Dave: Personally I do not think the WME based on 30 plays per page. I think that the building of subpages based on content, as HolIgor has done on the previous games is clearly superior. SL does not suffer from the printing costs that plague game diagrams in books and magazines. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that a diagram is not complete/efficient unless it shows the maximum 10 plays and that the "natural" division of a game commentary is in round lots of plays. The natural division is around the ideas being discussed.
Blake: I broke it into 30 plays per page because I feel that one long page with this much text is quite unwieldy. Luckily, the content matched this division; I didn't split discussion or even edit it (except where it didn't make sense in terms of the new structure). Think of this as an experiment in using the new structural tools available to us. Of course, I'm not saying that this structure or approach has to be definitive; there can still be more sub-pages created (and note that I kept the page related to the status of the lower right corner. And, honestly, do you think that the previous structure--using the now-defunct page Fujitsu17YiWangChubanPart2--was based on content? No, it was begun because the old page was huge and unwieldy. If you disagree with my edits, feel free to change it, but I don't think large, monolithic pages are the way to best utilize the new features.
Dave: Blake, this is the third in a series of game analyses created and managed by HolIgor. So far he has managed the structuring of all of them thematically and created an excellent series in doing so. He had even posted the intended breaks on this one at the top of the page. Clearly he did not intend to keep this as a single page going forward. Did you follow that structure when you chose to use this page as you as say, "as an experiment in using the new structural tools available to us"? No you did not. You deleted it instead. As a major contributor to this page and the whole series, I am extremely angry with what you have done. I think if you want to play with new tools you should do it on pages you have built if you are not going to respect the work of others. I think you should apologize to HolIgor.
Blake: HolIgor hasn't objected. If he does, I will apologize--and I will help him restructure the pages as he would like to have them restructured. But do note that all of the content is still there. It's broken up into subpages, yes, but all I did was split the first page into 3 parts--/MovesTo30, /MovesTo60, and /MovesTo90--and copy the information from Fujitsu17YiWangChubanPart2 to /MovesTo120. I also moved a couple of diagrams around a little, to clarify the structure of the page, and renamed them to fit the TOC better. Nothing has changed, besides this. If HolIgor would like to, he can revive the old pages, but I don't see a reason to. If he wants to create subpages, he still can. I took out the references at the top of the page because they weren't linking to anything. Here they are, linking to possible subpages: /OpeningMoves?, /UpperRightCorner?, /Top?, /LateFuseki?, and of course /LowerRightStatus (which I preserved). The fact is, none of these pages has been prepared yet, and I didn't change any content for just that reason.
Bill: I haven't participated much in the game discussion. However, I join Dave in objecting. The idea that one can freely take it upon oneself to edit or restructure material, and that is fine, since the original author can object, shows disregard and disrespect. Blake, if you are willing to help Holigor restructure the pages as he sees fit, why not take that tack to start with? Why not consult with him first? What is the problem with that? It's not like he is incommunicado.
Blake: To be honest, I didn't think of them as "HolIgor's pages." I saw them as a discussion about a game which was in a nearly unreadable condition, so I took a very simple measure and split them up with only the most minor of edits. (As I said, I renamed and moved a few diagrams, fixed a couple of typos, that sort of thing.) I didn't even consider offending anybody by changing things like this, because I didn't remove information, I didn't fundamentally damage the discussion and I didn't preemptively separate the discussion into separate topics. I looked at Arno's new features and thought: "That's interesting. This could be used to make the Fujitsu17YiWang pages a bit neater." So I did. Sensei's Library is, after all, a collaborative web site. I don't see the point of objecting to something like this--which isn't even of a sufficient magnitude to be called a WME. I also note that HolIgor has yet to object to the change. If he does, I will ask Arno to revive the old pages and ditch mine.
At the same time, though, the entire point of a wiki-based structure is the idea of collaboration. Saying that I acted badly, in this context, seems a bit ridiculous. If I had actually undertaken a WME, or if I'd split the pages into HolIgor's sub-categories myself, it would be different, but I don't think I violated any wiki etiquette by splitting the pages up and fixing a few problems. Please, feel free to compare the new versions (/MovesTo30, /MovesTo60, /MovesTo90) to the archived version.
Arno: can we get some sanity over here? Bill, I think you should reconsider your statement. Blake was doing a fine job and not showing disrespect to anyone. Nobody "owns" pages here - this is a wiki. I think that comments like yours discourage people to contribute and I don't think that this is good at all! And please: don't claim to defend people (HolIgor in this case) who can easily speak for themselves. To me it looks like your pushing your own agenda instead.
Hu: I told Blake that I would look into it and see what could be revived, but now, I think that I might let the dust settle a bit, so others should feel free to take the situation in hand if they desire. I commend Blake for seizing the bull by the horns and making an experiment with the new system. It may not be to everyone's taste, but without actually putting things in motion it is difficult to arrive at meaningful new conventions.
As Arno suggests, HolIgor is on SL frequently and presumably will express an opinion sooner than later. On the other hand, it is unfair to assume that there is agreement if no opinion or response is made.
May I suggest to deshis that if major changes are contemplated that are difficult to back out of or would require assistance to do so, writing up a plan and getting comment first might be the path of least resistance.
unkx80: I will give credit to Blake for doing a fairly good job, but I agree with Dave in that it does not make very much sense to break the pages into 30 moves each. Luckily, for this game, the rough flow of the contents can be broken up to 30 moves per page, but this does not apply for any game. Naturally some sections are more than 30 moves and some sections are much shorter.
