User talk:Cyan/Unencyclopedic

Although it's certainly not either of the accepted definitions for "encyclopedic", your decision to follow Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty in choosing to use words how you want them to mean, rather than so as to achieve mutual comprehension with others, is admirable.

However, the problem with using that definition as a justification for deletion is that it's not an accepted justification for deletion. --The Cunctator 03:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm curious, what are the accepted definitions of "unencyclopedic"? How would you suggest I succinctly describe these concepts in a comprehensible fashion? Who doesn't accept these reasons? Who does? -- Cyan 04:14, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From a dictionary, which is an excellent source of finding accepted definitions of words:

encyclopedic

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of an encyclopedia.
2. Embracing many subjects; comprehensive: “an ignorance almost as encyclopedic as his erudition”

As far as I can see,the core of your definition is

Differing from my expectations for this project, especially for seriousness.

I don't exactly know what those expectations are--nor can anyone else. It's certainly to be expected that much of what falls under the accepted reasons for deletion, such as incomprehensible garbage ("asfgjn432-00wef0g4-0gfferign") or statements of opinion lacking any context ("I am the greatest! w00t!") fail those expectations.

But your definition is of limited utility to others, because we can't see your thoughts. When you say "This should not be included because it is unencyclopedic", essentially what you are saying is "It is my judgment that this should not be included." Wikipedia is designed such that binding decisions cannot be so justified except by Jimbo.

Furthermore, discussing particular entries by such a broad and all-encompassing proposition as the expectations for the project at large is also of limited utility. There is essentially no case in which you and everyone else would not be better served by simply stating the specific reason which motivates you to say that something is "unencyclopedic".

In short, for someone to accept your proposition "X is unencyclopedic", they must accept all of your goals for the project, since you give no explanation of which goals X is failing.

If someone asked you "I don't know what Wikipedia is. What is the goal of Wikipedia?" what would be your reply? --The Cunctator 04:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, one added note. You wrote: " I have observed that during conflicts it is quite common for one party, or more often both, to wrap themselves in the "Wikipedia flag", as if a personal attack on one user were somehow an attack on the entire community. A related maneuver is to declare that the future of Wikipedia is at stake. These "escalation tactics" are rather tired ploys. Insulting another user is... poor, but it isn't an general attack; only wholesale vandalism qualifies. And the project's future, in the broadest sense, isn't decided during the slinging of insults; it's decided on the policy pages."

Is that not entirely unlike what you're doing when you say something is "unencylopedic", that all of Wikipedia will suffer because this particular entry lacks what you consider "seriousness"?

--The Cunctator

I appreciate your attempt to educate me; however, I have already learned how to find definitions on the internet [1]. I was more interested in how you would find such definitions. (Although I did not intend it this way, the question turned out to be pretty revealing of your communication style. For a person who keeps an extensive record of nasty things people have said about you, it seems to me you feel very free to express condescension, sarcasm, and contempt. Fortunately I have a pretty high threshold of tolerance.)

Now, my intended purpose for the page where I define my use of "unencyclopedic" was that I would wikilink the word when I use it elsewhere, so that people could see what I meant. The idea was that people could click the link for the more verbose usage. (I was a lot more active on VfD then.) So your assertion that it would insufficiently clear just to use the phrase on its own, while perfectly correct, does not actually criticize my intended use, which I failed to tell you.

This was my idea for getting around the problem of being succinct and to the point. (Hypertext is a wonderful thing.) The thrust of my second question was to see if you could help me find a better way...

I should also point out that the definition isn't so much about my goals for the project as it is about my extrapolation of a relatively new reader's expectations for an online encyclopedia.

Now, you've asserted baldly that the definition I gave is not an accepted justification for deletion. It's clear to me that you don't accept it; I wondered what you would say when you considered the opinions of others involved in the project. Unfortunately, since you didn't address those questions, I am still left to wonder.

The point of your postscript is well-taken: that's exactly what I would be doing if I labelled an entry to be "unencyclopedic". However, it would be my considered judgment, and not an escalation tactic during a heated exchange or an edit war.

-- Cyan 20:22, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for being snide; I thought you were being deliberately snarky (and from the comment "I was more interested in how you would find such definitions" that estimation seems to have merit) and rose to the bait. I certainly don't feel any contempt for you or any of the other participants in Wikipedia.

The statement "I should also point out that the definition isn't so much about my goals for the project as it is about my extrapolation of a relatively new reader's expectations for an online encyclopedia." clarifies a lot.

Wikipedia is qualitatively different from traditional encyclopedias. That was probably more obvious when there were only a few thousand entries and one person could pretty much get a handle on everything that was going on and comprehend the explosive growth.

I think that today we're doing a poor job of the acculturation process--of clearly and succinctly making the case of how Wikipedia is sui generis. One of the early mantras of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is Not the Encyclopedia Britannica". Everyone's natural inclination when coming to Wikipedia is to think What Would Britannica Do? But it's the wrong question to ask. The goal of Wikipedia is not to create another EB. The goal is to create something that hasn't been made before.

I strongly believe that the right approach to Wikipedia is to say (with only bit of exaggeration) "Wikipedia is the first true encyclopedia."

To respond to the final statement--I trust that when you label something "unencyclopedic" you're doing that honestly, but I hope that you'd be willing to consider that because you're making such a strong claim without any specific explanation, that people might unfortunately, but reasonably, consider that you're unfairly raising the stakes of the discourse? In other words, when people escalate the stakes, it's pretty hard to tell how much of it is a purely rhetorical tactic and how much of it is a straightforward expression of honest opinion.

