This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alansohn (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 18 June 2007 (changes are less than ideal, but could be an option). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:53, 18 June 2007 by Alansohn (talk | contribs) (changes are less than ideal, but could be an option)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
This page was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Australia: Western Australia Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Schools Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Buy a guide to wikifauna and stamp this humor
Your wikifauna references make little to no sense. The Ogre one--why is it the Aquinascruft editor who releases the Ogre?
And, while some of this may have intended to be helpful--this should be stamped as a humor page. If the final project is so veiled in coded language that it takes a reader going over sentences more than once, clicking on mulitple links etc--then whatever point you were trying to make is lost and this fails as a definition page. So you aren't trying to be a policy, guideline, essay or anything else--just a definition for a new word--well then manage the last one. If you want to put being funny first, then stamp this humor and forget its purpose. Miss Mondegreen talk 14:41, May 31 2007 (UTC)
- wikifauna are now removed. Gnangarra 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, you completely missed my point and this is actually less understandable now.
"Occasionally the sprawling vines within the garden jump the containment walls of mainspace, venturing into template creation, categories and even portals. Sometimes said categories are applied to articles which are only by the most tenuous and circuitous of logical reasonings connected to the school - even Featured Pictures aren't spared."
- Featured Pictures aren't spared what? You removed the part about mass deletion, which is important, the overeacting to schoolcruft is just as bad as the schoolcruft itself, and I have no idea why you have an intro section explaining what the page used to be. That and a tag for an essay and a definition tag?
- I'd edit the page to make it better, except that while I have an idea of what problems etc you're attempting to address, I don't know what you're attempting to say line by line, and I have no desire to rewrite this based on what I think you're trying to do.
- In addition, the tone is incredibly condescending--"have no education or understanding in the ways of the wiki"?? What happened to WP:BITE?? You're biting in a "definition" which, btw, everyone should know about. Are you kidding? If you're attempting to address a real problem, that's good. But decide now if this is a humor page or a more content oriented page. I'm not saying that they don't overlap, but you need to choose a purpose and at points, you're really in the middle.
- The page is snarky and rude and condescending and it's not only to your detriment in terms of the overall tone, it's to your detriment content wise as well. When you state or refer to things in an off-hand manner "even featured articles", "Sometimes said categories are applied..." or use coded language, "sprawling vines within the garden jump the containment walls of mainspace" people have no idea what you're talking about. The entire tone, though it's supposedly supposed to be teaching, assumes that everyone who reads the page knows in intricate detail all of the schoolcruft problems that exist. I know most of them and I still don't know what the heck you're talking about. I know overall, but you lose me on far too many individual lines.
- Lose the tone, lose the attitude--don't try to tell people what they should know, especially when the page can't be understood. Just try and explain the problem, as factually as possible and as clearly as possible. Lay things out step by step, leave out unimportant information (aquinascruft) and try to define within the page all words that the average editor wouldn't know. There might be some which you're dependant on wiki-linking for but keep it simple. Assume that the person reading the page is a wiki-newbie or has no experience with school articles and just explain--but without all of the tone that exists now. Miss Mondegreen talk 13:13, June 9 2007 (UTC)
- Re featured pictures (I own up to writing that particular part) - it was saying that the categories for the schools are applied to articles which have nothing to do with the school, and that even featured pictures (which have nothing to do with the school) are not spared (from having such categories added to them). If you feel this is unclear, I'm open to suggestions for wording changes. As for the no education/understanding (which someone else wrote), I don't think it's any secret you have to be here a while to know how the place works, same as any community really. I don't see the page overall as condescending or rude, although any suggestions to make it perceptibly less so are welcomed. Orderinchaos 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not an agreed definition
