Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа: On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation as a debating tactic. Experts complain about uncitability - they complain that common knowledge in the field doesn't actually make it into journal articles or textbooks, but is stuff that everyone knows. Perhaps what is needed then is a procedure for experts to cite such common knowledge in the field. I don't have a good idea on how exactly to do that however. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked: *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy, in your opinion? Please be specific. David, I think one of the reasons that biologists and others may be happier than philosophers to edit Wikipedia is that everyone assumes they know something about the latter and don't need to study for it, snip Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts would give up too if their area of expertise were undermined in such a basic way. Very well said, SV. I encounter the same thing in my field. You cannot teach someone who will not be taught. You cannot teach someone something they think they already know. Sure you can, if you can just get their attention. This is the basic method behind good instructional and popular writing, as well as such specific genres as biography. You need to provide an especially attractive format and very clear presentation in a manner that implies that the presentation is expected to be entertaining, to get people started reading or listening, and then to keep them going provide intrinsically interesting material and clear dramatic verbal and pictorial illustration, and write or speak in language and manner that is at the right level of sophistication--a slightly better informed friend is usually the right level, and aim at an overall effect when finished that w;il give people a feeling of satisfaction and increased confidence. It's not easy. Few people can do this really well, and they are only occasionally professional academics. Good advertising people can do it; good journalists can do it; masters of popular non-fiction can do it; some fiction writers can even do it. It may be beyond practical levels of community participation to expect it in Wikipedia, at least on a routine basis. (Though we do have one additional factor--the attractive browsing effect. ) People do change their mind. People can be persuaded. But there are almost no articles in Wikipedia written well enough to could persuade people to pay attention to the arguments. Probably that should not be our goal. for I don't think we can accomplish it by an assortment of amateurs. Probably our basic principle is right:aim for NPOV, for those people who want it. We're always going to be dull reading--even the best professional encyclopedias usually have been. Anything more than that belongs in other media. -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:54 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: But there has to be a willingness to learn, which is what's absent from the philosophy articles. Non-experts -- including experts in other areas -- believe philosophical positions can somehow be worked out from first principles. This is exactly the problem. Really aggressive and belligerent editors who think that because it is 'philosophy', then they can vandalise any article they like. This is a problem with philosophy more than any other discipline. So I mostly stay away from the philosophy articles on WP. Most of the editors I know of with a background in philosophy do the same, or have left in disgust or been banned! This is correct. I have been keeping a tally. - Original Message - From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Very well said, SV. I encounter the same thing in my field. You cannot teach someone who will not be taught. You cannot teach someone something they think they already know. Sure you can, if you can just get their attention. This is the basic method behind good instructional and popular writing, as well as such specific genres as biography. [snip] I agree with you on that whole para, but we were not talking about the problem of writing clearly to a non-technical audience. We were talking about very aggressive editors who know absolutely nothing of the subject, and drive away specialist editors. We're always going to be dull reading--even the best professional encyclopedias usually have been. Anything more than that belongs in other media. The problem is not that. It is that the philosophy articles contain material errors http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/20-most-important-philosophy-articles.html http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html or are materially incomplete http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 03/10/2010 07:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа: On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation as a debating tactic. Experts complain about uncitability - they complain that common knowledge in the field doesn't actually make it into journal articles or textbooks, but is stuff that everyone knows. Perhaps what is needed then is a procedure for experts to cite such common knowledge in the field. I don't have a good idea on how exactly to do that however. The main problem is that citations are overwhelmingly needed in wikipedia precisely because there is no control over the content, and any old crap can get added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cydiff=200330985oldid=200327168 most of the above has been removed, but the first part remains The French even went as far as to leave behind the pavises. They didn't 'leave them behind' the pavises were on the road from Abbeville along with the rest of the straggling French Army. later this bit of tosh got added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cydiff=207979441oldid=207735009 which eventually gets removed by: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cydiff=280708124oldid=280707597 However, now the sense of what Philip wanted is reversed. So which is correct; was Philip in favour of attacking or not? Jonathan Sumption says in the first part of his three part History that the seasoned veterans wanted to wait, but that others wanted to attack. That Philip sided with the opinion to attack as he could not afford the humiliation, of having a powerful army in sight of an English army, for a third time, and not engaging in battle. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked: *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy, in your opinion? Please be specific. David, I think one of the reasons that biologists and others may be happier than philosophers to edit Wikipedia is that everyone assumes they know something about the latter and don't need to study for it, snip Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts would give up too if their area of expertise were undermined in such a basic way. On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Very well said, SV. I encounter the same thing in my field. You cannot teach someone who will not be taught. You cannot teach someone something they think they already know. on 10/3/10 4:49 AM, David Goodman at dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Sure you can, if you can just get their attention. This is the basic method behind good instructional and popular writing, as well as such specific genres as biography. You need to provide an especially attractive format and very clear presentation in a manner that implies that the presentation is expected to be entertaining, to get people started reading or listening, and then to keep them going provide intrinsically interesting material and clear dramatic verbal and pictorial illustration, and write or speak in language and manner that is at the right level of sophistication--a slightly better informed friend is usually the right level, and aim at an overall effect when finished that w;il give people a feeling of satisfaction and increased confidence. It's not easy. Few people can do this really well, and they are only occasionally professional academics. Good advertising people can do it; good journalists can do it; masters of popular non-fiction can do it; some fiction writers can even do it. It may be beyond practical levels of community participation to expect it in Wikipedia, at least on a routine basis. (Though we do have one additional factor--the attractive browsing effect. ) People do change their mind. People can be persuaded. But there are almost no articles in Wikipedia written well enough to could persuade people to pay attention to the arguments. Probably that should not be our goal. for I don't think we can accomplish it by an assortment of amateurs. Probably our basic principle is right:aim for NPOV, for those people who want it. We're always going to be dull reading--even the best professional encyclopedias usually have been. Anything more than that belongs in other media. Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture in Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, this is our encyclopedia, and no 'expert' is going to tell us what to do, may seem liberating to some, but is preventing the Project from being the truly collaborative one it has the potential to be. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
So 30 seconds British library catalog search then forget about it. Which means that unless you happen to live with a library that includes a bunch of naval history or are prepared to spend a non trivial amount of money you can't edit say [[HMS Argus (I49)]] (which cites Warship 1994). You appear to be missing the point that wikipedia is a collaboration. Well, it should be *informed* collaboration. Of course I am not saying that you are not allowed to edit [[HMS Argus (I49)]] unless you have read Warship 1994. If that book is not available to you, but you have a different source, then naturally it's absolutely fine for you to jump in and add content based on that source. The point I am making is that you should *look* for scholarly sources, because they are likely to be the most valuable. I don't use a library either. But I regularly use google books, which has previews of millions of books. For example, you can look for university press books that have canal(s) in the title like so: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=ensafe=offtbs=bks:1q=canal+intitle:canal+OR+intitle:canals+inpublisher:universityaq=faqi=aql=oq=gs_rfai= Then click on a book and read it online. There is a utility that converts google books URLs into a readily formatted Wikipedia reference: http://reftag.appspot.com/?book_url=dateformat=dmy When a page is missing in the google preview, you can sometimes find it in the amazon preview. And you can use google scholar to see whether a book is well cited. I have a subscription to Questia ($50 a year), which has lots of humanities stuff -- books, journals, some press. You can read the complete books online. And sometimes, of course, I end up buying books. Your Warship book has snippet view in google books: http://books.google.com/books?cd=1id=z2AqAQAAIAAJdq=isbn:0851776302q=Argus#search_anchor This means that even though you can't see complete pages, google has the complete content stored, and with a little trickery you can get to text beyond the snippets: http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1tbo=1q=%22did,+might+well+have+become+a+very+famous+ship%22btnG=Search+Books The minimum requirement for content contributions in Wikipedia is, and always has been, that you should have read a reliable source. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Citing sources doesn't help because if Wikipedians don't like the sources, they want to know why we've chosen this source and not some other. No matter how canonical it is, it'll be questioned, because they don't realize it's part of the canon. You can make an argument based on how well the source is cited. That's one of the additions that survived in [[WP:IRS]]: The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. German Wikipedia has a similar principle in [[WP:BLG]]. A source that has received 150 citations is more relevant to the article than one that's received 3. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Experts complain about uncitability - they complain that common knowledge in the field doesn't actually make it into journal articles or textbooks, but is stuff that everyone knows. I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal articles, it should still be possible to find it in basic introductions to the field. Example? A. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 3 October 2010 14:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal articles, it should still be possible to find it in basic introductions to the field. Example? I too have trouble actually getting examples when I ask. But that's a complaint I've heard from more than one person. So I'm presuming there's something to it. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture in Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, this is our encyclopedia, and no 'expert' is going to tell us what to do, may seem liberating to some, but is preventing the Project from being the truly collaborative one it has the potential to be. This is so very very true. And you only have to lose it your cool once or twice, and you are out with a block. Using my earlier 'gardening' analogy I am going to make some suggestions over the coming week. The analogy was a garden where the good plants are struggling to grow, and the place is becoming infested with weeds. Rather than blaming the plants for not growing, a good gardener would apply small changes to help the good plants. For example, trim back a tree that was causing shade. Apply fertiliser (organic of course) in appropriate places. Perhaps (but this may not be neceessary) pull up a few weeds. My experience of gardens is that small changes to the microclimate can make big positive changes to the garden. Here are some initial ideas - all of them small incremental ones that would involve little or no change to Wikipedia policy or governance. 1. Get someone from WMF or even Jimbo to make a keynote statement about philosophy - perhaps alluding to the problematic state of many of the articles, and the need for editors to collaborate together and help. Something is needed to improve the morale of the remaining editors there. 2. An initiative to highlight 5 top importance articles and get them to GA or FA. There are very few FA status articles, compared to the rest of the project. 3. Another initiative to re-classify the top 50 articles in terms of importance and quality (I looked at this and some are wildly out of line). More ideas next week. Any ideas from the others here? Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal articles, it should still be possible to find it in basic introductions to the field. Maybe, but so what? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 07:15, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 October 2010 14:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal articles, it should still be possible to find it in basic introductions to the field. Example? I too have trouble actually getting examples when I ask. But that's a complaint I've heard from more than one person. So I'm presuming there's something to it. If I were going to write an article about truth, I know which philosophers and arguments it would be important to mention. I'd be surprised if that list is in a book anywhere, and it takes years to learn it. Expertise isn't about citing sources. It's about knowing which sources to cite. And this is something that specialists may not get right either, because they have to keep themselves up to date, which isn't easy. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
