[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]

StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About


Referenced by
FutureUseOfSL
MetaDiscussion
WikiOrphans

 

2003-11-20 discussion
    Keywords: SL description

Moved 2003-11-28 from Metadiscussion by Charles

SnotNose: Does the SL community have as a goal the agreement on one definition of each term that is to be used consistently throughout SL? (Reference: UnconditionalLife.) I think it would be preferable to list all usages of a term (as a dictionary does) and acknowledge ambiguity and imprecision. It is hard to understand the utility of long debates on definitions. They're not likely to end; they don't benefit beginners; and those with more experience know enough not to be bothered. My $0.02 anyway.

Charles I'm glad to be able to discuss this in the abstract, though my views are probably known to those following recent discussion threads. I think this point has in practice an impact on the goal I'd see as major: 200% growth of SL from where we are, to a comprehensive coverage of go to 5 dan ama level. Too much talk about talk, less technical development is my fear. That is, I do think that the vocabulary is auxiliary; while conceptual analysis via verbal and formal methods can do something, it is in my view less important than internalising what one sees in pro games.

In short, I think this.

  • On Japanese terms: the deeper we look, the less useful the current, rather debased usage of such terms amongst English-speakers, and those speaking other European languages, appears to be.
  • My solution is to cut out the Japanese, except when there is an exact fit to something not easily expressible in English.
  • I have written three go books, go articles running into three figures, and have signed edits here running into four figures. I find most things I want to say expressible, in English, in what I'd think of as a standard vocabulary. Like everyone else on the planet, I learn something new every day; but I now distrust the whole business of go jargon, and prefer to paraphrase.
  • I think we should have a formal, three-level structure of topic pages, like a choice out of encyclopedic, illustrative, etymological. That gives seven ways to cover a topic (subsets of three things), plus ignoring it entirely (whicb would be apt for some things I won't mention here). In fact I may crack one day and rename a lot of SL in line with my ideas. I recall we had half a year talking about naming joseki pages: then I just did it, over about ten hours, because there was no consensus and never would be. After such a unilateral action I can see I might no longer be thought a fit Librarian - in which case no doubt I'd spend more time on Wikipedia.
  • As for unconditional life, I'd accept the Jasiek suggestion of pass-alive; then edit the thread down to a readable theory page, and move pedagogic sidetracks to somewhere they'd be welcome. It's not the content of such threads that bothers me: it's the swampiness of the territory opened up, when it comes to any sort of intellectual traffic.

SnotNose: Reading this was like a breath of fresh air, Charles (or should I say, "like a soothing eye wash" :). I had feared your participation in definition debates had meant that you found them important components in your vision of SL. An SL with more technical content, up to higher levels, with (reasonably) consistent organization would be a wonderful thing. I regret that so much of good people's time is being spent on things that do not contribute to bringing this vision to fruition. (Not entirely in bad faith, mind you, just due to the nature of wiki and the fact that attention to almost any topic is too easy to get here.) How can like-minded contributors be motivated to help build something better and more useful to prospective visitors of all levels?

unkx80: I agree with SnotNose and Charles here. In short, what really matters are the moves in Go, and terminology is just an aid for describing the moves. If there is no consensus on the terminology, lets just accept that there will always be vagueness in the terminology and just live with it. After all, another name to Go is Hand Talk (手谈), not Mouth Talk, which explains why two people from totally different cultures and speaking totally different languages can play a good game of Go, because the moves speak for themselves.

As someone who learnt Go through the Chinese medium and trying to learn the English equivalents of the terms I know, I find it mildly disturbing that many English Go literature elsewhere use a term in a particular way, the same term was originally used on SL in the same particular way, but suddenly someone decides to apply some new definition to the term which makes the meaning very counter-intuitive to me. Usually, the original term is a one-to-one direct translation from the Chinese counterpart (and probably also the Japanese Kanji characters), but the new definition means something else.

