Forum for SOS
WME practices [#1304]
It is dangerous practice to WME an ongoing and heated discussion. Here are two reasons why such WME should not take place.
1) WME must be done after discussion has cooled down and all arguments have been represented and sunk into people's minds
2) Ideally, the WMEditor should be someone else than the main protagonists.
I suggest the debate continues in a polite fashion and when it has faded out for a few weeks, then WME's start taking place.
Normally I would agree with you. However, in this case (SOS discussion page) a WME is very useful already now because
- The WME editor is highly motivated to do it now.
- Great parts of the page were lying without WME for already too many years.
- The page was filled also with too much useless stuff (like complaints about language).
- The page has become so large and very unstructured that its usage has become close to impossible.
- Even for a yet more active related discussion, there have already been requests for restructuring.
- SOS is a factually difficult topic that only a well informed participant in earlier discussions has a chance to WME.
You will have noticed I have eecuted the arbitration, trying to respect both your work and your antagonist's feelings. I suggest you continue to discuss and let things cool down, before anyone (and still preferably someone else) does the WME.
- The WME editor is highly motivated to do it now.
Of course. Debaters will always be fond of summarizing the debate, while it is still going on.
- Great parts of the page were lying without WME for already too many years.
- The page was filled also with too much useless stuff (like complaints about language).
- The page has become so large and very unstructured that its usage has become close to impossible.
Those are all very good reasons, but are overruled by the fact that the WMEditor is part of the heated discussion.
- Even for a yet more active related discussion, there have already been requests for restructuring.
- SOS is a factually difficult topic that only a well informed participant in earlier discussions has a chance to WME.
You must not underestimate other people's intelligence and perseverance. Still, if you and Bass are the only people capable of the SOS WME, you should wait.
Robert, this so-called WME of yours was a very dirty trick to pull. Editing out (or into obscurity) any arguments and aspects that do not coincide with your views is not going to make you right. Please see the WME page, and try to measure your actions with the points given there. I find your utter lack of judgement even more disgusting, because I am certain you really tried your best.
-Bass
- Call 7 hours of work a dirty trick...
- I have carefully considered every stated reason of everybody but disregarded text without reasons. E.g., shortly before the end of editing there were some headlines without contents for them: "Does SOS Take into Account the Possibility That a Loss Against a "Strong" Player Might Have Been a Win Against a "Weaker" One?", "Does SOS Ignore the Possibility That a Win against a "Weaker" Player Might Also Have Been a Win against a "Stronger" Player?", "Performance Rating". There was no contents because there were no reasons.
- More specifically, there was the text "(suggested:) See my earlier list why I speak of a disadvantage here. (It is an even much greater disadvantage of SODOS, but this does not remove the fact that it still is one for SOS.) So we have your opinion here, not objective facts. It is easier to consider my opinion as objective fact because it is easily justified by reason; see at the aforementioned place." that I had to consider for your suggsted feature "Does SOS Take into Account the Possibility That a Loss Against a "Strong" Player Might Have Been a Win Against a "Weaker" One?". So I checked your text sentence by sentence but it did not contain any feature-related reason.
- You can discuss the WME result. Or go further and add the headline for that feature again and provide reasons.
- Feel free to discuss other WME mistakes I might have made including my unsubtle way of providing structure where there was none.
I once put a very clear piece of good advice on the SOS page. It stated:
"SOS is a good primary tiebreaker. Use it when you must break ties, but do not have the possibility af arranging a rematch."
You took that advice down, put it on the discussion page and referred readers there to see some "opinions", as you chose to call them.
Would you please point to the place on the result of your "work" where it is reflected that ever a person has existed who is willing to give that piece of advice?
Wouldn't you rather say that every single argument to that direction is omitted, every attribution of comments is left out and every sentence is carefully checked and in places rewritten to avoid communicating that very recommendation?
Wouldn't you also say that everything now left on the page is only relevant because it studies aspects necessary to make those exact recommendations? That you just couldn't be bothered to mention what the discussion was all about? And you just incidentally forgot to mention what were the opinions of other patricipants on that main issue?
And you call that "work"? By all means, go ahead have a long vacation.