Please do not say that "this is a definition that all users should know about". It is not. TerriersFan 04:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a novel and earth shattering thought, why don't you help build consensus then instead of making mindless unhelpful edits if you so strongly feel that it's not an agreed definition? Everyone else even the current MfD participants and the project putting it forward agree, so either contribute to the discussion to build consensus, or find something more useful to do. Thewinchester 05:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a novel and earth shattering thought? Wow, that's harsh. That's also the kind of attitude that's really persistent on the project page. I'd suggest that you find a new a kinder one. "build consensus then"? You mean on the Mfd? So editors who disagree with you or think that the page needs work should go talk about it elsewhere and let you WP:OWN the page? "this is a definition that all users should know about" is problematic. An essay can be used to define something, and really, if you only want to define the term, you should go elsewhere. An essay on Schoolcruft would cover a much broader topic and it's something that's really needed. The definition is sorta obvious...cruft in school related articles. Points on how to spot it, types of things that happen, behaviors associated with it, backlash from more experienced editors--that sort of information belongs in an essay, not a definition. No one is going to miss that you're defining a term if there's an essay tag at the top of the page, and this page's voice will only be as authoritative as it sounds. A cute definition tag doesn't make the difference. And quite frankly, two tags makes this page look confused. Miss Mondegreen talk 13:36, June 9 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the unagreed comment, per Miss Mondegreen, and it should remain out pending an agreement here. TerriersFan 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um, doesn't it all work the other way around in the land of consensus? there needs to be consensus to take something out which was originally there... or am I just doing my usual round of bear poking with another administrator who exists on an entirely different level to the rest of us? If you want to apply this logic here, go do it at WP:VSCA and any other essay which is using the exact same box, just don't pick on one single item which seems to be a common trait of the administrators I encounter. Thewinchester 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unless I am missing something (not an uncommon occurrence) the tag to which objection has been raised doesn't appear on Misplaced Pages:Vanispamcruftisement. On reflection, I think that Miss Mondegreen was right that two tags confuse matters so I have removed the whole tag. TerriersFan 17:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? That's not how consensus works. Something that "was originally there" needs to get talk page consensus to be removed? No. The only page types that get talk page consensus before changes are policies and guidelines. If you're making a major change to an article, or bringing up something again that had previously been shot down, it's a good idea to propose on the talk page, but you can be bold. It depends on the situation. I'd suggest that you read WP:OWN because you're doing some serious owning here. Also in this case, you reverted me and said that it was "needed information" but you haven't responded to my comment above or explained how it's needed. Miss Mondegreen talk 20:34, June 9 2007 (UTC)
- Um, doesn't it all work the other way around in the land of consensus? there needs to be consensus to take something out which was originally there... or am I just doing my usual round of bear poking with another administrator who exists on an entirely different level to the rest of us? If you want to apply this logic here, go do it at WP:VSCA and any other essay which is using the exact same box, just don't pick on one single item which seems to be a common trait of the administrators I encounter. Thewinchester 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the unagreed comment, per Miss Mondegreen, and it should remain out pending an agreement here. TerriersFan 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a novel and earth shattering thought? Wow, that's harsh. That's also the kind of attitude that's really persistent on the project page. I'd suggest that you find a new a kinder one. "build consensus then"? You mean on the Mfd? So editors who disagree with you or think that the page needs work should go talk about it elsewhere and let you WP:OWN the page? "this is a definition that all users should know about" is problematic. An essay can be used to define something, and really, if you only want to define the term, you should go elsewhere. An essay on Schoolcruft would cover a much broader topic and it's something that's really needed. The definition is sorta obvious...cruft in school related articles. Points on how to spot it, types of things that happen, behaviors associated with it, backlash from more experienced editors--that sort of information belongs in an essay, not a definition. No one is going to miss that you're defining a term if there's an essay tag at the top of the page, and this page's voice will only be as authoritative as it sounds. A cute definition tag doesn't make the difference. And quite frankly, two tags makes this page look confused. Miss Mondegreen talk 13:36, June 9 2007 (UTC)
rotating IPs of schools
You might want to mention that school editors often edit from school IP addresses which are often dynamic. If they are malicious, this is a real problem and even if they aren't, it's difficult too because contacting them through IP address talk pages doesn't work at all.
If they don't know much about Misplaced Pages, and don't know to do to the talk pages or about edit histories etc, this can be a real problem. Miss Mondegreen talk 13:42, June 9 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, will evaluate and come up with some appropriate language shortly. Thewinchester 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Way forward with this essay
This essay is long on describing the problem but short on solutions. Lisiting policy documents is not particularly helpful. What I should prefer is:
- Reference to some good school articles as examples
- A template to guide authors to a correct structure
On dealing with poor articles the way forward should be:
- Remove the objectionable material then stub the article.
