Revision as of 05:55, 22 November 2008 editWadewitz (talk | contribs)50,892 edits →Possible times: technical details← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:16, 23 November 2008 edit undoWadewitz (talk | contribs)50,892 edits →Let's podcast again!: "conversing about controversy"Next edit → | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
===Technical details=== | ===Technical details=== | ||
We will be using , which is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. On Skype, {{ul|Awadewit}} is "Awadewit" and {{ul|Scartol}} is "scartol". You can find us by searching for these names. We will then add you into our chat and our voice channels. | We will be using , which is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. On Skype, {{ul|Awadewit}} is "Awadewit" and {{ul|Scartol}} is "scartol". You can find us by searching for these names. We will then add you into our chat and our voice channels. | ||
===Conversing about controversy=== | |||
We all want this podcast to be productive, so I am proposing a few ways to make the conversation as fruitful as possible: | |||
*Some of the people on the podcast have clashed in the past - it would be best if they avoided reenacting those clashes in real time - we don't need to see controversy in action! | |||
*Most Misplaced Pages editors have never edited a controversial article - we are here to explain to them what that is like, not drag them into the minutiae of the problems we deal with on a daily basis | |||
*Calling out problematic editors by name will only antagonize those people, particularly if they are not on the podcast to respond: we should avoid "naming names" - we should discuss general kinds of behavior, anyway, as that will be clearer to an audience unfamiliar with the specific articles we are working on | |||
*We should continually try to offer solutions to the problems we have faced - no one wants to hear us rant for an hour! | |||
=== Participants === | === Participants === |
Revision as of 02:16, 23 November 2008
Just so no one's confused: It's canvas as in "a place to make art", not canvas as in "try to make a cabal".
Let's podcast again!
As we mentioned on the last podcast, we want to do one on controversial articles. Let's try that next. Awadewit (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Possible times
Please sign up for the times you could attend the call:
- Sunday, 23 November 2008 - 23:00 UTC (6 pm EST) - Scartol, Raul654, Awadewit, TimVickers, NancyHeise, ImperfectlyInformed, Filll
Technical details
We will be using Skype, which is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. On Skype, Awadewit is "Awadewit" and Scartol is "scartol". You can find us by searching for these names. We will then add you into our chat and our voice channels.
Conversing about controversy
We all want this podcast to be productive, so I am proposing a few ways to make the conversation as fruitful as possible:
- Some of the people on the podcast have clashed in the past - it would be best if they avoided reenacting those clashes in real time - we don't need to see controversy in action!
- Most Misplaced Pages editors have never edited a controversial article - we are here to explain to them what that is like, not drag them into the minutiae of the problems we deal with on a daily basis
- Calling out problematic editors by name will only antagonize those people, particularly if they are not on the podcast to respond: we should avoid "naming names" - we should discuss general kinds of behavior, anyway, as that will be clearer to an audience unfamiliar with the specific articles we are working on
- We should continually try to offer solutions to the problems we have faced - no one wants to hear us rant for an hour!
Participants
- I've invited NancyHeise, who has worked on the Roman Catholic Church article. Other ideas: Jossi (cult articles), ScienceApologist (intelligent design), TimVickers (evolution), Filll (alternative medicine and more), Durova (Israeli-Palestinian). Awadewit (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- User:MastCell is very experienced in dealing with problems with our medicine articles, they're somebody I've got a lot of respect for. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've invited User:Vassyana - a member of the mediation committee. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've invited User:Raul654 - a member of ArbCom. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to, but I'm going to be in Austin from November 15-21 (inclusive), which eliminates 5 of the 6 above times. And I've got plans for Sunday (Nov 23) afternoon, which eliminates the 6th. I'd be happy to do it Sunday (Nov) evening EST or later in the week if that works for everyone else. Raul654 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Works for me. I've added a Sunday evening option. (Weekends are really the only times I can do it.) I think it would be really valuable to have Raul on the call (hey that rhymes), and I'de like some downtime after the last call before we chat again, so I'm pushing for that option. Scartol • Tok 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've invited User:Raul654 - a member of ArbCom. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm interested, but the options are really not friendly towards people who live on the West Coast and work full-time. My options are to either get up at 8 AM on Sunday (unlikely) or join the already crowded party that evening. If someone wants to chat on Saturday, or push back one of the weekday discussions to 9 PM, then I'll join. Also, I guess I would need a computer microphone, eh? II | (t - c) 08:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Topics
Please list topics for discussion during the podcast here:
- What makes an article controversial? Edit-warring? Vandalism? Topic is controversial in the real world? Topic becomes controversial on Misplaced Pages due to our policies?
- Where does the editing get bogged down? POV? Sources? Organization? Lead?
- What are some effective solutions? Sandbox? Removing factions? Establishing editing principles? 1 or 0RR? Putting up for deletion? War of attrition? Mediation?
Discussion
The podcast should be about the process of editing controversial articles and ideally focus on solutions. It should not descend into a debate about particular points regarding particular articles. How do we strike a balance between using examples from particular examples without starting the whole long debate, particularly if we have people from "opposing" sides? Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ideas: set the parameters very tightly, including an outline of what will be discussed, and a set of questions: "Why do you edit the articles you do?" "How do you handle Type X of tendentious editing?" "How would you change the way Misplaced Pages works to allow a more efficient encyclopedia that anyone can edit?" If conversation strays off into an area that you don't think will be covered, edit it out. --Moni3 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- When a discussion becomes an argument it is time to find a new approach to the problem! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would first help to identify what problems exist for controversial articles and maybe discover if these articles face the same or different problems. If they are facing the same problems it would be interesting to see how these have been dealt with already and what has worked or not. NancyHeise 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- When a discussion becomes an argument it is time to find a new approach to the problem! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)