Hello everyone, I'd like to remind you that existence of the mo. wikipedia is extremely insulting for us from Moldova. The one with the power, please take action and delete it. causes Delete moldovan Wikipedia http://www.causes.com/causes/39775 has 5.140 members Have a good day. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
In a message dated 10/3/2010 5:04:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, michaeldavi...@comcast.net writes: Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture in Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, this is our encyclopedia, and no 'expert' is going to tell us what to do, may seem liberating to some, but is preventing the Project from being the truly collaborative one it has the potential to be. It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but rather an encyclopedia built *by* the masses, for the masses. That was the intent. In this, it has succeeded, for better or worse. It's not the point that no expert is going to tell us what to do. It's the point that some experts not all or them, nor even most of them, do not want to be challenged on their own dogma or as slim put it their canon. They don't want students who are too uppity, but prefer to lecture down from the position to which they think they are entitled. In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but rather based upon your argument and presentation. If you don't want to give an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well. Or at least that's the theory. If a student asks Why and you respond Because I said so, exactly what sort of Expert are you? Not a very good one is my response. W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but rather based upon your argument and presentation. If you don't want to give an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well. Or at least that's the theory. If a student asks Why and you respond Because I said so, exactly what sort of Expert are you? Not a very good one is my response. Well, no, but that's why upper level classes tend to have prerequisites. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 3 October 2010 13:43, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: So 30 seconds British library catalog search then forget about it. Which means that unless you happen to live with a library that includes a bunch of naval history or are prepared to spend a non trivial amount of money you can't edit say [[HMS Argus (I49)]] (which cites Warship 1994). You appear to be missing the point that wikipedia is a collaboration. Well, it should be *informed* collaboration. Of course I am not saying that you are not allowed to edit [[HMS Argus (I49)]] unless you have read Warship 1994. If that book is not available to you, but you have a different source, then naturally it's absolutely fine for you to jump in and add content based on that source. The point I am making is that you should *look* for scholarly sources, because they are likely to be the most valuable. So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my time. I don't use a library either. But I regularly use google books, which has previews of millions of books. For example, you can look for university press books that have canal(s) in the title like so: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=ensafe=offtbs=bks:1q=canal+intitle:canal+OR+intitle:canals+inpublisher:universityaq=faqi=aql=oq=gs_rfai= Then click on a book and read it online. Great except it all the results only cover a single nation's canals and building up a knowledge base like that simply isn't viable timewise. Have you any idea how long it would take to read 47K books? Strangely none of which are the book most cited in the current article. There is a utility that converts google books URLs into a readily formatted Wikipedia reference: http://reftag.appspot.com/?book_url=dateformat=dmy When a page is missing in the google preview, you can sometimes find it in the amazon preview. And you can use google scholar to see whether a book is well cited. I have a subscription to Questia ($50 a year), which has lots of humanities stuff -- books, journals, some press. You can read the complete books online. And sometimes, of course, I end up buying books. Your Warship book has snippet view in google books: http://books.google.com/books?cd=1id=z2AqAQAAIAAJdq=isbn:0851776302q=Argus#search_anchor This means that even though you can't see complete pages, google has the complete content stored, and with a little trickery you can get to text beyond the snippets: http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1tbo=1q=%22did,+might+well+have+become+a+very+famous+ship%22btnG=Search+Books The minimum requirement for content contributions in Wikipedia is, and always has been, that you should have read a reliable source. Which has nothing to do with your original position. Remember you wanted people to review the literature. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: wjhon...@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but rather an encyclopedia built *by* the masses, for the masses. That was the intent. In this, it has succeeded, for better or worse. But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in particular, and to a certain extent the humanities. The question is why is that so. A very plausible explanation is the one that Sarah has so cogently explained. Also, you are wrong about the intention. The purpose is to be a comprehensive and reliable reference source, bringing the sum of all human knowledge to every person on the planet. It is not some gigantic social levelling scheme, as you seem to be implying. Will, can you try and focus on the three questions and keep this on-topic. 1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no? 2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying or systematic reasons? 3. If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be addressed? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
