Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Andrew,

> 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn :
> > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it
> and
> > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be
> off-loaded. There
> > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other
> words, if
> > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end
> up on
> > another site, unless the article is restricted to history.
> I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line?
> Do
> we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as
> something that is believed to have happened up to and including last
> week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we
> talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers?
> I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small
> set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general
> rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we
> didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very
> well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a
> paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several
> billion years ahead.

I seem to recall WP:CRYSTAL's original purpose was to stop people writing about 
predicted future events years before they occurred (e.g. [[Playstation 9]]).  
Actually, most examples I can think of come from computer games, film, or 
music.  Call WP:CRYSTAL just one of many tools to defend against overwhelming 
geekgasm.

The point was to prevent Wikipedians from making predictions (Playstation 9 
will come out in 2017, and it will be AWESOME!!!; Star Wars XVII will come out, 
and it will SUCK DONKEY BALLS!!!), not to stop us from reporting on others' 
predictions.  So it's entirely appropriate to have an article on [[Heat death 
of the universe]], [[Global warming]], and even [[2012 London Olympics]].  
Indeed, to ask the question --- is it appropriate to talk about global warming, 
heat death of the universe, whatever --- is to be elevating a badly-written 
policy above common sense.  Again.


-- 
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula




___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Donation banner and strongly negative reactions

[Kevin Wong]

Actually, I find it annoying too. It could be quite a bit smaller.

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Here are some areas on the English Wikipedia where the donation drive and
> banner have been discussed:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Bring_Back_Hide_Fundraiser_Notice
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project._Donate_Now_.3E.3E.22
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F
>
> It has also been discussed a few times on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel.
>
> I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know
> that some projects have disabled the banner. It was for a time not
> available
> on the Spanish Wikipedia, and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the
> Russian Wikibooks. A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack
> Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the
> banner now.
>
> My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative,
> and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and
> previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at
> all.
> Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does
> not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by
> Danny Wool last spring.
>
> I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it
> expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of
> reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?
>
> Nathan
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Whether you can or can't, any way you are correct. - Henry Ford
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 11/13/2008 12:57:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But yes,  part of the silly, delicious little thrill is precisely
that the recipient  will never know who his benefactor is.>>


-
Why is this thrilling :)
 
 
 
 
**Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & 
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt
p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown0001)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia

[Steve Summit]

Anthony wrote:
> Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article?
> What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position?  I'll
> grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your work
> for free and without attribution, but to be *glad* specifically *because*
> you are not attributed, I don't see how that can possibly be considered a
> moral position within the framework of Objectivism.

Me, I wasn't claiming any moral position within the framework
of Objectivism.  It's more like a [[Random act of kindness]].
(But yes, part of the silly, delicious little thrill is precisely
that the recipient will never know who his benefactor is.
Whether this is rational or not I won't say.)

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia

[Fred Bauder]

> This is closer to Ayn's own view.
> My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something
> our
> of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done
> nothing to deserve it".  Ayn was not against giving your excess to
> charity.
>

Ayn Rand never got to see Wikipedia, but I can't believe she wouldn't be
proud of Jimbo's role. If she was so foolish as to try to edit, I'm
afraid she'd have to be banned as a crank who insists on original
research.

Fred


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia

[WJhonson]

This is closer to Ayn's own view.
My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something our  
of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done  
nothing to deserve it".  Ayn was not against giving your excess to  charity.
 
 
In a message dated 11/13/2008 9:06:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

3. To be  altruistic, you must make significant sacrifices (it must
significantly cost you) to do what you  do.

**Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & 
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt
p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown0001)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia

[Steve Summit]

Will Johnson wrote:
> In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Even asking whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever --
>> to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.>>
>
> OWN however deals with the feeling by some editors that they have a
> priveledged position vis a vis others, in accepting changes to certain
> articles.  Attribution would only be OWN if OWNing editors prevented anyone
> else from making enough changes to subvert their by-line.

Will.  I said "perilously close to", not "like a violation of".