Dieter: Taking account for my actions in the past, I admit I have largely contributed to - if not enforced - the usage of "liberty" as a concept in capturing races. My actions were inspired by my enormous enthusiasm about Richard Hunter's work on capturing races. Now that this enthusiasm has dissipated, though I continue to highly value the work, I understand such deviation can be troublesome.

On the other hand, we westerners acquire our knowledge through a mixture of translated and original work in English. As such we need some breathing room (aka liberty) to pin down the ideas into sound terminology. The related Eastern terminology can be a burden in that respect.

In retrospect, my contributions to L&D pages, joseki pages, BQM pages and other exercises may testify that I am by large an advocate of handtalk. This doesn't stop me from trying to find or understand adequate terminology, as faulty as my attempts may often be. unkx80, you definitely are a handtalker and I esteem your contributions highly indeed.

The careful reader may have noticed that my attempt to cure the SL addiction has failed. I will soon be back.

unkx80: Hey, welcome back! =)

Bill: One thing that I think we all agree on is that the main content of SL should be go (weiqi, baduk). I am not happy with the amount of time I have spent this year in discussions about terminology. I would much rather have been writing about go proper. I would almost suggest a voluntary moratorium on terminology related writing and editing. How about a breather? The only problem I would have with that for myself is that I would like to continue posting examples from go literature. So far they have not spawned argument, and I think that they are helpful. I also do not want to discourage John Fairbairn from contributing. I find his material enlightening.

I agree with SnotNose about taking a dictionary approach to terminology. Words do have more than one meaning, even go terms. What is wrong with presenting those different meanings in the appropriate place?

I sympathize with unkx80 about changed definitions. While such changes were probably attempts at improvement, they have also sown confusion. Furthermore, moving away from terminology that is consonant with existing terminology in other languages is divisive, making communication with native speakers of those languages more difficult and, I think, making them less welcome on SL.

I do not believe in enforcing an SL dialect for go terminology. I tried that once, with Two Step Ko. It should never have been a translation for a one move Approach Ko. Not only was it non-descriptive, it suggested Nidan Ko, for which it is a straightforward translation. Confusion! I managed to convince people here to use two step ko to refer to nidan ko, not approach ko. Later, Andre Engels came back and objected strongly. An argument ensued, which did not reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Recently, however, Andre and I have agreed to avoid the term, two step ko entirely, in favor of the unambiguous approach ko or almost unambiguous two stage ko. And we have requested that others do the same. Yes, it's still about the SL dialect (although in line with contemporary English go literature) -- any community will develop its own local dialect --, but it is a collaborative endeavor.

There is a page here, Ways to Avoid the Taisha. The title is a mistake. It is not about avoiding the taisha joseki, but about avoiding complicated lines of the taisha joseki. I could have corrected that by moving its contents to a page entitled, Avoiding Complications in the Taisha, and editing the page and its links accordingly. Doing so might not have even caused a stir. But all I did was add a footnote indicating the error.

If there had been a definition of taisha joseki as complicated, generally agreed upon lines of play following certain initial plays, I would have objected strongly. There are simpler lines of play in the joseki, as well. But some players seem to be using such a definition, as witness the avoiding the taisha page. I do not think that we should go so far as to eliminate those errors. Even mistakes deserve a voice. Pointing out the mistakes is sufficient response.

While SL provides reference and pedagogical material, that is not all. Look at the Front Page:

Sensei's Library is a collaborative web site about and around the game of

Go / Weiqi / Baduk

It is a repository, a discussion medium, it is the pot of Go(ld) at the end of the rainbow! SL is whatever you make of it.

SL is collaborative. I strongly resist unilateralism here. It is a discussion medium. All voices deserve a fair hearing, even if mistaken. Let editors remember that it is very difficult to do justice to views you do not share. If someone complains that an edit has done injustice to their material, that is reason enough to discredit the editing in that regard. An attitude that says, "Well, I have made my edit. If you do not like it, that's too bad. You can make your own edit," is not a collaborative attitude.