In a message dated 10/3/2010 8:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes: Will, can you try and focus on the three questions and keep this on-topic. 1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no? 2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying or systematic reasons? 3. If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be addressed? 1. One of the foundational works that was used to create Wikipedia was the 1911 EB. Wherever that was flawed, we started out flawed. I'm sure there are some who would say that this never occurred, because they can't remember that far back. However should anyone wish to add any article from the 1911EB, say on Truth or Avicenna or even to incorporate or restructure such an article based on that, they are quite free to so do. 2. Wikipedia has grown like a crystal grows in the midst of impurities. There are impurities perhaps at the heart of the crystal, and it's also not uniform and spherical. When I do a search on some medieval person (my area on concentration) of import, I expect more often than not, to find.. something. In almost every single case, almost every, the article is lopsided, unsupported, has wild claims and specific years which we do not in fact know... I don't blame the project for these flaws, I see them as a way to contribute. I remember with what we started. 3. I would suggest Peter, should you think it possible, to start a new project which is devoted to Philosophy or even to the Humanities, which I think is too broad personally, and build it up and use it as a basis from which others can make additions to Wikipedia. That's what I do. If I encounter, as I sometimes do, an article that is so utterly lacking, that I cannot simply make a few changes to it, I start fresh, from primary and secondary sources and built my own article, in one of my own projects. Then sometimes, when I'm satisfied at the thing of great beauty I've created, I will adds bits of it back to Wikipedia. Flaws in Wikipedia are areas of opportunity for other projects to fill. At the present time. Wikipedia is not the sole project which exists in this area. W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 09:14, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: 1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no? 2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying or systematic reasons? 3. If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be addressed? There was an adjournment debate in the House of Commons in 1999 about the importance of philosophy in education, in case anyone's interested in reading it. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990701/debtext/90701-33.htm The MP who raised it, a former academic philosopher, touches on some of the issues we've raised here. Because children routinely ask themselves philosophical questions -- What is right and wrong? Why should I obey the law? -- adults tend to think they know the answers, or that they''re questions without answers, or that as soon as you identify something as a philosophical issue, you're saying it's a waste of time. This is absolutely the attitude I've encountered on Wikipedia, where everyone thinks that if you know how to ask what is truth? you're also able to have a go at answering it. But that's the basic error right there, and it has driven off several of the specialists who might have written some good articles on those issues. And it's not only in article space that academic philosophers would be able to help improve things. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: wjhon...@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? 1. One of the foundational works that was used to create Wikipedia was the 1911 EB. Wherever that was flawed, we started out flawed. I'm sure there are some who would say that this never occurred, because they can't remember that far back. However should anyone wish to add any article from the 1911EB, say on Truth or Avicenna or even to incorporate or restructure such an article based on that, they are quite free to so do. None of the problem articles incorporate much text from the Britannica 1911. Some of the biography problem articles have large bleeding chunks taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia. This is out of date and also incorporates an obvious POV that is out of place with modern scholarship. 2... In almost every single case, almost every, the article is lopsided, unsupported, has wild claims and specific years which we do not in fact know... I don't blame the project for these flaws, I see them as a way to contribute. I remember with what we started. That is an answer to question 1, not question 2. Question 1: are there any problems. Question 2: If there is a problem, are there any underlying or systematic reasons? You seem to imply there are problems. OK, are there any systematic reasons? (Or is it just random, that the humanities happens by chance to be one of those areas that have problems?). Do you agree with the analysis put forward by Sarah, namely that it is the problem of persistent, aggressive editors who know very little but believe they are experts? If not, give evidence that these are not a problem. Try and address these questions in a systematic and logical fashion. 3. I would suggest Peter, should you think it possible, to start a new project which is devoted to Philosophy or even to the Humanities, which I think is too broad personally, and build it up and use it as a basis from which others can make additions to Wikipedia. That's what I do. If I encounter, as I sometimes do, an article that is so utterly lacking, that I cannot simply make a few changes to it, I start fresh, from primary and secondary sources and built my own article, in one of my own projects. Then sometimes, when I'm satisfied at the thing of great beauty I've created, I will adds bits of it back to Wikipedia. Question 3 was: If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be addressed? Since you haven't said whether there are any underlying or systematic reasons, I don't see how you can answer question 3. Or were these 3 answers of your own that occurred to you at random and are unrelated to my 3 questions? Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in particular, and to a certain extent the humanities. The question is why is that so. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. In philosophy, as well as in the humanities, there's a lot of information which is verifiable but not true (unless you're going to define a reliable source as a source which doesn't contain false information, anyway). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? This is absolutely the attitude I've encountered on Wikipedia, where everyone thinks that if you know how to ask what is truth? you're also able to have a go at answering it. But that's the basic error right there, and it has driven off several of the specialists who might have written some good articles on those issues. And it's not only in article space that academic philosophers would be able to help improve things. That's an answer to question 2 (are there any systematic reasons). But what about question 3? If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be addressed? Are there any small changes to the philosophy microclimate that would attract the plants back? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 09:47, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: - Original Message - From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? This is absolutely the attitude I've encountered on Wikipedia, where everyone thinks that if you know how to ask what is truth? you're also able to have a go at answering it. But that's the basic error right there, and it has driven off several of the specialists who might have written some good articles on those issues. And it's not only in article space that academic philosophers would be able to help improve things. That's an answer to question 2 (are there any systematic reasons). But what about question 3? If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be addressed? Are there any small changes to the philosophy microclimate that would attract the plants back? I can think of a very labour-intensive change -- a project to raise awareness of the importance of philosophy, and what constitutes a philosophical issue, and that there are academic sources devoted to dealing with them. But that's a project that would need academic philosophers to create it. And it would be a contentious project at times, because we'd be trying to claim back certain topics from other hands -- from scientists, for example. How do we attract the philosophers back once they've gone almost entirely? I don't know. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? I can think of a very labour-intensive change -- a project to raise awareness of the importance of philosophy, and what constitutes a philosophical issue, and that there are academic sources devoted to dealing with them. But that's a project that would need academic philosophers to create it. And it would be a contentious project at times, because we'd be trying to claim back certain topics from other hands -- from scientists, for example. How do we attract the philosophers back once they've gone almost entirely? I don't know. How about some of the ideas I suggested earlier? Starting with a keynote statement from Jimbo, followed by some initiatives? Preferably in the media, and preferably with some modest support from WMF. Views? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: I gave a list of problematic articles. Here is one of them again. http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html I really can't comment on that one without first learning more about argumentum ad baculum (I agree with you that the Wikipedia article is not a good one at presenting it - the examples of fallacies and the example of a non-fallacy are not even in the same form). The link you provided just says Wikipedia is wrong, but it doesn't really explain why. Yes, there is an implicit step missing from the argument that you should not do that which you do not want to do, but that's not the same as saying the argument is fallacious. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] New Wikipedia videos being released this week
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote: This week the Foundation is excited to be releasing four separate videos shot at the recent Wikimania Conference in Gdansk, Poland. The first video 'Username' is now posted on the WM Commons: They're good! Very clean-looking and bright. I think it's a great shame that the Wikipedia logo doesn't appear throughout, though. And I would argue the Wikipedia global URL ought to be onscreen at all times too. I assume there would be no argument if someone wanted to do a remix with those elements added? If someone agrees with my points, has the video editing skills and software I sadly lack and would like to do those versions then I would donate £30 (GBP) to Wikimedia. I'm assuming that I would be able to provide proof of keeping my commitment by linking to the donation log: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionHistory/en User:Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: No, built by the masses was not the intent. The goal was to build an encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate. So I must say, in response to this remarkable claim: citation needed. When you open it for editing by anyone, and you're making the sum of human knowledge available to all, that's by the people for the people. I strongly support that. I wouldn't want to see it expert-led. My only gripe is that some specialist areas are respected, and others not. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org To: Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? In my experience by verifiability, Wikipedians mean published somewhere, not verifiably true. No the published source must be reliable as well. Otherwise published sources on holocaust denial could be cited as if factually true (or rather, verifiable) in Wikipedia. Geni: However it fundamentally fails to explain why other areas of the humanities such as those covered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force/Operation_Majestic_Titan This is not a humanities subject, nor does it have the problem that Sarah has been talking about, which is a horde of editors without any training in the subject being aggressively stupid, to use David's happy phrase. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
If you (drink and) drive you might get in a car accident. Therefore you should not (drink and) drive. Is that one also fallacious? It's still missing a step you should not cause yourself to get into a car accident. But then, it also is different in that there is no third party imposing a punishment. As you say it is missing a step. If you (drink and) drive you might get in a car accident. *** You should not run the risk of getting in a car accident Therefore you should not (drink and) drive. You need to match 'ought to' or 'should', or equivalent meaning word in the minor premiss in order to be valid. Note I put 'run the risk of' to cover your 'might'.Better still would be If you (drink and) drive you run the risk of getting in a car accident You should not run the risk of getting in a car accident Therefore you should not (drink and) drive. You need to match the pattern of If A then B B should not happen Therefore A should not happen The logic is quite simple. Suppose A happens. Then from the major, B will happen. But from the minor, B should not happen. Thus if A happens, something will happen that should not happen. Therefore A should not happen. - Original Message - From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html Also, what do you think of the previous example of a non-fallacious argument: If you (drink and) drive you might get in a car accident. Therefore you should not (drink and) drive. Is that one also fallacious? It's still missing a step you should not cause yourself to get into a car accident. But then, it also is different in that there is no third party imposing a punishment. I dunno, I think the whole article [[argumentum ad baculum]] is just piss poor in general. If you are not a christian, God will torture you forever. Therefore, Christianity is correct. Okay, that I can see as a fallacy. Whether or not that's what meant by argumentum ad baculum, I don't yet know (couldn't find a good source for what it means). Would this be a good example of argumentum ad baculum: If you think drinking and driving is okay, then you will get into a car accident and die. Therefore drinking and driving is not okay. (I note that you should not get into a car accident and die is still left as an implicit assumption.) If x accepts P as true, then Q. is not the same as If P, then Q. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion within the bounds of the rules of this mailing list. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 3 October 2010 18:23, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: Geni: However it fundamentally fails to explain why other areas of the humanities such as those covered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force/Operation_Majestic_Titan This is not a humanities subject, History is generally viewed as a humanities subject. nor does it have the problem that Sarah has been talking about, which is a horde of editors without any training in the subject being aggressively stupid, to use David's happy phrase. But why not? Everyone knows what a battleship is right? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] subtitles for Wikimedia videos
