User talk:Xiong/The Wiki Way

Status

I assert the primacy of The Wiki Way. — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:02, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

Strange edits

Three editors have touched this page -- yet it is tagged as "one editor's opinion." I suggest this is untenable. Either it is my opinion alone, or it is now the product of all four of us together. If the former, then these edits are underhanded; if the latter, then the tag is false. Which is it? I require each editor to state his position on this point.

More substantially, who disagrees with The Wiki Way? I assert that this is the very cornerstone of all our policies at Wikipedia -- Community and Project. I did not create The Wiki Way, nor do I agree that it is best. But this is the defining characteristic of what we do and how we do it. I bow to Community consensus.

If any editor who touches this page to deprecate it, attack it, or attempt to reduce its importance will advance a competing view, then I will be forced to admit that there is at least one dissenting voice. Perhaps I am wrong, and The Wiki Way is patent nonsense, and Wikipedia really is a democracy, or something else -- who can say?

But if nobody dares to contest The Wiki Way directly, then I maintain it is no personal essay at all, but only a carefully-written exposition of the core principle of this Community and Project. Therefore, I shall, without further notice, revert all changes which dare sneakily to undermine this cornerstone. Repeated attempts to destroy it will be considered vandalism, and page protection sought.

On the offchance that some Bold editor does establish a credible position in opposition to The Wiki Way, I defer reversion for a period of one week.

Please note that I do not consider this "mine" in any way -- other than that it belongs to me, as well as to the Community at large, as our common heritage. My words are not privileged and, like all else here, are subject to improvement. — Xiong 熊 talk * 14:44, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Toothpaste's reply

CesarB's reply

None of us changed a single word of the text. You cannot require anyone to do anything. And the foundation of all of Wikipedia's policies is the Foundation issues, not this. --cesarb 20:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You touch the page, you're in the stew. You say I cannot require a reply; but I have already done so. If you cannot substantiate your attack, I shall ignore it.

The words you cite read, in part The "wiki process" as the final authority on content. Process, way, you want to fight over that? Is that the substance of your argument?

Like most people, of course, you're confusing a principle with its statement. This Community is defined by this principle.

Demonstrate exactly where you feel that The Wiki Way is not an exact, comprehensive statement of our core principle -- the foundation of all we do here. Express your disagreement. Better yet, if you feel the current wording is incorrect, fix it.

There can be no meaningful debate over our cornerstone principle; either you're in, or you're out. Please, go ahead, and declare yourself openly. — Xiong 熊 talk * 11:00, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Redwolf24's reply

Nandesuka's reply

Without expressing any opinion on the contents of the essay in question, I will again express my concern for you. You continue to evince this misapprehension that a failure of others to state an opinion on some piece of writing is the same thing as agreement or support for that piece of writing. That is false.

"Consensus" is not created according to whims and dictates. Neither you (nor I, nor anyone else) can create a consensus by diktat. That much is obvious. But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't even get to define the rules of how consensus is formed. Editors are free to express support of a given policy proposal, opposition, or no opinion at all. You may choose to pretend that by failing to express an opinion that editors have supported your policy proposals, but that does not make it so. Nandesuka 11:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't dare to attack our cornerstone principle -- or this statement of it -- directly, then why do you comment here? There is an ongoing discusssion about the importance of good-faith discussion and rationality itself; I have commented on the Pump.

You do slyly attempt to discredit The Wiki Way by slapping labels on it of "essay" and "proposal". But that is just nonsense. The only possible attack is not on our cornerstone principle of consensus as our road to policy formation, but on the text of this statement of it. And, this being a wiki, if you think the text needs to be changed, Be Bold.

Since the rest of your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I've copied it to the place where the discussion is, and replied there. — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:17, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Your characterization of my comment as an "attempt to discredit" is hamfisted and inaccurate. Your desire to manufacture consent by fiat is, still, antithetical to the nature of collaboration. I hope you figure this out soon.