The best option in such a situation is to avoid making those kinds of statements, even if it is what you want to say. Rather, limit yourself to a specific description for the individual case.

yours, The Cunctator 23:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, okay, it was simply a communication problem, one I recognized a while ago [2]. I assure you, the statement "I was more interested in how you would find such definitions" was intended to convey only curiosity, without emotional overtones of irritation. I apologize for not communicating more clearly. (Also, when I say "I appreciate your attempt to educate me", I meant exactly that, no sarcasm. I mean, it was possible I'd just overlooked the idea, and then your advice would have been helpful.)

The bristly parenthetical comment on your communication style concerned not just your reply, but the very first paragraph you wrote. Unless you were serious... sometimes sarcasm can be hard to detect in raw text, and sometimes it's easy to see sarcasm where there was none intended. Hmm.

Wikipedia presently has a culture which seems to have moved far from the ideas you've described. There seems to be a dissonance: on one hand, every contributor recognizes that Wikipedia is one of a kind (or the first of its kind, anyway); on the other hand, it does call itself an encyclopedia, heretofore an object which, by necessity, covered only a limited subset of possible topics. So what topics should be covered? Some have proposed a minimal standard of "verifiability", and the more I stay around here, the more I have come to agree with that idea. And yet, I think it's fair to say that people have come to expect certain things from encyclopedias, and if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, something should be done in recognition of the expectations of the general readership.

You're right, the claim is overstrong: practically speaking, any one so-called unencyclopedic article could do only limited damage to Wikipedia's reputation, just as a single cigarette doesn't kill. And I recognize that some, such as Oliver P. and yourself, have seen the term "unencyclopedic" as insubstantial rhetoric rather than a reasoned argument. In fact, after the discussion I alluded to in my post on your talk page, I resolved to try to be more specific about the problems I perceived in articles. (Shortly thereafter, I lost interest in participating in VfD, for reasons that remain obscure to myself.) That was when I had the idea of creating this page to clarify what I meant when I wrote, "Article X is unencyclopedic." But I'm guessing you would find that insufficient...?

-- Cyan 01:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I wish it was just a communication problem. Looking back, I just have to say I was being a big jerk to you. Reading it over, it's obvious that you were be earnest when you asked for the "accepted definitions". I think I was shooting for mildly caustic wit with the Lewis Carroll comparison.

I really should be doing a better job at winning people like you over to my vision of Wikipedia, because it's a positive, exciting, and open one. But I have much too strong a combative and instigative streak.

The concern about having people take Wikipedia seriously has been around from day one. My brief response is that as individuals we don't need to worry about that; just judge contributions on the merits of clarity and quality of information.

In an abstract sense it's a real concern, but in a practical sense the project is so large and dynamic that there will always be stuff to fix. By its very nature it can't be authoritative in the traditional sense. But what it can be is more likely to be useful in a statistical sense than anything else. That is to say, for any given inquiry, there will likely exist some better resource; but as the number of inquiries grows, the likelihood that Wikipedia will glean the greatest amount of useful information will rise.

Does that make any sense?

--The Cunctator 02:14, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I won't say you've won me over, but I have found your arguments convincing - in the abstract. I reserve the privilege of judging articles on my estimation of their effect on the reader with respect to Wikipedia's reputation, because I find the question can be more intricate than a broadly applied general principle can deal with. As a case in point, I note the wrangling over "santorum". The original article, while stubbish, was fine in terms of clarity and quality of information. The problem, in my view, was that in the manner that the information was being present would give a negative impression to some members of our prospective readership. (I am perfectly satisfied with the way the information is being presented now.) In fact, two contributors left Wikipedia, citing concerns over the "homosexual agenda" being pushed here, and I believe that was a reference to this specific article. While I, shall we say, politely disagree with the kind of mindset that produces the phrase "homosexual agenda", neither do I want to alienate such individuals when they are useful, dedicated contributors. In the end, I feel that "santorum" was a success story; nevertheless, the existence of the article did damage Wikipedia, long before you undeleted it. It is due to the possibility of articles like the original "santorum" that I reserve the privilege of judging articles on my estimation of their effect on the reader with respect to Wikipedia's reputation. -- Cyan 02:55, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(Yes, I'm watching this...) It is an interesting conundrum. I gotta admit I have to say the type of people who feel compelled to leave because they think Wikipedia is pushing the "homsexual agenda" won't be terribly missed.

And I don't say that because of their fear of gaydom. I say that because if they can neither work on issues that they consider are being improperly portrayed nor ignore them then Wikipedia is not the right place for them. Wikipedians should avoid false attachment (see discussion of m:WikipediAhimsa below).

There are any number of articles that I upset me because they are either a mess, grossly misleading, or a grossly misleading mess. The global warming pages are a good example. But I either ignore them or contribute to them, make an attempt to keep the changes if someone tries to immediately revert them--and work with that person if possible to figure out a compromise--and then move on.

But mostly I avoid issues I care about and just try to fix stuff that's a mess, mainly these days by breaking apart extremely long articles into constituent pieces.

I believe the healthy approach to Wikipedia is the practice of m:WikipediAhimsa. The principles of Jainist ahimsa are impressively applicable to Wikipedia; the goals of enlightenment are frighteningly similar to the concept of NPOV. From the essay:

The goal of Wikipedia may be recognized in the second vow of Jainism, satya, truth (or the abstension from falsehood).

More specifically, the goal of Wikipedia may be recognized in the dharma of uttama arjava, uttama satya, and uttama akinchana: supreme honesty, supreme truth, and supreme objectivity (or non-attachment, neutrality), and the tenet of anekantavada, that a thing may be considered from many points of view (note the similarities to the idea of NPOV).

--The Cunctator 05:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)