Wikipedia talk:Discussion Camp

Inspiration drawn from...

The Argument Sketch ?--Tony Sidaway 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea

I love the idea of a debate camp, in particular having debaters switch sides. Thanks for the notice on my talk page, I'm busy right now, but do hope to participate, as I know I could stand to learn a bit about civility on Wikipedia, and I think just learning how to present my ideas better would be a good first step towards avoiding conflicts. I think Wikipedians agree with each other more often than they realize. KP Botany 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Stuff

Call it "Discussion Camp"

I think the first topic for debate should be

Should we be debating things at all?

Discussion is what is needed on wikipedia. We should present facts, not perpetuate outside debates. This is not a democracy, thank goodness. I expect this fact will produce an emotional response in some editors. ;-) Cygnis insignis 10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm all for calling it "Discussion Camp". In fact, I stole the name "Debate Camp" from an episode of "The West Wing". You're right, "Discussion" is what we are trying to promote here. Thanks.

Michael David 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in essence, a great idea. Anything that promotes civil discussion. Cygnis insignis 12:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it per Michael David's request to do so on my talk page. WAS 4.250 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this Section "Project Stuff"

Hi, WAS. I thought I would rename this Section "Project Stuff" as a place where we could communicate about planning and constructing the project. OK with you?

I have sent private emails to a few persons asking if they would be interested in participating as Coaches. After a couple of days I thought I would post an announcement about the Project on the various Wikimedia Mailing Lists. Any thoughts? Michael David 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I already posted at WP:AN. When you are ready, posting at one or more Community Portal pages might be useful. We just have to be careful not to cross the line into spamming. A slow trickle of mentions and links works better than an everywhere at once approach. Also you might see if editors at the Wikipedia Signpost want to write something up about it. I suggest a demonstration event with known names (eg Jimbo) holding a discussion. WAS 4.250 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good input, WAS. You know a lot more about the ins & outs of the mechanics of Wikimedia than I do, It's great to be working with you. Of the things you mentioned, the one I know least about is the Wikipedia Signpost. - Michael David 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost WAS 4.250 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-ness

Thanks for the link, WAS. I've been thinking about the fact that everything that is written, discussed, etc. in the discussion sandbox sections is going to be archived for all times. Any way around that? Is it possible to have sections of the project not be archived? - Michael David 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Deletion from the database is a big deal and not really on the table; except for deletion of specific edits that reveal personal details or constitute a crime like libel. But deletion from non-admins ability to view is done all the time based on whatever makes sense. If everyone who participates in a discussion agrees it should be deleted (this is not "oversighted" which means deleted from the database) then deletion is not a big deal. Deletion is done by an admin. Un-deletions are also done by admins. Basically it's all a matter of everyone agreeing. (Consensus.) But why delete? The point of Wikipedia is to add knowledge for all mankind forever. How does deleting these pages add to the sum of human knowledge? Deleting goes against the spirit of a Wiki. Maybe deletion of discussions should be an option if all the participants agree and no admin disagrees. Perhaps better tho: if the participants don't want their discussion to benefit all mankind forever (some researchers think the Wikipedia GFDLed talk pages are an immense resource); then maybe they shouldn't use facilities supplied by the Wikimedia foundation? Harsh? Perhaps our record of deleting embarrassing article deletion discussions (people don't like their number one google hit being "Samatha Klein is not notable") but mostly keeping article deletion discussions is an appropriate model. (Called "courtesy deletes".) I recommend making it standard to not delete; using some other site if deletion is anticipated from the start; and using courtesy deletes whenever appropriate. WAS 4.250 04:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, my main concern here is that each person involved in the discussions is, as a part of the exercise, going to be arguing both sides of of the topic. I didn't want their opinions to be archived, and perhaps used against them, out of context, in the future.

Also, in response to a comment you made earlier, how could an announcement on Wikimedia Mailing Lists about a Wikipedia Project be considered "spamming"? - Michael David 11:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seems to me that arguing both sides, while appropriate for debate, is not appropriate for discussion, unless the editor can truly support both sides. Although I often find myself saying "I can argue both sides of that", and in the ensuing discussion I clarify my thinking, to me this is different from intentionally picking a side in a debate. I think changing this from Debate Camp to Discussion Camp, while a good move overall, will necessarily change the rules of engagement.--Curtis Clark 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, I'm not sure it changes the "rules" that much. This is, after all, intended to be an excercise in the techinques of discussion. And, while a formal debate does have its set rules, and a discussion is less formal, I believe many of the same techinques can apply. - Michael David 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks and self protection measures

People are allowed to create socks (sock-puppets, aliases) for non-abusive purposes. For example, I could create User:Discussion_account_for_talk_point WAS 4.250 and User:Discussion_account_against_talk_point WAS 4.250 or even User:Discussion_account_only_anon_0001 depending on the degree of protecting myself I thought I needed with regard to "opinions to be archived, and perhaps used against them, out of context". WAS 4.250 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of discussion v. debate

In any one discussion arguing both sides is not a generally useful technique; but here, these will be two separate pretend-discussions; not a single pretend-discussion. The single discussion will be a meta real discussion about the pretend discussions. WAS 4.250 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Quantity defines spamming. ("Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, and eggs.") Post once somewhere, it can not be spamming. Post a thousand places, it is spamming regardless of content. Where the line is between one and 1000 depends on the target audience. For this crowd, that line tends to vary between 5 and 20 or so. Oh, and I was referring to posting on this wiki at a few of its pages at the portal I mentioned, not the mailing lists. WAS 4.250 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any problem with posting the Project announcement on the Mailing Lists? - Michael David 21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever. WAS 4.250 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROJECT ON HOLD

Hi WAS. I would like to put the Discussion Camp Project ON HOLD for a while. I am putting together a group to study, and present to, problems with the Wikipedia Project's Culture as a whole. Once we accomplish this, the Camp can serve as an effective tool to deal with the communication problems. - Michael David 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]