Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
I notice that the most bitter disputes tend to be about controversial journalists. I myself consider him of borderline notability. However, since the standard for inclusion of a person in article content content is not the person mentioned being notable, but of being pertinent and sourced, I reverted the removal from the article on the NYP article, and warned the person who did it about removal of sourced material without discussion. I haven't looked at CounterPunch yet, which has a more complicated history. We do aim at NPOV, and I and almost everyone at Wikipedia will try to help achieve it. But obviously with our basic principle of editing violations cant be prevented--and probably can not all be corrected either. But we can work towards it.. It takes persistence and patience. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.com wrote: One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website. In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is. A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: I think NPOV is our greatest innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website. (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html) Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_Cabal.29). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'.(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunchdiff=267015135oldid=263748961). Nearly two months later this unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunchdiff=278994805oldid=278994056). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunchdiff=281912735oldid=280865106). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: Mostly I'm the person I know of calling it Wikipedia's greatest innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the website. Are there others? (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedia.html) Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Pressdiff=281915790oldid=275246572). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting anyone edit the website. ( September 2007, David Gerard)
Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
2009/4/9 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: This is (when stripped down) basically a straw man post. It uses quotes by others saying Aas a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't A at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted. This is a much better reply than I could have bothered writing. - d. ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. I would like Wikipedians in general to be apprised of my concerns. I believe they are serious and well-justified, and they should not be dismissed without a careful hearing. I do not ask that Jimmy Wales reply here on this list. But I do ask that the powers that be--including the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Board, and the media--hold Jimmy responsible for his very shabby behavior toward me. Let me be clear. This is not just an attempt to tell my side of the story. It is me confronting Jimmy Wales publicly for lying about my involvement in the project after many private requests to stop. You might disagree with me about many things, but we need not disagree about the facts as they can be found in various Internet archives, nor about the necessity of keeping our leaders honest. A readable copy, with some updates, can be found here: http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/an-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-copy/ http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/updates-re-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales / The letter itself follows. --Larry Sanger === Jimmy, I don't know a better place than this for an open letter to you [i.e., than on your user talk page on Wikipedia]. I recently read the Hot Press interview with you. The lies and distortions it contains are, for me, the last straw, especially after http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 this came to light, in which you described yourself as co-founder in 2002. I've reached out to you on a couple of occasions to coordinate our versions - well, my version and your fanciful inventions - about how Wikipedia got started. Last year I read about a speech in which you represented me as being more or less opposed to Wikipedia from the start - despite it being my own baby, really - and I wrote to you saying that if you keep this up, I will speak out. Well, I'm finally speaking out. In Wikipedia's first three years, it was clear to everyone working on it that not only had I named the project, I came up with and promoted the idea of making a wiki encyclopedia, wrote the first policy pages and many more policy pages in the following year, led the project, and enforced many rules that are now taken for granted. I came up with a lot of stuff that is regarded as standard operating procedure. For instance, I argued that talk should go on talk pages and got people into that habit. Similarly, after meta-discussion started taking up so much of Wikipedia's time and energy, I shepherded talk about the project to meta.wikipedia.org - and after that, to Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L. I insisted that we were working on an encyclopedia, not on the many other things one can use a wiki for. I came up with the name Wikipedian and other Wikipedia jargon. I had devised a neutrality policy for Nupedia, and I elaborated it in a form that stood for several years on Wikipedia. I did a lot of explaining and evangelizing for Wikipedia - what it is about, why we are here, and so forth - for example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics%22 Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on kuro5hin.org http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 like this one and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 this. I also recall introducing many specific policy details, the evidence for which is in archives (such as on archive.org) and no doubt in the memories of some of the more active early Wikipedians. These are only some examples of ways in which I led the project in its first 14 months; after I left, there was a lot of soul-searching in the project about what would happen now that it was leaderless (see the quotations linked from http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html this page). When I was involved in the project, I was regarded as its chief organizer. As you can still see in the archives, I called myself Chief Instigator and Chief Organizer and the like (not editor). I also want to correct you on something that tends to harm me: your repeated insinuations that I was fired. In the Hot Press interview, you said I left Wikipedia because you didn't want to pay him any more. You know - and so does everyone else who worked at Bomis, Inc., around a dozen people - that at the end of 2001, you had to go back to Bomis' original 4-5 employees, because of the tech market bust, when Bomis suddenly lost a million-dollar ad deal. Tim Shell told me I was the last person to be laid off. He told me - the day I arrived back from my honeymoon, as I recall - that I should probably start looking for new work, because of the market. I was made to believe, and always did until a few years ago when you started implying otherwise, that I had been
[WikiEN-l] New Book - Cyberchiefs