- If the school is notable then the article should be improved (best) or tagged for improvement
- If the school is not notable then primary (elementary) schools should be put up for deletion but middle/high schools should be merged (if there is mergable content) into the achool district or locality and redirected. TerriersFan 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think there may be a mixup here between articles and behaviour/tendency. This essay addresses the latter - the former is a matter for policies and guidelines as is any other Misplaced Pages article and indeed it would probably be inappropriate for an essay to address grounds better covered by existing policies and guidelines. The need for this essay arose because of 30+ XfDs across every area (MfD, CfD, TfD, AfD, RfD), several hundred speedies, GAC and FAC nominations (all of which failed), countless hours of coaching, fixing and such things by almost every admin and active user in the local Wikiproject, and several blocks. These issues are far bigger than a school's article and extend to an entire concept that really isn't defined elsewhere - basically, well-meaning editors (i.e. we're not talking vandals here, or bad faith editors) who are so blinded by pride in their educational institution that they are incapable of seeing that their actions don't assist in building and developing an encyclopaedia based on inclusion criteria. They don't just work on one article - they can literally create hundreds in a matter of days or even hours. Then templates magically start appearing, and categories. Over time we have found that some do eventually come around or grow out of it and become productive Wikipedians, however, that takes a long time and a lot of patience for a mixture of people of various temperaments to achieve. We're all volunteers, we all have limited time, so hours taken out sorting out these mini-crises every couple of weeks eats into the time we can spend productively developing articles of our own towards FA/GA or collaboration within the Wikiproject or indeed with others elsewhere (I'm presently involved with no less than 8 public projects and 4 private ones, and I think many people here are similarly committed). As for the last suggestion, the Australian consensus has leaned towards (although not ruled) a view that large high schools (public or private) or the institutional high schools are notable on their own while primary schools and small private schools are not. Orderinchaos 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some helpful thoughts, thank you. On this basis I have removed two sentences from the article that purport to guide how to deal with such articles. The first sentence encourages misuse of speedy tags and the second recommends deletion when, as indicated above, there are several better options. TerriersFan 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- On reflection, that change makes a lot of sense. Essentially this whole thing should ultimately be 1. How did this come about? 2. What is the problem, and its identifying features (starting with the most humorous and ridiculous, as I think getting people to see the error of their own ways by laughing at obviously ridiculous/out-there examples moreso than their own at first can actually be helpful - speaking as a trainee teacher here) 3. What can admins do if confronted by such a situation, and 4. How can we educate or help these users to see the way forward into a new paradigm of editing harmony? I think somewhere we might need to more carefully note that it is a certain class of school aged editors - I have seen school aged editors who exhibit a maturity that is rare to see even in adults, and others who may not but are still capable of editing encyclopaedically. I think we're starting from a good base with what we have, but there is *always* scope for improvement of a community resource. Orderinchaos 05:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some helpful thoughts, thank you. On this basis I have removed two sentences from the article that purport to guide how to deal with such articles. The first sentence encourages misuse of speedy tags and the second recommends deletion when, as indicated above, there are several better options. TerriersFan 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with Schoolcruft
While the article in general is in rather poor taste and an overall violation of our obligation to assume good faith, the statement that "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." is patently uncivil, in poor taste and derogatory. The fact that there are individuals who believe that material is useful and encyclopedic does not grant anyone the authority to specify AN/I as "the only appropriate path" to deal with a supposed "problem". No one has ever provided evidence that the material sneeringly derided as "Schoolcruft" has been added by those who are deliberately creating a "problem". These tend to be content disputes between individuals who believe the information about their school is useful and others who have decided that it's not. The suggestion that the AN/I process is the "only appropriate path" — even with the weasel word of "sometimes" — is a demonstration that this is entire article is far worse than a mere bad joke. The sentence has been modified to remove the offensive portion. Alansohn 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, since you disagree in toto with the sentiments expressed in this essay, I hardly think you should be editing it. Why don't you simply pen a response on your user page to this essay instead of your usual prolix grandstanding, berating those who disagree with you. Stop vandalising the page. Eusebeus 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see many people who disagree with the existence of school articles in toto, who nevertheless have no qualms about voting to delete each and every one of these articles and will never lift a finger to improve them. Unlike others who persistently refuse to accept consensus, I accept that this article may still be around for some time. Some of the damage can be addressed by removing the most offensive portions, and the deleted text is a step in the right direction. The claim that this is vandalism is false and knowingly malicious. If the statement cannot be supported and justified -- and no one has bothered to do so -- it will be removed, again. There is no consensus whatsoever that this statement is other than a WP:NPOV-violating rant in explicit contradiction of the most basic tenets of WP:CIVIL Alansohn 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- There's that prolix grandstanding. Anyway, for the record, I disagree and think the text should stay as is. Eusebeus 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see many people who disagree with the existence of school articles in toto, who nevertheless have no qualms about voting to delete each and every one of these articles and will never lift a finger to improve them. Unlike others who persistently refuse to accept consensus, I accept that this article may still be around for some time. Some of the damage can be addressed by removing the most offensive portions, and the deleted text is a step in the right direction. The claim that this is vandalism is false and knowingly malicious. If the statement cannot be supported and justified -- and no one has bothered to do so -- it will be removed, again. There is no consensus whatsoever that this statement is other than a WP:NPOV-violating rant in explicit contradiction of the most basic tenets of WP:CIVIL Alansohn 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- BTW I don't disagree the section can be worded better. However, revert wars usually incite stagnation rather than change as editors are forced into a battle between two inferior versions. It's a matter of finding a wording that better reflects what the author of the words originally meant, which doesn't assume that readers know anything about the situation which spawned the essay to begin with. The wording as it is, while not the best, captures the subtleties of the situation and behaviour and is comprehensible to many, so altering it by wholesale removal of one section may actually lead to an incorrect conclusion and ironically, from the removing editor's standpoint, an assumption of bad faith against about two-thirds of the editors whose edits fall under the essay's general ambit.