Blake: I originally broke the page into 30 moves each because it seemed logical; it fit the flow of the discussion, and it gave an even number of divisions, roughly the same size (though /MovesTo90 actually ends at 88). It also made the pages a lot easier to read than the original was. I didn't feel comfortable attempting to break the discussion into subject-based sections, since I didn't participate in the discussion and didn't create the page originally--I am, despite this situation, a very conservative editor. I am not proposing that this should be the format for all games on Sensei's, ever. :-) Instead, it was a situational, one-off attempt to improve what I saw as a problem. I'd like to thank you guys for your support; it was a bit, um, startling (to say the least) to inspire anger, especially as (I assure you) I had no intention of "disrespecting" HolIgor. I do think that having the game structured like this--with the index on the "front" page and links to subpages concerning particular aspects of the game--is workable, though.
And, regarding the issue of needing to propose a change, or requiring help to back out: I didn't realize that I couldn't revive a page beyond the latest version. If I had, I would have saved the code from the version I was using to edit from, as I normally cut and paste into a text editor to do my work. This, to my mind, was a fairly minor edit, anyway.
Charles I'd like to back up Arno's protest on behalf of the wiki concept. 'Ownership' concepts have been holding SL back. Bill Spight needs to adapt to the wiki concept; rather than the other way round. He is far too vehement, and should moderate his language in these discussions. I have voted with my feet with this, leaving SL for four months entirely. I should now like to see everyone here feel free to edit, in a proper wiki spirit; without being dropped on from a great height.
Dave: Since I started this earlier, I would like to try to cut it off here. In order to do so I would like to raise two points:
First, I would like to quote from Wikipedia's "Writers rules of engagement"
Disputes are all too easy to get into online, especially on a Wiki, where by editing you effectively get to trample other users' words. Online disputes can be all the more bitter, because it's so easy to forget that behind that bald text there sits and types another person, who very probably is here for the same reasons you are.
Don't forget that people usually are protective of their ideas and their taste, which are the things that go into writing and decisions. As a result, egos get hurt easily in editing. As you may have noticed, the response isn't usually a whimper but an urge to strike back. Don't do it. If anything, the talk pages give the opportunity to prevent and assuage bruised egos. Most of all, though, they're a place to forge agreements about how best to write the articles they're attached to.
In fact, I "did it" and would like to apologize to Blake for doing so.
Second, I would like to suggest that the more general aspects of this discussion move to Future Use of SL. I believe there are some very important issues mentioned here that should be resolved if possible. In wandering around today because of this page, I read Charles' last post on Future Use of SL and also the How To Use Wiki / Editing Freedom for the first time. There and here I see issues and suggestions but I do not consensus forming.
Bill: Blake, if my language was too strong, I apologize. :-( However, I did not see what you did as collaborative. Consultation before major changes, not after, is collaborative, in my view. This is aside from any question of ownership.
Charles No, that's reading things in that aren't there. What is true is that, now we have discussion pages automated, it is good practice to trail any big change ahead of time, on the discussion page, in seeking feedback. This makes every kind of good sense, and throws all changes back to community comment. It is simply not practical, though, to wait for authors' comments before editing. The page might be a couple of years old, and the author long gone.
Bill: What do you mean? As I said in my original note here, Holigor is not incommunicado. He is still around. I am not talking about reworking old pages when the original author is long gone. How is there consultation after if the author is long gone?
Anyway, I want to stress that I am not talking about ownership of pages or the Wiki concept. I am talking about collaboration and mutual trust and respect. Are they anti-Wiki?
Charles Obviously not. But I want to stress that telling people they lack respect isn't the way, either. After all, it is not enforceable. Sometimes one has newbie behaviour to absorb; sometimes something new should be tried. One point where perhaps Bill and I might agree, is that threading on discussion pages should be kept strict.
HolIgor: Sorry, to cause such a ruse. I had to split the game into several pages myself. I intended to do so, but it turned out a little bit difficult as the logical stages of the game did not obey the 10 moves per diagram rule. Thus, the splitting required more work and I was kind of busy. I should have done everything properly from the very beginning. I did not even study the corner life and death problems as I intended to do. I only expressed my intention and other people helped me to come to the right conclusions.
Now I will have to study new features of the library and decide what is best.
Creating these pages I saw a vision of a comunity analysis of the games. Ideally, this work will never end. I cherish an idea that in the ages to come after I am gone, somebody will add a new diagram explaining the reasons behind so and so move or even finding pro's mistakes.
I am very greatful to people that participate and help me to understand the games better. But as I explained sometimes I am busy and do not have enough time to actually study a move, so I just quickly throw it to the community with a little comment in hope that somebody would help.
I did not finish the first game of the series because I could not solve the problem of the value of the next move. Too complicated. In the second game I followed everything to the great final ko-fight. After that I posted some problems that arise in the analysis of the final position. The problems are interesting and very instructive. Why did white resigne the game? I hope that some day there will be a solution.
So, what now? I have to look through the game again.
I have messed up a little bit creating some dead pages that intended to be aliases, but evidently subpages cannot be aliases. I see a small problem with the order in the lists of subpages. It is not natural but I cannot suggest a good solution at the moment. Let us continue to discuss the game.