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

I consider synthesis in mathematics to be almost inevitable. In Physics, it 
is less so, because you hav to estimate error and you are more reliant on 
experimental results. It is also harder in Physics to be sure that you are 
being reasonably complete; that there is no cold fusion. There is still 
value in explaining what feeds into an equation. So, yes, it is hard to 
place this one outside of wikipedia. I think the occasional exception holds, 
and it holds better with a basis and explanation. Unless I miss my guess, 
there are prerequisites to really understanding this one.

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Gray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


> 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and
>> economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded. 
>> There
>> are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other words, 
>> if
>> someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on
>> another site, unless the article is restricted to history.
>
> I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do
> we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as
> something that is believed to have happened up to and including last
> week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we
> talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers?
>
> I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small
> set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general
> rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we
> didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very
> well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a
> paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several
> billion years ahead.
>
> -- 
> - Andrew Gray
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

- Original Message - 
From: "FT2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


> Wikipedia reports what is known, verifiable, and stated by significant
> reliable sources, at this time.
>
>
>
> In matters such as the economy, and global warming, some of the 
> significant
> views held NOW, are views about the future. For example, "Barrack Obama 
> will
> be the 44th president",

A day before the election I was reading this as nearly five coin tosses, 
according to polls. That qualified it extensively, because neither party was 
about to leave those states up to chance.

 " or "Based on current research the great plains will
> become desert by 2050 unless action is taken",

You are better off stating history in the form of how much of that land was 
not desert fifty years ago and changes in the rate of creepage.

 or whatever. Even verifiable
> and relevant facts about the future may be fine, such as "If  he wins
> another 3 fights he will have the longest record of any boxer".

Stuff like that is why I had trouble pruning the article on United States 
Senate, 2010. In 2010, when people are interested in the article from a 
historic POV, stuff like that would become a record. We are not robots. That 
is what WP:IAR is pretty much about. In sports and politics, we hav money 
riding on the future. So, it is natural that we find it harder to resist.

I want to give readers a clue. If their host changes, then maybe they will 
understand that they are delving into topics that are almost purely human. 
Encylopedias are about understanding things other than ourselves, too. It is 
very hard to predict anything but yourself.

 If those are
> relevant and significant in a topic, then yes, we may report them. What
> CRYSTAL is saying is, much more, that we don't go off speculatively
> wondering on our own, about future possibilities, without very good reason
> and some kind of backing...  (unless these are actually mainstream
> significant matters worth reporting, in the field concerned.) But I agree,
> it's hard to pin down :)

Now you know why I like mathematics. If I do not follow it, then I only hav 
myself to blame. If I can follow it, then I do not need authorities to make 
it stronger or more understandable.

>
>
> FT2
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to
>> dispute
>> > on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather
>> > projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant.
>>
>> This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you
>> write about how there's different views by different people. You write
>> that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put
>> in what people are saying!
>>
>> Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section
>> on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous.
>> But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists
>> about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This
>> information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can
>> write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation
>> to inform the readers about what is happening.
>>
>> The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we*
>> shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that
>> do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly
>> state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in
>> wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on,
>> and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking.
>>
>> --Oskar
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia

[Steve Summit]

Anthony wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article.  I like to
>> think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of
>> anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me.
>
> Thanks.  I think that proves my point.  Wikipedia has been taken over
> by altruists.

"Taken over by"?  When was it ever not?  I certainly don't sense
any change on this score over the 3+ years I've been contributing.

It doesn't bother me that you've branded me as an altruist,
although it's mildly interesting to ponder which definition of
that odious term you had in mind.  I can think of at least three:

1. To be altruistic, you can't get any money for what you do.
2. To be altruistic, you can't get anything in return for what you do.
3. To be altruistic, you must make significant sacrifices (it must
   significantly cost you) to do what you do.

I'm not interested in arguing about these, but before you go
thinking I'm all number-two-altruistic for not wanting my name on
articles I've contributed to, I should say that I nevertheless do
get a *lot* in return -- mostly in the form of inner satisfaction.
(And I know I'm far from alone in this attitude.)