There is room on SL for reference material, along the lines of both a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Such material may be authoritative, even though authored or compiled by amateurs. But there is also room for discussion and expression of differing viewpoints, even for stuff that is out and out wrong. We do not need to organize SL in line with a monolithic viewpoint, and, IMO, we should not do so.

Charles A couple of points about editing and consensus.

(A) Consensus is what you don't get. If there is a debate, with serious points on both sides, you may never get everyone on one side to back down. Those with a history here may remember that one major contributor objected to paths, on technical grounds. Now making paths is the main alternative to editing material down. So, I disregarded that point of view. Unilateralism? No, I'm quite happy with saying that it was for the greater good.

(B) If we have good material, but in the wrong places or poorly organised, what do we do? Someone has to take on the burden of moving it. Do you take the line that if anyone then objects, that was an imposition and failure of etiquette? No, I think the onus is to act responsibly at all times; but not to anticipate all possible objections (how could one?), nor to wait for all authors to consent (they may not log on, for indefinite periods).

So, collaborative does not equate, in my view, to consensus; nor does Bill's idea that this site is a 'discussion medium' exhaust the ways of thinking about it that are possible and quite permissible. Structure matters; the basic lesson of computer science is that nothing scales up with impunity to the user; and one person's monolith is another person's Christmas tree anyone can hang a gift on, if they can only find the right branch.

By the way, my experience, such as it is, of organisation and go politics, is this: anyone who champions the cause of those coming into the game, against vested interests, is always going to get a lot of flak. That's one reason I think there will never be perfect peace here at SL. So what - there's work to do here and elsewhere. Endless discussions explaining why change would be undesirable, with more and more factors dragged in. are typical of this (it is never the case that five bad arguments outweigh one good one, but tell that to a conservative defending his patch and see the reaction). I think go is changing, anyway. Just look around.

dnerra: Bill, I cannot completely follow your arguments. For the regular readers, certainly the mistakes and discussions are interesting, too. But imagine someone discovering SL in 2 years from now. Don't you think he might not be able to find the good stuff among the many mistakes we have kept, and among the many discussions we have left in place? I am not even sure whether I agree with Arno's opinion that pages should usually not be deleted -- I think any boring page makes the interesting pages harder to find, and thus makes SL a little less valuable.

SnotNose: I'll make an attempt to arbitrate, sum up, and lead forward. Unless the nature of this site changes radically, Bill need not worry about not having opportunities to dissent. This cannot be argued: it is a wiki, open to even unregistered (and even nameless!) users. It doesn't sound to me as if Charles or anyone is proposing eliminating opportunities for disagreement.

There has been a proposal for the addition of some structure and it is hard to see how that can be a bad thing, unless done badly. Perhaps one might worry that there will be aspects of a final structure that makes certain pages appear to be authoritative. But that would be in appearance only and would quickly be diluted either by direct edit of the page (if allowed) or by the creation of a companion dissenting page (which might include lists of errata, alternative definitions, and the like). (I'll note that the same problem exists for Go books, which we cannot directly edit, and we seem to have no problem pointing out flaws, discussing them, and providing useful alternatives.)

So, it would seem to me that the only questions here are (1) ought there be the imposition of some sort of structure? and (2) by what process should that occur?

This cannot possibly happen in any real democratic sense unless a poll is arranged (this is possible but it takes work). It'll likely progress in the semi-anarchistic way that all things happen here. And, at some point, if progress is to occur, a set of decisions will be made by someone (most likely the person who is prepared to take on what will be an enormous effort), and things will happen. But, never fear, if the result is not to someone's liking, they can say so! If they care enough to make an effort, they can even redo it all themselves.

I think it is important to keep the focus (as much as possible) on the idea of creating the greatest benefit to the widest possible audience. People with vast Go knowledge are spending lots of efforts debating very fine points here, and to no clear useful end. Wouldn't valuable Go content be a much better legacy than pages and pages of debates on definitions that matter not one bit to 99% of the Go community? I want to learn about Go and I would love to learn from the dans who post here. But I can learn nothing from another definition of "unconditionally alive" or some such. (Ok, it's becomming a rant so I'll stop.)

