If you are arguing for instance at an AfD, is it wise to make a thread or something about it here?

For instance if you think how something's being done about an article is completely daft, is it 'safe' to mention it on WR for discussion whilst it's happening, or will the wiki lot say you're seeking to canvass and recruit the evil WR trolls?

I think it is bad etiquette if you are personally involved in a discussion on Wikipedia to also engage in the same discussion on WR. Discuss in either place, but not both at the same time.

Why? A lot people do that such as when we see AfD's about Brandt or something, or ANIs and Arbcoms. If it's a discussion you started yourself, that might be a bit different. I suppose it depends if someone criticises other participants in the debate on WP here, rather than the debate itself. If you only say similar things to what you've said there, you're not talking behind someone's back or something.

I was more concerned that it might be seen by those involved on wiki, and used to say you'd tried to recruit people into the argument or something like that.

I think it is inappropriate to discuss the content of a Wikipedia article here, except in unusual cases, whereas it is fine to talk about an article at a meta-level, i.e. what WP politics or personalities are swirling around it.

We don't have a COI policy here -- if you're trying to get an article deleted, don't come here and complain about the quality of its citations or whether it fails to meet WP:NOTABLE or other gobbledygoook, but if you want to talk about how Raul and his minions are trying to railroad the process or ban people disagreeing with them, that seems fair game.

Basically, if you can safely say it on the Pedia, don't say it on the Review.

It all depends and different people will have different opinions. The people on the other side of the dispute will become upset and less willing to reach an amicable compromise. If you are trying to reach a compromise with the "other side" on Wikipedia don't also engage in discussions elsewhere.

There are many things you can safely say on the WP about how WP could be run better, which will have absolutely no effect, even if they won't be a danger to you. You will simply be ignored. So why bother?

Trivial example: you can point out that BLP is a terrible invasion of privacy, and that it also is a honeypot of bribery waiting to catch WP editors who find themselves doing "favors" for people with money, power, or charms. And if you do, you'll simply be rejected as proposing something that isn't a big problem, and there are safeguards.

If you start to bring up specific cases and details and you pull no punches about how it has and is a continuing problem, THEN they will ban you for being a disruptive troll.

Much better to simply start here, fresh. Saves time.

I know, because I spent years trying fix some of WP's problems with all the dewy-eyed enthusiasm of any newbie to any sport. And got nowhere. As I started to point out the hypocrisy, I began to see storm clouds gather over my head. So, being old enough to recognize the office politics signs, I quit making waves before being kicked out. I still edit there, but no longer make waves.

If I get to the point that something snaps, I toss bombs from here, and no longer worry about civility. It did me no good there, and it does me even less here. And it feels so good.

Does WP listen to the blasts from WR? Oh, yes. I've pointed out that Jimbo even brought up WR and their scrutiny in his sex-chat with Rachel. They do read, and they do get zorched. Not enough to stop their wicked ways, but enough to moderate them. Eventually something will happen that will make the entire community prick up their ears and say: "You don't suppose WR has been right all along...???" Following which they'll adopt some of our ideas, call them their own, and that will be that.

No, they won't come here, apologize, and offer Jimbo's place to Somey, or whatever. This is WR, after all, not fantasyland. We're here because we think some of the info in WP's various Wikis is valuable, and we'd like to fix the mechanism behind the creation of more of it (most of us would like to fix, anyway). But not because we ever expect a lick of credit. That won't happen.

Discuss something you are arguing about? Better to stop arguing - make your point and then walk away - it is not that important. However, if you are not sure of yourself, perfectly sensible to get someone here to take a view as a sanity check.

What is appropriate to bring here are examples where you have made your points clearly and concisely and there is some systemic reason as to why they are ignored (black is white because policy says so aka NOR + V).

Importing disputes from Wikipedia - bad.

Then what is the function of the "Articles" forum? Allegedly it "is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread."

And what was the initial intention of this thread, if not to discuss the contents of an article in detail?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13085

(Yes, I see the thread got derailed.)

Quite agree. I think the subtle difference is between using WR to review articles and using WR to be part of the editing process, which just leads this to being a free for all version of a talk page (so, no difference there then anyway).

So highlighting bad, or good, articles is a worthy occupation, especially if we can get a better understanding of how the article arrived in its state.

FWIW, I would love to see the day that we sat here praising quality Wikipedia articles and how they were simply rolling off the screen due to the policies and administration of Wikipedia. Ooops, dozed off for a moment, still one can dream.

Ok it's over now lol so I can say. I was thinking of the AfD for Macaroni soup. A rubbish version had been created saying to add carrots etc, and saying 'this is a great soup, try it!' it went to AfD and most people were agreeing to remove the article. It could simply have been reworded and made a bearable stub.


Eventually I spent hours researching and referencing a not-even-very-tasty-sounding soup and the nom. was withdrawn. But I thought what people were saying at first might show something slightly wrong with the AfD process.