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

The problem is reliability of what is inherently opinion. I see no problem 
with writing opinions about facts outside of articles. This is also what the 
documents about weasel words are about. Opinions about facts are qualified. 
I want wikipedia restricted to what is not open to dispute. If pundits 
argue, then wikipedia should be immune to having to block users because they 
had an argument amid the edit summaries about which pundit will be right. 
The future is controversial. It is controversial, because predicting the 
future affects the future. Facts are not controversial. There is enough 
controversy in the meaning of facts.

Human language is like a cracked kettle upon which we beat out tunes for 
bears to dance to, while all the time we are meaning to move the stars to 
pity. --Gustave Flaubert

- Original Message - 
From: "Oskar Sigvardsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to 
>> dispute
>> on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather
>> projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant.
>
> This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you
> write about how there's different views by different people. You write
> that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put
> in what people are saying!
>
> Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section
> on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous.
> But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists
> about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This
> information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can
> write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation
> to inform the readers about what is happening.
>
> The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we*
> shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that
> do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly
> state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in
> wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on,
> and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking.
>
> --Oskar
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[FT2]

Wikipedia reports what is known, verifiable, and stated by significant
reliable sources, at this time.



In matters such as the economy, and global warming, some of the significant
views held NOW, are views about the future. For example, "Barrack Obama will
be the 44th president", or "Based on current research the great plains will
become desert by 2050 unless action is taken", or whatever. Even verifiable
and relevant facts about the future may be fine, such as "If  he wins
another 3 fights he will have the longest record of any boxer". If those are
relevant and significant in a topic, then yes, we may report them. What
CRYSTAL is saying is, much more, that we don't go off speculatively
wondering on our own, about future possibilities, without very good reason
and some kind of backing...  (unless these are actually mainstream
significant matters worth reporting, in the field concerned.) But I agree,
it's hard to pin down :)





FT2
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to
> dispute
> > on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather
> > projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant.
>
> This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you
> write about how there's different views by different people. You write
> that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put
> in what people are saying!
>
> Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section
> on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous.
> But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists
> about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This
> information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can
> write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation
> to inform the readers about what is happening.
>
> The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we*
> shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that
> do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly
> state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in
> wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on,
> and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking.
>
> --Oskar
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to dispute
> on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather
> projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant.

This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you
write about how there's different views by different people. You write
that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put
in what people are saying!

Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section
on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous.
But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists
about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This
information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can
write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation
to inform the readers about what is happening.

The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we*
shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that
do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly
state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in
wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on,
and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking.

--Oskar

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Donation banner and strongly negative reactions

[Jay Litwyn]

Even without looking, I do not think so. If some semblance of a unanimity 
arrived at observing a day of rest every week, then that is what would 
happen, basically. We would end up with a mirror that splintered and ran 
only on that day. If we were forced, due to financial constraints, to 
operate six months a year, I do not think there is any law that would compel 
operation outside those constraints.

- Original Message - 
From: "Carcharoth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Donation banner and strongly negative reactions


> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
>> It's basically not possible for a US-based 501(c)(3) organization to
>> risklessly pre-fund itself in perpetuity.  Google "private foundation
>> payout
>> requirement".
>
>
> 
>
> While we are on the Foundation and legal stuff, can someone tell me 
> whether
> as a US-based 501(c)(3) organization there is any legal requirement for
> Wikipedia, as a website, to meet certain minimum accessibility 
> requirements?
>
> Carcharoth
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

- Original Message - 
From: "Carcharoth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and
>> > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded.
>> There
>> > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other 
>> > words,
>> if
>> > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on
>> > another site, unless the article is restricted to history.
>>
>> I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do
>> we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as
>> something that is believed to have happened up to and including last
>> week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we
>> talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers?

You can say lots about the future. And I do not understand why synthesis 
from anyone has to be here, because there is so much you can say about the 
past without synthesis about what might happen in the future from anyone. 
You can talk about the mini ice age. You can talk about polar ice samples. 
You can put what has already happened to average temperatures on a graph. 
You can tell what happens in a glass vessel when it is filled with carbon 
dioxide or water or normal atmosphere and exposed to sunlight. You can 
explain the meaning of microwave samples made from satellites.