Bill: Dnerra, a quick comment. Mistakes and poorly written or organized material certainly detract from SL as a repository of reference material on go. If that were all there were to SL, then making improvements to such material would have top priority. But SL is also a discussion medium and a collaborative effort. Not all of the collaborators are expert; most are not. Are their efforts to be freely overwritten and overridden by people who think they know better, rightly or wrongly?

Much of the material about the endgame falls into those categories, and not just stuff that can be corrected in a short footnote. If I took over the endgame material on SL and reorganized and rewrote it, I could make it a whole lot better as reference material. It would be clear, correct, and well organized. But I have no inclination to do so, nor do I think that I should. I'm not the endgame Czar, I'm not in charge around here. And has been pointed out, I could always write my own stuff, Bill's Endgame Primer, or something. If people really regarded me as an expert, they could get it straight from the horse's mouth.

Also, even without someone taking charge, the material improves. Compare the endgame material here with what it was two years ago. It may not improve as quickly and as surely as it would if someone took it over, but it does improve over time. :-)

dnerra: Well, to take your example above, I don't think renaming the page to Avoiding complicated Taisha lines? or Taisha for taisha-dummies? (such as me) would cease making this a collaborative effort. And I am sure that all your contributions/corrections/improvements to endgame material are highly appreciated by the readers of SL.
DJ: As the main author of Ways to Avoid the Taisha I certainly agree that the title proposed by Bill, Avoiding Complications in the Taisha?, is more appropriate. And of course I do not mind at all if he changes it, I would even welcome him to change it!
When I wrote the title I was thinking to a "journalistic" approach, to find a catchy phrase to get the readers' attention...
Bill: Thanks, DJ, I am glad that you agree. :-) I thought things were clearcut, but I see that I made a mistake. What I thought was a simple error was journalistic flair. Mea culpa. DJ, would you make the changes? You are obviously a man with style. :-)[1]
Now, DJ's reaction shows that, if I had just gone ahead and made an edit instead of a comment, it would probably have passed without problem. Still, I think that it is a good example of a collaborative approach to editing. Suppose that I had made an edit and DJ had been offended because I had assumed that he had made a mistake. After all, the title is clear enough. I knew what the page was about without looking at it. Who was I to correct an non-existent error, who was I to set myself up as the language police?
Or DJ may have objected on the basis of language usage. He might have argued that, yes, the taisha move had already been made, but that people do not refer to the simple lines as part of the taisha joseki, and in fact, refer to certain plays as avoiding the taisha. Similar arguments are made in disputes about language here on SL. One was made in the previous discussion of two step ko, for instance.
In either case, how much better simply to have made a comment, which might have led to a reponse and perhaps to further discussion, rather than to have altered the writing of someone I disagree with, imposing my own view upon the material under dispute. He and I have no relationship that would justify that kind of thing. Just because I think I'm right does not make me so, even if I am. Nor does it grant me authority over the writing of anyone I think is wrong, even if they are.
SnotNose: Bill, your point is a good one and I do not disagree. It does become troublesome (to me anyway) that certain pages get so cluttered with discussion about presentation, packaging, definitions, and the like. What is the Go content and what is the meta-discussion and what is just an argument that has gone on too long? I, the reader, have to do a lot of work to triage. Having an organization that makes these distinctions clear would be helpful and could satisfy everyone (I believe).
Bill: Indeed it could, and it is not, in general, difficult to achieve. For instance, if a discussion about presentation (which no one intends to remain on the final verision) gets too long or cumbersome, who would object to moving that discussion to a new page?
SnotNose: Yep, you're right about that. But why not have a structure that, from the beginning, makes it clear what is Go content and what is not? One reason not to create such a structure is that it is too much work to do well and doesn't work well otherwise. My mind is swimming with all kinds of technical solutions that range from (likely) not too hard to (likely) very much trouble. For example, there could be two (or more) footnote types (maybe they're color coded or start with different letters or something). One type is used for non-Go discussion on the same page, one for Go discussion. So, if I had a problem with a definition or presentation, I might use the non-Go content footnote type. But if I wanted to note a somewhat tangential variation, I might use the Go content footnote type. Thus, a reader interested in just Go content, could skip the non-Go footnotes. That's just one idea on the simpler end of the spectrum. I infer that Charles may have grander ideas but I can't easily tell from what he's written.
Snotnose: With the current structure, the only solution to clarifying the presentation of a page is a master edit (which must involve overwriting, changing, and deleting other people's words) or the creation of another page (which leads to page after page on the same or similar topics). One cannot have uneditted collaboration and clear presentation unless there is a more sophisticated structure that permits it.
Bill: WMEs are generally effective and collaborative. Only rarely can people not agree on a WME. Also, the current implementation of SL does allow more sophisticated structures. (I had been intending to talk about that this morning, but replied to DJ instead.)

