Wikipedia talk:Osmosis
Latest comment: 6 years ago by SlimVirgin in topic Recent edits
Recent edits
editDoc James, as this page is being kept for historical reasons, it ought not to be changed. I'd therefore like to return it to Ca2james's version of 1 April 2018.
If you have a new arrangement with Osmosis, you can create a new page for it, although I wonder whether it would be better to host it to the Wiki Project Med Foundation website. SarahSV (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- The history is under the history tab. There is no new arrangement with Osmosis. There is no rule that says this cannot continue to be edited. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- If there's no new arrangement, then please don't change the description of the old one. It isn't clear why it was hosted here in the first place. It's a private, for-profit company that has no relationship with Wikipedia. But because the issue was contentious, this page became relevant during the discussion and RfC. Therefore, it should be preserved and not written over. SarahSV (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Feel free to link to this page at any point in its history that you want to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I thought that general consensus was that historical pages were not updated, and were left in the state they were when they were deemed historical. Aafter all, the header on the page states that the page is retained as a historical reference.
- I also think the page should be reverted to the April 1 version, partly because of the preceding consensus I believe to be in effect. Moreover, if the page is being kept for historical reference, having a non-historical version is at best misleading and at worst deceptive. Doc James' changes do not reflect the historic agreement he forged with Osmosis. I'm particularly disquieted by the change to remove himself as the editor who would add the videos because it looks like he is trying to retroactively erase his involvement with the project (I don't know that this is what he is doing, only that it looks like this). Given that Doc James was so heavily involved with this project, I think that if changes are to be made to this historical project they be made by someone other than Doc James and preferably not the people involved with the project.
- As for the argument that the historic version is in the revision history, that's a non-starter. Doc James' changes will also be in the history so anyone can see how it was changed after the project was stopped.
- Honestly, the optics with respect to this project were really, really bad and those recent changes do nothing to improve those optics. If Doc James still refuses to keep the historic version, I suggest we revert to the status quo ante (April 1 version, which I see SlimVirgin has done) and call an RfC. Ca2james (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ca2james, thanks for the comment. I see that James reverted then reverted himself, so it's now at the April 1 version again. If anything needs to be said about a new arrangement with Osmosis, a second page should be started, preferably on the WikiProject Med Foundation site (if they have one) or at Meta. SarahSV (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- If there's no new arrangement, then please don't change the description of the old one. It isn't clear why it was hosted here in the first place. It's a private, for-profit company that has no relationship with Wikipedia. But because the issue was contentious, this page became relevant during the discussion and RfC. Therefore, it should be preserved and not written over. SarahSV (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- The history is under the history tab. There is no new arrangement with Osmosis. There is no rule that says this cannot continue to be edited. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)