>> I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small
>> set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general
>> rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we
>> didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very
>> well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a
>> paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several
>> billion years ahead.

Okay...you hav a point there. That is what the three laws of thermodynamics 
mean, and it has not been rigorously and unequivocally proven that they are 
immutable, except perhaps in the exhaustive sense, say in Perpetual Motion 
Machine.

Ginsbergès restatement of the three laws of thermodynamics (my keyboard is 
flaky):
1. You canèt win.
2. You canèt break even.
3. You canèt quit.

> Talking about the future is fine, as long as it is grounded in reliable
> sources in the present. I think the original intent of WP:CRYSTAL was to
> avoid original research and to avoid articles about future events becoming
> too disconnected from the present and becoming "in-universe" (to borrow a
> phrase from the debates about articles on fictional topics). In other 
> words,
> having an article about a future scenario, or an alternate history, or an
> alternate reality, or a fictional topic, should always be securely 
> grounded
> in what people have said in the past and are saying now.

Maybe I didnèt emphasize the other places for topics about the future 
enough. People will get it in unequivocal terms enough in the papers, while, 
if the policy is worded definitely, then our tone is not likely to become 
inflamatory. We write primers, graph trends of history and write numbers 
measured. Extrapolation is an exercise for the reader. Some people WANT 
global warming. So, you could do a fork into future.wikia.com Do you want 
global warming...YES (link to environmental consequences) NO (link to 
economic consequences). Actually, there are both for both choices, and 
fiction is not a strong point of my writing. 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia

[Charlotte Webb]

On 11/12/08, Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm late to this thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating, but I'm
> *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article.  I like to
> think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of
> anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me.  Even asking
> whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever --
> to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.

I agree entirely. But I respect the opinions of those who do care
about this information, and mentioned a way in which it can be
determined at a glance.

Unfortunately the way in which it presented lends itself to
editcountitis, and it is more difficult to determine how many words or
sentences or paragraphs of the current version were added by User:X.

If I add three paragraphs to an article, they will over time most
likely keep a similar or nearly meaning, despite undergoing enough
changes to no longer be machine-recognizable as the same content.

This is partly because the machine doesn't really understand English
(or whatever language is being used—English is a good example as there
will usually be over a dozen ways to say exactly the same thing
without re-using any major words) and it is but one point of failure
for known methods of estimating users' contribution share for a given
article.

—C.W.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Date linking a done deal!?!

[Charlotte Webb]

On 11/13/08, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mean that some publications hav a feature about what happened on this day
> in 1986, etc.

Oh yes, definitely, and to the point of negating the argument that
such pages are "indiscriminate collections of information".[1]

> If the date on an article is a link to some page that is robotic, then maybe
> it could read something like a concordance -- one sentence from every article
> containing that date, click on a button to get article titles.

That's actually a good idea, and it shouldn't be that hard to do on
the toolserver. Surely it would some new database tables to be
efficient, and there would still need to be some kind of standard link
syntax to distinguish a date from a poorly worded sentence which
coincidentally looks like a date.[2]

But imagine being able to click on a date link and see all other
events which happened on that exact date, or within the calendar week
of that year, or in the seven-day period centered on that day (given
day +/- 0-3 days), or on that calendar day/week/month but only within
a certain decade, or during a given country's "election years" within
a certain century, or any of these options but filtered to events
related to bluegrass music or ice hockey or Portuguese literature,
etc., etc. without having to edit or create any pages.

For me the only risk would be spending more time browsing around in
this than actually editing.

> I only followed a date link once, and some interesting  things were there, so 
> I
> can't say I know much about what can be done with date links. So, I guess
> my question is...does every editor want their dates automatically linked?

The current mass delinking is evidence that this is a silly question.

> Maybe it should be a user preferences option.

I agree and I've suggested this on a number of occasions to no avail.

—C.W.