SnotNose: Having (well-) organized reference material and collaborative discussion are not mutually exclusive. There seems little (or, to me, insufficient anyway) of the former and a great deal of the latter. I don't see why Bill and others cannot both be satisfied.

For what it's worth, I'd be glad to see Bill or anyone take over end game material (or any subset of material for that matter) and organize it. That need not mean removing what is already here. Leave the discussion on the current pages in place (rename the pages if need be) and then add some new, structured pages to be filled in more systematically with clear guidelines about what goes where (as has happend imperfectly with joseki pages). What is wrong with that? You won't keep dissenters quiet even if you try so on what grounds can anyone object to the idea of structure.

Bill: Charles said:

On Japanese terms: the deeper we look, the less useful the current, rather debased usage of such terms amongst English-speakers, and those speaking other European languages, appears to be.

My solution is to cut out the Japanese, except when there is an exact fit to something not easily expressible in English.

My diagnosis, and hence my solution, differs from Charles's. But in some cases we agree. For instance, I used to talk about yoseko, but too many people took that to mean a 1/3 point ko contested at the end of the game. Now I just say approach ko. A lot of usage is correct. For instance, someone who talks about kake-tsugi is very probably using the term correctly. Still, I prefer hanging connection, and I expect that Charles would agree. However, in many cases where Charles and I might agree that English speakers typically misuse Japanese terms, I think that misuse reflects, not a lack of understanding of Japanese, but a lack of understanding of go. In such cases my solution is to talk about go, not simply to change the language.

Now, Charles and I might argue about that, both in general and in specifics. But there is room here on SL for us both to express our views freely. A problem might arise, however, if either of us tried to make our own view dominate or prevail. But we do not need to do that.

Charlse also said

So, collaborative does not equate, in my view, to consensus;

We agree. More later.

nor does Bill's idea that this site is a 'discussion medium' exhaust the ways of thinking about it that are possible and quite permissible.

To be clear, the idea that SL is a discussion medium is not mine. It is stated clearly on the Front Page. Otherwise, we agree here, too.


[1] DJ: Wow, thanks, Bill, I'm flattered by your kind words! I'm afraid though that my Deshi status doesn't allow me to change page titles... Besides, I'm lazy! ;)))

Bill: My status does not allow me to change page titles, either. And I'm lazy, too. ;-) BTW, a trick that I have only recently figured out how to do and does not take much effort is to create a page with the new title, then go to the old page, click on the edit page command, then click inside the edit window to put the cursor there, then go to the edit menu and select all, then cut it, save the edit, go to the new page, and paste the contents of the old page. Not as efficient as changing the title, but it works.

unkx80: I don't have that previlege too, but I know librarians can. Might be better to ask one of them to do the renaming, as it preserves the page history?

Dieter: Both of you should be librarians. I am one, and as long as you are not, I will carefully fulfill your needs. I hope that will be cleared out soon. #:-7

Hu: I am similarly unempowered. Early on, I used Bill's technique and was roundly condemned for because it has the deleterious effect of wiping out all record of previous edits. Now I ask an empowered librarian to make the title change when necessary.



This is a copy of the living page "2003-11-20 discussion" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2004 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.