- Having not seen the articles and debates in question, I can understand how Alan may have come to this conclusion, however there was no real "content disputes" at all in any more than a couple of the more than 30 AfD/CfD/RfD/TfD/MfDs - they were all straightforward and came down to clear policy issues, and several were completely unanimous (including the votes of several school editors). No issue of whether school articles should or should not exist - that is decided by WP:N and its conditions allow many to do so without impedance of any kind, which I actually agree with. The use of the word "sometimes" was not a weasel word, but can be boiled down to this - sometimes, editors behave as they should; sometimes, editors add content they shouldn't but broadly speaking still behave and may or may not end up contributing helpfully to a range of areas, while other editors go into, as the essay comments, "a self induced death spiral" and between 4 days and a month later after much WP:POINTing and disruption, or other clear offences against the community, end up with them blocked for a reasonably long period. The record I've seen personally is 11 hours. Orderinchaos 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Given that no sources are provided to support the claim that AN/I is the only solution, no contrary opinion could be drawn. Even if there were instances where AN/I might have been justified, there is no evidence that it "is the only appropriate path" and an inevitable result of editors adding such material deemed to be "Schoolcruft" to articles. The wording is inherently in violation of WP:NPOV and makes the utterly bad faith assumption that anyone who adds material that offends a small band of Misplaced Pages editors means that these individuals must be submitted for appropriate discipline. I have made an attempt to remove this WP:CIVIL violation. You acknowledge that you "don't disagree that the section can be worded better". It's time to undo this inappropriate status and acknowledge that there might be possible good faith reasons to add this material. Alansohn 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Having not seen the articles and debates in question, I can understand how Alan may have come to this conclusion, however there was no real "content disputes" at all in any more than a couple of the more than 30 AfD/CfD/RfD/TfD/MfDs - they were all straightforward and came down to clear policy issues, and several were completely unanimous (including the votes of several school editors). No issue of whether school articles should or should not exist - that is decided by WP:N and its conditions allow many to do so without impedance of any kind, which I actually agree with. The use of the word "sometimes" was not a weasel word, but can be boiled down to this - sometimes, editors behave as they should; sometimes, editors add content they shouldn't but broadly speaking still behave and may or may not end up contributing helpfully to a range of areas, while other editors go into, as the essay comments, "a self induced death spiral" and between 4 days and a month later after much WP:POINTing and disruption, or other clear offences against the community, end up with them blocked for a reasonably long period. The record I've seen personally is 11 hours. Orderinchaos 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Alan, I think you will find that an essay (essay, note) tends to espouse a point of view. This is not an article. Stop frothing. Eusebeus 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Essay, or not, this article violates WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Can you point to the exception that grants permission to violate Misplaced Pages rules as long as the article is cloaked as an "essay"? Alansohn 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Compromise offer
The purpose of an 'essay' is to try to persuade other people to a point of view, or course of action; otherwise one wouldn't be written! There is a problem with this paragraph (and I hope that I am saying this without either grandstanding or frothing :-)) in that it does point editors to AN/I in inappropriate circumstances where, for example, no admin would be prepared to block (for instance, we do not block for bad editing). This wastes the time of all involved. I therefore suggest this compromise reworking of the paragraph that meets the core of Alansohn's objections while still conveying IMHO what the authors are trying to communicate: "However, articles created by anonymous IP editors are always the most difficult to deal with. When it has been clearly demonstrated that they have not heeded the call, or fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing, and the Schoolcruft crosses the line into vandalism then action through AN/I should be considered." TerriersFan 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I still fail to see the blanket exemption granted to an essay to violate basic Misplaced Pages policy on civility, even if there might be some wiggle room on blatant WP:NPOV violations. Furthermore, there seems to be an implied WP:OWN issue that is blocking good faith efforts to address these WP:CIVIL violations, when there is no consensus whatsoever that this wording is justified under any circumstances. While less than ideal, the changes proposed indicate that there must be significant complicating factors to justify pursuit of an AN/I in such circumstances. As currently worded, the death spiral by those opposing "Schoolcruft" to open an incident for someone with what is at worst a content dispute would be almost automatic. Alansohn 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)