[1] Quoted from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_1
[2] A few examples here (more on request)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-October/095989.html

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and
> > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded.
> There
> > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other words,
> if
> > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on
> > another site, unless the article is restricted to history.
>
> I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do
> we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as
> something that is believed to have happened up to and including last
> week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we
> talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers?
>
> I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small
> set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general
> rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we
> didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very
> well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a
> paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several
> billion years ahead.


Talking about the future is fine, as long as it is grounded in reliable
sources in the present. I think the original intent of WP:CRYSTAL was to
avoid original research and to avoid articles about future events becoming
too disconnected from the present and becoming "in-universe" (to borrow a
phrase from the debates about articles on fictional topics). In other words,
having an article about a future scenario, or an alternate history, or an
alternate reality, or a fictional topic, should always be securely grounded
in what people have said in the past and are saying now.

Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Andrew Gray]

2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and
> economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded. There
> are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other words, if
> someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on
> another site, unless the article is restricted to history.

I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do
we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as
something that is believed to have happened up to and including last
week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we
talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers?

I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small
set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general
rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we
didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very
well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a
paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several
billion years ahead.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

Okay, so it is a fact that expert people are saying things that they cannot 
know. I am all over global warming projections, myself, and I do not think 
they are encyclopedic. They are the subject of endless debate over what the 
rate of increase in error is as you go into the future. The material that 
goes into those projections is much more important than what comes out of 
them. Weather history, economic history -- those are fine subjects for an 
encyclopedia. They must be condensed and made interesting with links and 
analysis. Found a trend? Sure. Display it. Extrapolating it should be an 
excercise left for the reader. Direction of wind in a high pressure zone 
north of the equator? Sure. Today's projected high in Timbuktu. Far too 
trivial. You would need megabytes of space for every day and our sources 
would be...um...lifted. We would be echoes.

- Original Message - 
From: "Oskar Sigvardsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "English Wikipedia" 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>> So how should we treat this from the Fianancial Times:
>>
>> Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown
>>
>> By Greg Farrell in New York
>>
>> Published: November 11 2008 14:42 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:06
>>
>> The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic prop­ortions comparable
>> with the period after the 1929 crash, John Thain, chairman and chief
>> executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday.
>>
>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/834ebf5e-aff9-11dd-a795-779fd18c.html
>>
>> What is true is not necessarily the underlying projection but the fact
>> that presumably expert people are saying these things.
>>
>> Fred
>
> Exactly. I see no reason for wikipedia not to say "The total scale of
> this crisis is as of yet uncertain, but several economists are
> projecting [whatever]", with references. Saying this isn't trying to
> predict the outcome, which wikipedia shouldn't be doing, it's just
> simply reporting what people are saying about the crisis. It provides
> neutral and relevant information.
>
> --Oskar
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Date linking a done deal!?!

[Jay Litwyn]

I mean that some publications hav a feature about what happened on this day 
in 1986, etc. If the date on an article is a link to some page that is 
robotic, then maybe it could read something like a concordance -- one 
sentence from every article containing that date, click on a button to get 
article titles. I only followed a date link once, and some interesting 
things were there, so I can't say I know much about what can be done with 
date links. So, I guess my question is...does every editor want their dates 
automatically linked? Maybe it should be a user preferences option. Will you 
ever follow date links? Hide date links?

- Original Message - 
From: "Charlotte Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Date linking a done deal!?!


On 11/11/08, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no telling when such information might get automated, used and
> reprinted. I would've liked to get information about hits on
> http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/font/Saffron_Karaoke_Duet.wmv , because
> "Copies on optical disk must be gifts." is a pretty open license and so 
> far,
> I've only had one personal "liked it" review (And he was looking at 
> version
> three; I'm at version five.). My sister's copy will be late for her
> birthday, yesterday. In any case, since I'm designing it for a-capella
> training, there's really only one test of whether it will last. Did I
> mention that I hav another arrangement in mind? Point is, that some 
> numbers
> don't really matter, unless people remember.

Sorry, I'm not seeing what this has to do with date links or the price
of tea in the PRC.

