Background edit
This excerpt follows a "hypothetical question" that Dreftymac posed to WT:V in order to request comments and feedback. User:Pigsonthewing said the hypothetical beared a "remarkable resemblance" to an actual dispute over article content. Dreftymac explained the reason for the similarity, and he and another contributor (not involved in the dispute) proposed moving the content.
Moved from WT:V edit
Moved from WT:V
- "The following is a hypothetical" - if so, it bears a remarkable resemblance, in parts, to the debate over your poorly-sourced additions to microformat. Though there is no attempt to prevent criticism of microformats, only to ensure that any such criticism is properly sourced. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- No one accused you of anything here, Andy, I deliberately left out any reference to microformat because I was seeking an independent review of the hypothetical ... *not* a review of Microformats. Quite frankly, I consider this issue to be much bigger than Microformats, because it touches on the notion of "peer review" as it occurs blogs and wikis. This is an increasingly occurring trend in some segments of academia, industry and Open Source, and I felt the issue needed more attention.
- Yes, the hypothetical is "similar" because I didn't want to spend an extra three hours devising a hypothetical out of thin air on some completely unrelated facts that may or may not have made sense to begin with. If you had checked my edit history, you would have noticed I routinely participate in discussions on WP policy that have nothing to do with my article edits. I've even commented on the value of keeping the two separate. "People should generally be reluctant to modify policy, even (or perhaps especially) if it favors their viewpoint in a recent or pending dispute." (A remark I made on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view).
- By coming here and casting aspersions, you're shooting yourself in the foot, because I'm *actually* trying to make the point that sometimes "peer review" as it occurs on wikis and blogs may be considered acceptable. That is precisely the model that is being used with "microformat specifications and draft specifications". The vast majority of references for those articles point to a wiki site, and I don't even necessarily think that's a bad thing, but now you've derailed the "hypothetical" conversation by introducing specific facts that I would rather have left out entirely.
- My goal was simply a request for viewpoints of WP policy based on a potentially important general issue ... hopefully that's your goal too, otherwise your remarks here are beyond the scope of this talk page. Thanks for your consideration. dr.ef.tymac 15:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain which "aspersions" you feel I cast.Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to address any off-topic discussion points on a user talk page. If you feel you didn't cast any aspersions to begin with, I'm more than happy to assume good faith and chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding.
- Reasonable people can (and often do) interpret things differently, especially when they lack the added benefit of face-to-face communication. All is well as long as people are willing to discuss and clarify their viewpoints with integrity and mutual respect. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since you two (and now me) are the only ones to respond since the addition of the microfiche revelation, may I suggest that this part of the discussion be excised to a talk page somewhere, with a link for the sake of openness, and this discussion can stick to the hypothetical and thus avoid treading on any toes. SamBC(talk) 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've no objection whatsoever, SamBC, in fact, I've also no objection to elimination of the entire thread, I won't consider my toes stepped on, since I'd rather see the "signal to noise" ratio of this talk page kept as high as possible. I don't know how Andy feels, but as far as I'm concerned I will defer to your judgment on how best to proceed. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)