On another note, I should observe that your moving my text from one section to another of this page is exactly the same sort of ex-libris edit that Redwolf and cesarb made. There is no distinction between what they did to the main page, and what you did to my text. Therefore, if I were Xiong, I would now be making the argument that in making a mechanical change to the page my text is on, you have by implication adopted my position wholesale, since you did not boldly change the body of my text. So thanks for saying that you agree with me, I guess! (And if you don't like that claim, then now you understand why others view your attitude in this matter to be high-handed.) Nandesuka 01:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your new comment has nothing at all to do with the topic of this page. Why do you persist in commenting on a tangential subject here? If this Project has any structure at all, it is that each page has a subject, indicated by its title; and each page has an associated Talk page. We discuss, on that Talk page, the subject of the primary page. More general discussion goes on in the Pump.

If you're not willing to conform to this basic organizational principle, then I think I'll have to abandon you to your own wits. Or will you next comment on this topic on Talk:Saudi Arabia?

Apparently, you have nothing to say about this topic here. I don't take that as support, fear not. And whenever you decide to challenge The Wiki Way, I stand ready to defend it. — Xiong 熊 talk * 05:25, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

While dissecting your comment in the appropriate place, I thought I saw -- maybe -- just the tiniest shred of an actual challenge to The Wiki Way. Perhaps I was too hasty in dismissing your comment as totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

But since I am a hamfisted, inaccurate, nearsighted buffoon, I beg you to clarify your position -- to shine some light into the pestilential sump that is my ignorance.

Do you, or do you not, oppose The Wiki Way?

If so, do you oppose the cornerstone principle itself -- or merely the written statement of it shown on the front side of this page?

If the latter, then please tell what fault you find with it and how you would improve it. If you find yourself unable to answer, then I hope you will honor my request that we be permitted to continue our business here.

I hope the time has not come when our openness means we must tolerate anyone here, doing exactly as they please, with any attitude whatever to the principles which define our Community, our Project, and our Service to Humanity. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:20, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

I have moved my "reply" section back where it belongs, in reply to the extremely odd assertion you make above, "But if nobody dares to contest The Wiki Way directly, then I maintain it is no personal essay at all, but only a carefully-written exposition of the core principle of this Community and Project." As I've indicated above, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Perhaps you might choose a different premise. Allow me to suggest that you say: "If someone plays the guitar in Kansas City, then I maintain that The Wiki Way is no personal essay at all, but only a carefully-written exposition of the core principle of this Community and Project." Or perhaps, better yet: "If no one eats strawberry yogurt in public today, then I maintain that The Wiki Way is no personal essat at all, but only a carefully-written exposition of the core principle of this Community and Project."

Both of those sentences follow exactly as much as your first statement, which is to say: not at all.

I think that it is perfectly clear why I think that this talk page is a perfectly apposite place to discuss the process of what happens to your proposed policy, even without expressing any opinion whatsoever on whether it is right or wrong. If you don't see why, then I suggest to you that the solution is not to move my text around and make snarky comments, but to read harder. Kindest regards, Nandesuka 06:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

I personally feel this should be moved to User:Xiong/The Wiki Way (or something to that effect). --IByte 15:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally feel that Jimbo should be moved to Jersey City and we should take all the money we just raised in the last drive and buy ice cream. But that has very little to do with our core principle. — Xiong 熊 talk * 10:43, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

This is an opinion essay. The Wikipedia:Project namespace is not for opinion essays. Xiong, please move this to User:Xiong/The Wiki Way or wherever you would like it. Thank you! --FOo 18:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are absolutely correct, Fubar Obfusco. But you see, I am a very stupid and unperceptive man. So please, for the benefit of this ignorant blockhead, will you be so kind as to show me one or more points at which this statement differs from your view of Wikipedia's core principle of policy formation by consensus? Thank you; I really appreciate any kind of enlightenment, however unsuited I may be to receive it. — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]