—C.W.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

What do you want to call this data point? Maybe I can help you choose 
between news.wikia.com and future.wikia.com. If you write it, then what will 
you link it from? whatlinkshere is pretty important for traffic.

- Original Message - 
From: "Fred Bauder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


So how should we treat this from the Fianancial Times:

Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown

By Greg Farrell in New York

Published: November 11 2008 14:42 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:06

The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic prop­ortions comparable
with the period after the 1929 crash, John Thain, chairman and chief
executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/834ebf5e-aff9-11dd-a795-779fd18c.html

What is true is not necessarily the underlying projection but the fact
that presumably expert people are saying these things.

Fred

> I have been editing regarding the global economic crisis. The outstanding
> projection is that (unless something is effective is done) the current
> crisis will result in a crisis similar to the Great Depression. That this
> warning has been repeatedly made is not subject to dispute, but the
> question arises as to the validity of the underlying projection. A more
> minor matter is the more or less reliable projection that the rate of
> unemployment will rise to 8% (or so) during 2009 in the United States.
> There are a number of sources for this. We report generally accepted
> economic projections. That is part of what economists do. To a certain
> extent the validity for our purposes of publishing depends on appropriate
> attribution.
>
> Projections of global warming present the same problem.
>
> The specific problem for Wikipedia is not publishing of generally
> accepted projections but of original research which often has little or
> no rational basis.
>
> Fred
>
>> == Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
>>
>> {{speculation}} and {{prophecy}} are not welcome on
>> wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
>> anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because
>> they
>> are
>> not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
>> [[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is
>> very
>> small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
>> events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense,
>> considering
>> how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
>> making it happen again.
>>
>> [http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
>> [[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the
>> future,
>> and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for
>> sentences
>> that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because
>> they
>> should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
>>
>> $continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
>> already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up
>> with
>> so
>> much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm
>> sure
>> there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the
>> section
>> heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than
>> this
>> to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to dispute 
on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather 
projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant. Graphic 
weather simulations are fiction after about five days, mostly because of 
information that either wasn't measured or doesn't fit in a machine. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRYSTAL explicitly opens a door for 
discussion, which really isn't supposed to be on the encyclopedia. I realize 
that putting a template in or even being bold and deleting text or 
nominating a whole article for deletion are disputes. And perhaps you see 
that if policy is tightly worded, then projections are less likely to be 
created in the first place, on the encyclopedia. The horrible thing about 
economic simulations is that they're used to buy and sell things, so they 
have a problem in the department of self reference, too. In the good old 
days, if you bought shares in a company, it would be because you knew how to 
improve their yield or you saw some good decisions go into that company.

Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and 
economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded. There 
are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other words, if 
someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on 
another site, unless the article is restricted to history.

- Original Message - 
From: "Fred Bauder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


>I have been editing regarding the global economic crisis. The outstanding
> projection is that (unless something is effective is done) the current
> crisis will result in a crisis similar to the Great Depression. That this
> warning has been repeatedly made is not subject to dispute, but the
> question arises as to the validity of the underlying projection. A more
> minor matter is the more or less reliable projection that the rate of
> unemployment will rise to 8% (or so) during 2009 in the United States.
> There are a number of sources for this. We report generally accepted
> economic projections. That is part of what economists do. To a certain
> extent the validity for our purposes of publishing depends on appropriate
> attribution.
>
> Projections of global warming present the same problem.
>
> The specific problem for Wikipedia is not publishing of generally
> accepted projections but of original research which often has little or
> no rational basis.
>
> Fred
>> == Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
>>
>> {{speculation}} and {{prophecy}} are not welcome on
>> wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
>> anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because they
>> are
>> not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
>> [[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is very
>> small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
>> events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense,
>> considering
>> how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
>> making it happen again.
>>
>> [http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
>> [[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the
>> future,
>> and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for sentences
>> that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because
>> they
>> should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
>>
>> $continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
>> already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up with
>> so
>> much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm sure
>> there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the section
>> heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than
>> this
>> to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l