going to leave the vote comments. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
== Suspected [[WP:CANVAS|canvassing]] by [[User:Sapphic]] ==
Line 155:
* Ohconfucius is just giving voters a lapel pin to wear as they exit the polling booth. He gave one to me. That isn’t disruptive. Sapphic is badgering Wikipedians who voted one particular way in an effort to get them to go back in and change their vote. <u>That must stop right now</u>. She should be warned and taken to an ANI if the [[WP:CANVAS|canvassing]] persists. I doubt that the effort—and the trouble she could find herself in as a result—will pay off with a change of a single vote; it’s just that she is cheating, which doesn’t impress. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
**In an actual election, providing lapel pins (which support, as Ohconfucius' do, a particular side) to those leaving the polling booth would be unlawful; this analogy needs work. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
*I've had a look at this and I believe it is canvassing. I've therefore asked Sapphic not to contact any other users on their talk page for the remainder of the poll. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::No disrespect, but you're wrong here, Ryan. Maybe I violated some ''other'' policy/guideline/whatever (though if that's so, I can't find it anywhere) but [[WP:CANVAS]] applies to messages sent to people ''who have not already participated'' in a poll. I explain my actions in a lot more detail in the sub-section immediately below. So, unless you can point me at some policy I actually ''did'' violate, I'm going to just keep doing what I've been doing. Glad you're feeling better. --[[User:Sapphic|Sapphic]] ([[User talk:Sapphic|talk]]) 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::*As it is common practice in WP for editors to change their votes up to the closure of polls in light of new information and arguments made, it remains arguable that your actions could be considered canvassing as they appear to be aimed at influencing a voting intention. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 07:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 353:
:--[[User:Davidgothberg|David Göthberg]] ([[User talk:Davidgothberg|talk]]) 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::Please calm down, and note that I left a message on your talk page explaining the situation and pointing you towards this section, where I had copied and pasted your new section in full. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:This should be removed asap - it can go in the comments section if needs be. I'm on my iPod now so I can't deal with it.--'''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:* I contacted David on his talk page and suggested how he can get his point across more effectively by working within the structure of the RfC. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 410:
== Thinking ahead.... ==
Without prejudice to the end result, the autoformatting part of the poll isn't looking as conclusive as I'd have liked to see it. I recommend we move to a second poll that breaks down autoformatting into individual sections (like we did for the year and month-day linking). Proposals would include turning off autoformatting completely, keeping the status quo, and exploring other methods of autoformatting for the future that wouldn't require date linking. I think it's going to be the only way to get a conclusive result. Whilst some may say that the poll is clear, I'd say it's far from it in the Wikipedia sense of polling/consensus. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:What about the linking issues? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::They don't need discussing at this point in time in my opinion, we can wait till after the poll finishes (We can wait till after for autoformatting as well, but I just wanted to float an idea around). '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
* '''Shit'''! Don’t you think the community is sick enough of this dispute, Ryan? Are you getting paid by the hour on this? Again, the IEC prefix issue (mebibyte, MiB v.s. megabyte, MB) took <u>three years</u> to undo because of Wikipedia’s outdated sense that no action can be taken unless there is a colossal landslide of a vote. The litmus test of overwhelming lopsided vote should be applied ''only when an idea is being tried the first time.'' But, rarely is that the case. For example, Wikipedia’s use of “256 MiB” was retarded beyond all comprehension. Yet, the decision for Wikipedia to adopt that practice was made by a few dozen editors on some remote, backwater page after only ''24 hours of deliberation.'' And after all that *infinite wisdom*, it took ''fifteen'' “Binary” archives on WT:MOSNUM to finally get that fiasco reversed. And “Why did it take so long to abandon that idiotic practice since no other publication on the planet wrote that way?” you might ask? Because the propeller-headed proponents of the practice insisted that only an overwhelming lopsided vote could revert the move.<p>It’s time for the leadership of Wikipedia to get some balls here. The three past RfCs can be taken into consideration here too. Between those, and this one, it is clear that there has been ample community debate and share of views.<p>I would argue that the wisest course here is to state that{{cquote|Whenever any issue has been ''thoroughly'' and ''widely'' discussed, a clear majority is a valid consensus.}}
Line 466:
::*I echo Bishonen's, Greg's, Ohconfucius's, Sssoul's and Sillyfolkboy's comments. In particular, talk of individual editors' doing deals, offering compromises, etc, seems weird when the community has spoken. Who are we to cut across community opinion in ''so'' many RFCs on this topic. (Is this the fourth? Hmmmm ...)