An'n 28.09.2010 20:50, hett Jay Walsh schreven: Hi Marcus - thanks for the note. I'll be looking into this right away to see if we can get the good work of the subtitlers/translators into the whole presentation of the videos on youtube and Vimeo. Thanks for the pointer. As soon as we have some progress on this we'll let you know (but hopefully you'll see this unfolding). thanks! jay I saw it unfolded now. Thanks! One small issue: 'nds' is not Dutch. It's Low Saxon. And I have no subtitle selection menu (just an on/off switch that gives me random language subtitles) with HTML5, but I guess that's a problem of either my browser or YouTube and cannot be fixed on Wikimedia's side. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] subtitles for Wikimedia videos
Yeah, I agree, that makes sense. On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: An'n 28.09.2010 20:50, hett Jay Walsh schreven: Hi Marcus - thanks for the note. I'll be looking into this right away to see if we can get the good work of the subtitlers/translators into the whole presentation of the videos on youtube and Vimeo. Thanks for the pointer. As soon as we have some progress on this we'll let you know (but hopefully you'll see this unfolding). thanks! jay I saw it unfolded now. Thanks! One small issue: 'nds' is not Dutch. It's Low Saxon. And I have no subtitle selection menu (just an on/off switch that gives me random language subtitles) with HTML5, but I guess that's a problem of either my browser or YouTube and cannot be fixed on Wikimedia's side. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Geni, would you like to describe how you research sources? Entirely depends on what I'm doing. Sometimes I start with an article and go looking for refs. Okay. Assume that all I am saying is: when you go looking for refs, look first whether there are any academic refs out there that might be useful to you. Again we go back to that simply being impossible for something like [[canal]]. I know my way around UK canals well enough to know that Charles Hadfield's work is the bedrock of of british canal history. But worldwide? For example I know japan has canals but I can't read japanese and would have no idea where to start if I did. Seems to me you would not be the right editor to embark on this then. :) Best to leave it to someone who speaks Japanese, and they should have a look what scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese scholarly literature. However by that point you are getting into featured article standard rather than regular editing. Long-term, that is where Wikipedia wants to be. The idea is that all articles will get better over time, until they are of a professional standard that deserves FA status. Whether that happens in practice is partly what we are discussing here. But even at that level your argument doesn't hold. The main author of the [[Manchester Bolton Bury Canal]] featured article didn't have a copy of Hadfield's The Canals of Northwest England (Volume 2). Thus collaboration. Of course you collaborate -- one editor has one source, another has another source. But even the main editor presumably knew that Hadfield's book was important, and that the article would be incomplete without it. (In fact, looking at the first FAC, it seems the lead editor got hold of the book in the end to help the article pass.) Peter Damian wrote: 1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no? I do believe that the number of FAs and GAs that en:WP has in Philosophy and psychology is particularly low, especially when compared to areas like history, warfare and videogaming, or when compared to de:WP. Other areas with low or low-ish numbers of FAs to date* are - - Business, economics and finance - Chemistry and mineralogy - Computing - Food and drink - Health and medicine - Language and linguistics - Mathematics A. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fa ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
In a message dated 10/3/2010 9:59:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dger...@gmail.com writes: No, built by the masses was not the intent. The goal was to build an encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate. So I must say, in response to this remarkable claim: citation needed. It's self-evident :0 Calling it the encyclopedia which anyone can edit implies the intent not goal as you stated, that we desire anyone to actually edit it. Not just understand that they could and yet they won't and we don't actually want them to Apparently, the project wants the masses to edit it, or are you claiming that that's just a false slogan to make a marketing point? W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] IRC Office Hours with Zak Greant (Wikimedia Foundation Technical Writer)
Greetings All, On Wednesday, October 6 from 16:00 to 17:00 UTC and Thursday, October 7th 04:00 to 05:00 UTC, I'll be holding office hour sessions on the #wikimedia-office IRC channel. Exact times for the session in a range of time zones follow. The sessions will be focused on the Mediawiki developer documentation, along with related topics. For background reading, please visit: * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Zakgreant/MediaWiki_Technical_Documentation_Plan * http://mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Zakgreant San Francisco UTC-7 Wed. 09:00-10:00Wed. 21:00-22:00 New YorkUTC-4 Wed. 12:00-13:00Thu. 00:00-01:00 London UTC+1 Wed. 17:00-18:00Thu. 05:00-06:00 BernUTC+2 Wed. 18:00-19:00Thu. 06:00-07:00 New Delhi UTC+5:30Wed. 21:30-22:30Thu. 09:30-10:30 Bejing UTC+8 Thu. 00:00-01:00Thu. 12:00-13:00 Tokyo UTC+9 Thu. 01:00-02:00Thu. 13:00-14:00 CanberraUTC+10 Thu. 17:00-18:00Thu. 14:00-15:00 If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi. Type a nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and #wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join. Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/ , typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning, which you can click to accept. Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other relevant email lists you happen to be on. -- Zak Greant (Wikimedia Foundation Contractor) Plans, reports + logs at http://mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Zakgreant Want to talk about the Mediawiki developer docs? Catch me on irc://irc.freenode.net#wikimedia-office Wed. from 16:00-17:00 UTC Thu. from 04:00-05:00 UTC ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 2 October 2010 18:13, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: And you've missed the point. The entire thrust of our mission is to make readers into editors. Inasmuch as we have a mission, it is to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home That is the point of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ...which is a tool to achieve the goal above. We should be careful not to mistake the fundamental goals for the methods we choose to achieve them. Those methods are important, and we would be lost without them, but they are emphatically *not* primary goals in themselves. