[mb-style] CSGStandard: Ready for prime time?

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Andrew Conkling
<andrew.conkling at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Brian Schweitzer
> <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Andrew Conkling
> > <andrew.conkling at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > For context, this arose from a series of edits, namely:
> > > http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8482467.
> >
> >
> > I think we've moved past that original concept, but need to get the
> > works list stuff finished and implemented before we can actually make
> > use of it.
>
> But it's being used already.
>
>
> > I would note that the real problem in that series of edits
> > wasn't the use of CSGStandard, but rather the practice of questioning
> > an editor and suggesting corrections to the edits being made, without
> > actually checking to see if the suggested changes for the edits made
> > sense, were factually correct, or following the linked document back
> > to the source (CSGStandard/Mozart, in this case) to even look at the
> > reference url provided by the editor.
> >
>
> As I said in the edit, I wasn't suggesting a correction. I'm sorry that was
> unclear. I did look at the CSGStandard/Mozart page to examine what was being
> suggested (why do you think I didn't do this?), but that page didn't give me
> any more confidence about its material, because it had no sources. I believe
> you when you say that there was a lot of effort and research that went into
> this, but this is only after it was explained to me. Thus, I think it's
> fundamentally important that it be visible on that page.
>
> It seems like you get the impression that I don't like the CSGStandard
> initiative. If that's the case, know that I like the idea, but I don't think
> we're there yet, and I don't think it should be used in edits until then; we
> need a lot more consensus (IMO), a (generally) positive RFC process, and a
> successful RFV. As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), that's
> what we need for all OfficialStyleGuideline documentation in MusicBrainz.

Well, except we've moved past that point.  Why should we RFC any of
the CSGStandard lists when we're not going to be using them for long -
they're just waiting on work lists to be moved over out of the wiki.
Your points are one reason why works lists are a much better solution
- where would you have us be storing the documentation and "proof" for
any bit of info within the wikipages currently?

The point was, however, that whatever your reasons for making the
suggestions, your notes were suggesting changes to the ARs that really
just, to be blunt, didn't make a lot of sense factually.  While your
points above are true, I've yet to see anyone flood any one editor
with such suggestions for "shouldn't this be additional/etc" even
where the editor has left *no* note.  This editor did leave notes.
There really wasn't any reason why an inexperienced editor ought to
have been hit with not just one or two, but 26 such suggestion notes -
especially since, as you say, your point was to "stir the pot", and
your notes weren't based on any factual source.

Most editors simply don't know MB well enough to understand that your
intent was to ask a question; most would simply get confused.  You
told an editor that "CSGStandard is not part of the official MBz
docs." (edit 8482470), with regards to guidance provided within CSGS/M
about a work that has very confusing ARs.  Note that if your intent
was simply to ask some questions, the flood of 26 notes suggesting
random changes to the ARs and editor was adding within that complex
work resulted in the worst possible outcome for classical ARs: "I'll
hold off on further edits to this release until I can get some
clarification."  Except there's no reason the editor ought to have
been put in that position - you read this list, and you know
CSGStandard is simply waiting on works list.  But whatever the point
you're trying to make is, let's not try to make it by dragging in
inexperienced editors who don't know what they're being brought into,
and lets not do it by then flooding their email with edit notes
suggesting changes that have absolutely no basis on anything, let
alone fact.

Brian