::*Since 50% more people oppose the general concept of DA than support (247 to 167 at the moment), there is no point in holding yet another poll (with fractionated questions about what the community by a sizeable majority has said it doesn't want? 15% want this, 11% this, 8% this, 6% that ... do they add up to 40%?). There is almost ''no'' support for the creaking old DA, and the job of auditing and removing the coding needs to be resumed (just switching it off centrally may be a good idea, but would leave the blue-linking). The resumption of cleaning up the date mess involves checking consistency and format choice for each article, as was being achieved gradually until the temporary injunction. We enjoyed the skilled, dedicated and responsive [[WP:Wikignome|wikignoming]] of users such as Colonies Chris until then. We need to move on and resume this program of detailed improvements to our articles, for the sake of our readers, our editors and the broader project. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:Ok, well I see people don't like this idea. I think perhaps that people could have expressed their disapproval in a more collegial manner - when people start attacking users based on something that was merely supposed to promote discussion it doesn't really get their point across well. When the poll's over I'll poke a few developers and see what their thoughts are on the results. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:: Sadly, Ryan, I think you have put your finger on the problem in the RfAr -- a lack of collegial manner over this issue. One side is eager to enforce what it believes to be a mandate to fire up a bot & ''remove all links to dates and years,'' without consideration of opposing opinions no matter how they are expressed. Launching a systematic removal of all of those links without making any exceptions will only take us back to this same impasse, maybe with some new players. As others have pointed out, I feel that there is a flaw in this poll that the option I admittedly prefer -- linking birth & death years & dates -- is not clearly approved or disapproved. While I can accept that the consensus of the community does not favor these links, from the categories & comments I am not certain that one can objectively determine what that consensus is: the majority say they only want relevant dates & years linked, but do they consider these ''relevant links?'' -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::If you only count !votes, yes, it is obscure. But if you look at the comments, you'll see that consensus is for very few or no date links. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::* Quoting you llywrch: {{xt|One side is eager to enforce what it believes to be a mandate to fire up a bot & ''remove all links to dates and years,'' without consideration of opposing opinions no matter how they are expressed.}} Wrong. The opposing side’s views ''have'' been considered. You are confusing “considered” with “bought into and adopted.” And with specific regard to {{xt|…no matter how [those opposing opinions] are expressed}}, you can paint lipstick on a pig of an idea and dress it up as a prom date, but you’re still not going to get any takers.<p>The problem is that developers have been circumventing “consensus and approval” for too long (witness Werdna's recent shoving in of the new patch without so much as a warning). You may not like it, but this has been a problem with an attitude of “I’m a lotus leaf-eating programming god and can just post my code to Wikipedia and my children will love it.” Uhm… not always. Giving a select few registered editors a view of editorial content that all the rest of Wikipedia’s readership can’t see (autoformatting of dates) what brain damaged at inception. And it was finally tossed on its ear in December.<p>As for the developers’ desperate attempts to pitch a replacement, the community has turned its back on a handful of volunteer programmer gods and said “we’re not interested in this sort of thing.” Over and over and over with RfCs, the community has said “'''No'''”. C'est la vie. The developers can simply shrug their shoulders and go find something to offer the community that it truly wants. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Unfortunately, as the developers are the ones that actually implement any autoformatting changes that we may require (i.e. turning it off), they most certainly won't have to just shrug their shoulders. If they don't think that the poll reflects a big enough consensus, they won't do anything. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::*Ryan, perhaps you could rephrase your comment above as it appears to imply that developers have a veto on community consensus? Whilst it could be a mere statement of fact that their cooperation is necessary and desirable, they are not the guardians/[[supreme court]] of the consensus; if they were, I am certain the community would have something to say about that. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::*What I'm saying is that the developers don't act unless they have consensus for a change. I'm not 100% convinced that the developers will see our current poll on autoformatting consensus for anything so won't act. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::::*If all it is is your fear, we can work on that. But we are agreed that they cannot and should not stand in the way of consensus, right? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 11:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
*"''In a month or two (or however long it takes to develop the new software) we have one last poll to either adopt the new software or drop the issue once and for all''"—to the programming community: please be very careful with this approach. This strategy smacks of the approach that was taken many years ago—the one that delivered the current problem-riddled date formatting and linking system. If you want to get your programming teeth into something beneficial, then get consensus for a replacement system from the community <u>before</u> any coding takes place. At the very least, create a page that has the specifications for what is being developed so that there is transparency and the possibility for comment. The best programmers that I've seen in my career are the ones that don't want to operate in secrecy from their end-users. A happy and safe Easter to all. [[User:HWV258|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 663:
:Hey! Poll has closed early! Why can't I vote? [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 07:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
:It was supposed to run for 2 weeks, so the cut off should have been 23:59, 12 April. Given I made a mistake with the dates, we'll leave it open for another day. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
== Canvassing ==
If anyone's been contacted off wiki about this poll, please contact me either by email or on my talk. Please don't post any emails on-wiki. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
== Proposed Resolution ==
| |||