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: We were talking about very aggressive editors who know absolutely nothing of the subject, and drive away specialist editors. I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among the expert as well as the non-expert editors. Expertise does not necessarily mean a devotion to expressing all significant views and presenting them fairly. I have been involved a little with some articles in Wikipedia written by fully-credentialed experts --in one case with an international reputation and distinguished academic awards-- devoted to expressing their own peculiarly one-sided view of the subject. And there was a group of articles with several experts of established high reputation each taking the position that the other ones were hopelessly wrong. And not confined to Wikipedia, I think we all know of subjects in all fields where there are or have been people of high authority with peculiar views Indeed, this sort of bias infected the old Brittanica. I am not qualified to judge articles on philosophy on my own understanding of the material. I must ask whether you are so very sure that academic consensus will endorse your views on the articles mentioned that you would be able to write a replacement article, and ask for an RfC on it, and convince outsiders by reference to multiple understandable authoritative sources? I remind you that in the case of climate change, the scientific view was eventually supported, though it took several rounds at arb com. In the other direction, disputes between experts was one of the factors that killed (or almost-killed) Citizendium. -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 3 October 2010 22:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Seems to me you would not be the right editor to embark on this then. :) Best to leave it to someone who speaks Japanese, and they should have a look what scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese scholarly literature. err by that standard the person would have to be able to read: English Japanese French German Dutch Chinese Italian Russian and depending on how much you were worried about more recent events arabic and spanish So we are back to the problem that by your standards there is no one on earth qualified to write the [[Canal]] article. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
I presume that there is some background to this request that we are supposed to understand? If I had to guess (which I shouldn't), my supposition would be that the post and petition relate to some dispute about whether Moldovan is a separate language from Romanian? Is there any further background on this that anyone should have? Is this a pending issue requiring resolution, or the restatement of a long-settled matter? And, something I should already know the answer to but just realized I don't, who within the foundation or community makes this type of decisions, anyway? Newyorkbrad On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Cetateanu Moldovanu cetatean...@gmail.comwrote: Hello everyone, I'd like to remind you that existence of the mo. wikipedia is extremely insulting for us from Moldova. The one with the power, please take action and delete it. causes Delete moldovan Wikipedia http://www.causes.com/causes/39775 has 5.140 members Have a good day. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On Oct 3, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: And, something I should already know the answer to but just realized I don't, who within the foundation or community makes this type of decisions, anyway? One of the key points that kept being reiterated in the Strategic Planning process was that we have no method for failing well. For saying - we tried this, and it didn't work (I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm just using this as an example). The community makes the determination to close a language version, putatively, but in practical terms it's proven difficult to do. Generally it's an RfC on Meta. I think the last major contentious one was the Simple English Wikiquote? Once the decision is made, then it falls to the developers to actually flip the switch or say the magic words, or do whatever it is they do to close the project. Philippe Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: English Wikiquote? Once the decision is made, then it falls to the developers to actually flip the switch or say the magic words, or do whatever it is they do to close the project. Philippe It has already been closed and added to the list[1] which is the standard practice, From my understanding is that they want the domain actually removed which we don't normally do (as to my understanding). -Peachey [1]. http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/closed.dblist ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
An'n 04.10.2010 01:59, hett K. Peachey schreven: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: English Wikiquote? Once the decision is made, then it falls to the developers to actually flip the switch or say the magic words, or do whatever it is they do to close the project. Philippe It has already been closed and added to the list[1] which is the standard practice, From my understanding is that they want the domain actually removed which we don't normally do (as to my understanding). -Peachey [1]. http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/closed.dblist We don't do this if the project is valid, just inactive and can restart at a later date. But we usually remove projects entirely if they are closed forever. See tokipona.wikipedia.org or tlh.wikipedia.org. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
Greetings, We don't do this if the project is valid, just inactive and can restart at a later date. But we usually remove projects entirely if they are closed forever. See tokipona.wikipedia.org or tlh.wikipedia.org. Marcus Buck User:Slomox The project was active, but judging by the comments made before and after the closure, it was closed due to a political spat (like a lot of projects coming from the Eastern Bloc). Regards, Zachary Harden ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
An'n 04.10.2010 02:13, hett Zachary Harden schreven: The project was active, but judging by the comments made before and after the closure, it was closed due to a political spat (like a lot of projects coming from the Eastern Bloc). Which ones exactly where closed? I don't think this claim is valid. In the case of Moldovan it wasn't a political spat but the plain fact, that Moldovan is just another name for Romanian. Here's what I wrote on the wikitech-l thread about the same topic: There are 19.7 million speakers of Romanian in Romania. There are 2.6 million speakers of Romanian in Moldova (they call their language either Romanian or Moldovan, but it's the same language as in Romania). Both Romania and Moldova write the language with Latin script. Then there are 177,000 speakers of Romanian living in Transnistria. Transnistria is officially part of Moldova, but it is a de facto independant state. Transnistria's population is about one third Romanian, one third Russian and one third Ukrainian. When Moldova became independant in 1991 the Russian group in Transnistria feared that their privileged status would change and that Romanian would become the most privileged language in the new state. A civil war broke out and supported by Russian troops Transnistria became a de facto independant state. This state holds Russophile policies and the Romanian language (called Moldovan) is written in Cyrillic. The Cyrillic script was introduced by the Soviets as a measure of cultural Sovietization. So for the Romanians and Moldovans the Cyrillic script is a symbol of Soviet cultural imperialism and more importly a dividing line that excludes 177,000 speakers of their language from participation in Romanian-language cultural affairs (at least in its written forms). mo.wp is Cyrillic but uses the code 'mo' that stands for Moldovan and would thus in theory cover all 2.78 million speakers in both Moldova and Transnistria. For Moldovans mo.wp feels like Wikimedia tries to promote Cyrillic in Moldova. The code 'mo' by the way is deprecated because ISO recognized it as being identical with Romanian. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
