Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-06/WMF jargon accepted when it meets CFI
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This vote seems quite pointless to me--Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's based on a misunderstanding. We do require that words have independent citations - all in the context of one organisation is not independent. I did point this out before, but obviously I was ignored. Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I guess the question is, is the community of WMF project editors a narrow one? Mglovesfun seems to view that community as comparable to, say, the community of poker players (whose jargon we do accept), whereas I would view it as more comparable to, say, the community of people who gamble via a specific family of Web-sites. Mglovesfun also seems to be misrepresenting the current rule, which does not use the word-sequence "independent of reference to". (Per AGF, I'll assume that he is simply misunderstanding that rule.) —RuakhTALK 21:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Very good point. Is there any context that's ever too narrow, that if there are three independent citations we won't allow it. AFAICT the citations have to be independent - not the same author, company whatever, but they don't have to refer to different things. Would three citations referring to a straight as a poker hand be too narrow? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, if we're gonna exclude WMF foundation jargon as too narrow a context, we shoul exclude other things that are attestable with a meaning, but also too narrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Very good point. Is there any context that's ever too narrow, that if there are three independent citations we won't allow it. AFAICT the citations have to be independent - not the same author, company whatever, but they don't have to refer to different things. Would three citations referring to a straight as a poker hand be too narrow? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I guess the question is, is the community of WMF project editors a narrow one? Mglovesfun seems to view that community as comparable to, say, the community of poker players (whose jargon we do accept), whereas I would view it as more comparable to, say, the community of people who gamble via a specific family of Web-sites. Mglovesfun also seems to be misrepresenting the current rule, which does not use the word-sequence "independent of reference to". (Per AGF, I'll assume that he is simply misunderstanding that rule.) —RuakhTALK 21:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any examples of communities that you consider narrow, but whose jargon is independently attestable? If your only example is poker, then I think we can just happily say the cutoff lies somewhere within the many orders of magnitude between the number of people who use WMF jargon and the number of people who use poker jargon. :-P —RuakhTALK 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- This seems pointless to me as well. If a term meets CFI - then it meets CFI and may be included, whatever it is. SemperBlotto 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree; but I also support the previous vote, which I understand as clarifying and consistent-ifying CFI, rather than the reverse. —RuakhTALK 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes Ruakh, some juggling stuff like reverse cascade. Re: SemperBlotto that's entirely my point. Re: Conrad, AFAICT we can't even accept one citation from a WMF and then two from non WMF sources, that is what the first vote says. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree; but I also support the previous vote, which I understand as clarifying and consistent-ifying CFI, rather than the reverse. —RuakhTALK 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this vote is in dire need of clarification, and retitling. You're not proposing that WMF jargon should be accepted as long as it meets CFI at all. In fact, this is already the case. You're proposing that CFI be changed in order to accept WMF cites, which is a very different proposal. Quite frankly, this vote seems a little pointless, as we've already had a vote on that very issue, and came out with a clear decision. Also, trying to compare WMF with football or poker is silly. As Ruakh has noted, the difference is vast. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, we had a vote (long before I started contributing here) that there should be an exception to CFI regarding WMF jargon. CFI doesn't mention the issue. I think the vote is very well named. I'm not saying cites from WMF projects should be allow - that is in CFI (We do not quote other Wikimedia sites (such as Wikipedia) […] ) but rather allowing cites about MWF projects that are independent, which the previous vote addressed, but CFI does not (try searching for it). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with your first sentence. Before that vote, we had an uncodified exception to the CFI, along the lines of "WMF jargon is O.K. even if it doesn't otherwise meet the CFI". The main point of the vote was to (see whether people wanted to) remove that exemption and start applying regular CFI to WMF jargon. That's why WT:CFI doesn't mention the issue: the result was that the existing codified CFI should apply even to WMF jargon, so there wasn't any need to modify the existing codified CFI. —RuakhTALK 15:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Essentially yes, the result of the previous vote on this issue isn't in CFI, so if this vote passed, nothing would change in CFI as according to CFI, userbox already passes because of the three independent durably archived citations showing meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- According to Conrad's argument above, pace your statement, the three quotations aren't independent of each other. I happen to disagree with him about this, but even if this vote passed, it wouldn't require his like to deem those quotations sufficient. (That said, it would require him to count at least one of those quotations, whereas the result of the last vote means we can't count any of them.) —RuakhTALK 18:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- As for the title "WMF jargon accepted when it meets CFI", it's factually, letter-of-the-law correct as the exception to the rule isn't in CFI, it's a vote. So if this passes, nothing will change in CFI, as there's nothing in there to remove. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- According to Conrad's argument above, pace your statement, the three quotations aren't independent of each other. I happen to disagree with him about this, but even if this vote passed, it wouldn't require his like to deem those quotations sufficient. (That said, it would require him to count at least one of those quotations, whereas the result of the last vote means we can't count any of them.) —RuakhTALK 18:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Obvious Solution™[edit]
Appendix:WMF Jargon — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wiktionary:Glossary already has a few (but wouldn't be suitable for non-Wiktionary wiki jargon at least). Equinox ◑ 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- The project namespace isn't part of our content, per se, while the appendix namespace is. In practice, I'm not sure if we have any mirrors, search defaults, or other software that draw this distinction, but it's real nonetheless, and I think it's worth preserving. —RuakhTALK 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that including the WMF jargon is especially useful, because people often tend to search a word in the dictionary when they read it and don't know what it means. And Wiktionary users/contributors are likely to read WMF jargon words, and are likely to want to know what they mean. A glossary appendix is useful, but not sufficient: it's impossible to guess that a word you read belongs to the WMF jargon. The glossary is more useful as an introduction to the jargon, in order to make further reading easier. Lmaltier 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)