- Quite like I have avoided your personal opinions like "SOS is a good tiebreaker", I have also avoided mine like "SOS is a bad tiebreaker". If you think that a WME should also list personal opinions associated with names of their authors, then we can add a section "Overall opinion on the quality of SOS" and add all those personally assigned opinions: "Bass: SOS is a good primary tiebreaker. - RobertJasiek: SOS is a bad primary tiebreaker. (Etc.)
- However, IMO, a WME should rather form a NPOV and thereby avoid reference to personal (user) names as far as possible.
- "Use it when you must break ties, but do not have the possibility af arranging a rematch." is represented in the sections: "Absolute and Relative Quality of Tiebreakers", "Should a Tournament Break Ties When Determining the End Result?", and "Which tiebreaker is the most appropriate?". However, since your opinion is not the only one represented there but there is also the opposing opinion "Do not use it when you must break ties", there is no plain advice "Use it" but the reader is told what to reflect when making a choice between "Use it" or "Do not use it". Remember that the WME does neither create SOS/Discussion/Bass's opinion only nor SOS/Discussion/RobertJasiek's opinion only.
- If you do not feel like discussing the WME result on its page, then go ahead to spend 7 hours yourself by creating your version of WME so that we can compare my and your attempts. I wonder though whether meta-discussion helps us more than discussion.
- I have learnt a lot about SOS from the WME. Havn't you, too? The WME is much more useful than the previous version because one does not have to look through the entire previous page to find, e.g., all made statements about "strength of opposition" but they are collected neatly all under one headline. Why not praise that?
I apologize for being a meanie, but this was just too delicious to leave alone.
Yes! Clearly you can make a good WME if you just do not try too much!
"Bass: SOS is a good primary tiebreaker. - RobertJasiek: SOS is a bad primary tiebreaker. (Etc.)"
This is a very good WME! Well done!
Because you often refuse to take the look at any links given, I'll just copy-paste the points from WME for in-place evaluation.
A Wiki master edit adds value by removing that without. The WikiMaster?'s hand should be so subtle that the original author delights at how clearly and compactly he expressed himself.
Notice how your half-a-minute WME has this property and your 7 hour one has not?
The resulting page should, in general, be more succinct.
Notice how your half-a-minute WME has this property and your 7 hour one has not?
Of course, the WikiMasterEditor should be 'impartial' to the discussion and attribute the contributors to the original page.
Notice how your half-a-minute WME has both of these properties and your 7 hour one has neither?
To indicate that the page has been edited, it makes sense to include an informative "This page was wikimasteredited by Your Name on date" (or shorter: "WME by Name, date")
Oops! your seven hour WME has this one, and your half-a-minute one does not! Well, maybe next time.
How about your change of my WME to add those WME features that you are missing? According to you, it will take you just half a minute, so why not got ahead and just do it? :)
Perhaps because Bass knows that you don't wme a discussion page.
No, I do not have such great ability.
Also, a piece of friendly advice: one should not overlook the possibility of "I may be wrong". This is a very useful tesuji for online collaboration: I do not have to click "save" before taking the time to check any assumptions I have made, and consider "what if I am mistaken".
Many a flame war could have be averted by just taking this one, simple precaution.
This is why I would never try to reword other persons arguments, especially into forms that made more sense to me.
1: You were summarizing a discussion. You should not avoid other persons opinions when you summarize a discussion.
2: Your "IMO" does not trump clearly given requirements
3: I do not disagree enough to warrant commenting. Only, the page you created was "SOS/Discussion/RobertJasiek's opinion only."
4: I'll rather use the tools better suited for the job. Also, I see no point in having "discussion on what the discussion was", because just reverting your WME accomplishes that same goal. Also, I'd rather use those seven hours on publishing my research on tie breakers, if you do not mind.
5: I am glad you learned a lot.
Please go ahead to publish your research!
![[ext]](images/extlink.gif)
Here you go.For one thing, WME and discussion do not go together. The discussion must be left as it is. It is the parent SOS page which is susceptible of WME.
I am going to restore the discussion page and create Robert's WME as a subpage of his homepage.
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")