As mentioned, closure of a language version has its own page proposal for closure of [that wiki] on Meta, so no needs to open an RFC. If we consider A as a language or a dialect should be treated in a scientific manner. In general if there is an language either natural (like English, German ...) or artificial (like esperanto) which is mainly used for serious needs in real life, like communications and spreading knowledge, they deserve a wiki in our convention. In that case, even if its community agrees on closure, it's better to freeze and wait for a future chance a healthy community can revive that, not to delete all both content and subdomain unless the content is supposed to be illegal or the claimed language is a crappy invention of some individual(s). Wikimedia exists to spread free knowledge, not to push a certain POV, like redeeming a self-esteem sentiment of a particular ethnic or national group. Cheers, On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Oct 3, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: And, something I should already know the answer to but just realized I don't, who within the foundation or community makes this type of decisions, anyway? One of the key points that kept being reiterated in the Strategic Planning process was that we have no method for failing well. For saying - we tried this, and it didn't work (I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm just using this as an example). The community makes the determination to close a language version, putatively, but in practical terms it's proven difficult to do. Generally it's an RfC on Meta. I think the last major contentious one was the Simple English Wikiquote? Once the decision is made, then it falls to the developers to actually flip the switch or say the magic words, or do whatever it is they do to close the project. Philippe Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
We were talking about very aggressive editors who know absolutely nothing of the subject, and drive away specialist editors. I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among the expert as well as the non-expert editors. Expertise does not necessarily mean a devotion to expressing all significant views and presenting them fairly. I have been involved a little with some articles in Wikipedia written by fully-credentialed experts --in one case with an international reputation and distinguished academic awards-- devoted to expressing their own peculiarly one-sided view of the subject. And there was a group of articles with several experts of established high reputation each taking the position that the other ones were hopelessly wrong. And not confined to Wikipedia, I think we all know of subjects in all fields where there are or have been people of high authority with peculiar views Indeed, this sort of bias infected the old Brittanica. snip I remind you that in the case of climate change, the scientific view was eventually supported, though it took several rounds at arb com. While this is a whole other topic, it is worth bearing in mind that there is another arb com round currently ongoing on climate change in en:WP, and that one of the most visible experts looks likely to end up topic-banned. It is unfortunately true that experts can also be aggressive, and wedded to strange ideas about how to edit articles related to their field (in this case, BLPs of their ideological opponents). A. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Seems to me you would not be the right editor to embark on this then. :) Best to leave it to someone who speaks Japanese, and they should have a look what scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese scholarly literature. err by that standard the person would have to be able to read: English Japanese French German Dutch Chinese Italian Russian and depending on how much you were worried about more recent events arabic and spanish So we are back to the problem that by your standards there is no one on earth qualified to write the [[Canal]] article. If that's what you thought I was saying, you have misunderstood me. Let the person who can read Japanese contribute what they can from the Japanese scholarly literature, to cover any points specific to canals in Japan, and so forth. And failing such an editor, finding the best English-language work on Japanese canals will just have to do. Or you'd have to ask the Japanese WikiProject for help. Like you say, it is a collaborative project; but everyone involved in that project should make an effort to find the most relevant, authoritative sources. You're doing no less when you refer to Hadfield, because, like you say, he is the bedrock of British canal history. If there were no editor like you who had bothered to find out that Hadfield is a sterling source to refer to on canals, Wikipedia would be much worse off. I don't think I am really in disagreement with you. A. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
Zachary, contrary to characterizations made by others on this thread, that is exactly what happened. The Wiki was active, there were users creating articles, but unfortunately political considerations took top priority in a community vote that was held, which essentially pitted Russians against Romanians, with minimal Moldovan input and 0 input from Transnistria, the main territory where Cyrillic Moldovan is used. The Romanians were able to get more votes by posting a sitenotice on ro.wp, and the mo.wp Wiki was suddenly locked. Now Marcus has proposed a solution where there is 0 content in Cyrillic Moldovan until a converter is up and running, which I have a feeling will probably never come to fruition, which is why I have proposed that as a precondition for any final deletion of the mo.wp. Then, in Marcus' proposal, the Cyrillic converter would be read-only, so users of Cyrillic Moldovan would be unable to contribute in their own language and script on their Wikipedia, which violates the Wiki principle of anybody can contribute. My proposal: Move mo.wp to mo-cyrl.wp or ro-cyrl.wp as an interim measure. Create converter, once converter is created AND enabled, delete mo-cyrl.wp. -m. 2010/10/3 Zachary Harden zscout...@hotmail.com: Greetings, We don't do this if the project is valid, just inactive and can restart at a later date. But we usually remove projects entirely if they are closed forever. See tokipona.wikipedia.org or tlh.wikipedia.org. Marcus Buck User:Slomox The project was active, but judging by the comments made before and after the closure, it was closed due to a political spat (like a lot of projects coming from the Eastern Bloc). Regards, Zachary Harden ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