[apologies for cross-postings] Hi everyone Thought some people might be interested to know about my new book 'Cyberchiefs' which analyses leadership and organisation in free software projects, weblogs and wikis - in fact one of the case studies is on the English Wikipedia. See below for publisher blurb. Cheers, Mathieu mathieu.on...@anu.edu.au *** Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes Mathieu O’Neil April 2009 PB / £ 17.99 / $ 32.95 / 978-0-7453-2796-9 / 215mm x 135mm / 242 pp ‘Going against all easy celebrations of an Internet culture without authority or power structures, Cyberchiefs offers an important and relevant account of the innovations in forms of authority expressed by the social dynamics of Internet group formations.’ Tiziana Terranova, associate professor of Sociology of Communications and Cultural Studies at the University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’ and author of Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. People are inventing new ways of working together on the internet. Decentralised production thrives on weblogs, wikis and free software projects. In Cyberchiefs, Mathieu O’Neil focuses on the regulation of these working relationships. He examines the transformation of leadership and expertise in online networks, and the emergence of innovative forms of participatory politics. What are the costs and benefits of alternatives to hierarchical organisation? Using case studies of online projects or ‘tribes’ such as the radical Primitivism archive, the Daily Kos political weblog, the Debian free software project, and Wikipedia, O’Neil shows that leaders must support maximum autonomy for participants, and he analyses the tensions generated by this distribution of authority. Mathieu O’Neil is Adjunct Research Fellow at the Australian National University in the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, and Principal Researcher at Australia’s Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. He has contributed articles to Le Monde diplomatique, Manière de voir and Factsheet 5. He has also worked as a magazine editor and designer, as an editor on the collective New Media Art weblog Under the Sun, and has curated international digital art exhibitions. Publisher webpage (US): http://us.macmillan.com/cyberchiefs Obligatory Facebook page: Coming soon! Dr Mathieu O'Neil Adjunct Research Fellow Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute College of Arts and Social Science The Australian National University E-mail: mathieu.on...@anu.edu.au Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00 Web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php Mail: Coombs Building, 9 Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA ___ 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] Professor Wikipedia
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1830262 Not the most accurate representation of Wikipedia that I've seen (at least they know about our notability policy), but I laughed all the same. -- Foxy Loxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Foxy_Loxy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
I agree that in many instances, there can be a bitter editing war that doesn't necessarily end up with a NPOV being selected, but in my view, most of the time, patience persistence win, leading to most articles being relatively neutral. By no means would I say it was perfect there are probably things that can be done to improve it, but on the whole it is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths; not least because to the general public who are not editors or administrators or who do not participate in editing, Wikipedia is seen as a neutral, independent source of fact. Sure, there are certain areas that need improvement, but once the wider Wikipedia community is brought in, as they have now been, thanks to your highlighting of the problems with Alan Cabal, calm common sense tend to prevail. I disagree with your statement One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV because I believe *generally* there is a NPOV, with problems arising in certain instances. On 09/04/2009 04:54, Bill Carter wrote: One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website. In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is. A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: I think NPOV is our greatest innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website. (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html) Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_Cabal.29). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'.(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunchdiff=267015135oldid=263748961). Nearly two months later this unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunchdiff=278994805oldid=278994056). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunchdiff=281912735oldid=280865106). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: Mostly I'm the person I know of calling it Wikipedia's greatest innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the website. Are there others? (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedia.html) Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Pressdiff=281915790oldid=275246572). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in my opinion, its
Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a straw man post. It uses quotes by others saying Aas a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't A at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted. Bill, you stated that One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV.But nobody's said that in any of your cites. What people have said is, it is a goal of all articles, and a non-negotiable expectation that articles and their authors should aim towards for an article. Nobody's said it has actually been reached for many/most articles. All your David Gerard quotes - none show him saying that it exists for most articles, rather they show him saying that it is an important innovation of the project to explicitly identify NPOV as an ideal goal and top priority, at a project content level. Whether anyone personally believes NPOV is a good idea or not (or a foolish idealists dream) there is in fact no conflict between a statement that some person sees it as a very significant stance/innovation or that the project's community has identified it as a major priority, and despite this, achieving it is often elusive and many/most articles haven't yet done so. You then claim that Many of you... know exactly how patently false the NPOV /doctrine/ is without actually substantiating that statement at all. The NPOV /doctrine/ is that: - All significant views on a topic that can be sourced to reliable sources, should, in an ideal article, be represented in a balanced manner. - That while articles may take a long time to get there,the long term goal over time is to gradually see articles reducing a biased viewpoint in favor of a neutral one. That is the NPOV doctrine, put simply. It doesn't seem false or falsifiable, because it doesn't say how Wikipedia is edited, but how it /should be/ edited. So the bare statement that many know that these two statements are patently false seems in the cold light of day, ridiculously unsupported by your post, which doesn't attempt to disprove these two points at all, but attempts to show simply, they haven't been achieved yet (which nobody's disputing anyway). Brilliant, Sherlock. By contrast, David Gerard's actual point (which one may agree with or not) in all the quotes you cite, seems to simply be that, in his view, an explicit statement and goal to this effect is an important innovation for an encyclopedia to explicitly and publicly have stated as its core editorial policy. Sloppy logic, rhetorical post. FT2 On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.comwrote: One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website. In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is. A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: I think NPOV is our greatest innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website. ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html) Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_Cabal.29). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, CounterPunch has also been
Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea. From: FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie This is (when stripped down) basically a straw man post. It uses quotes by others saying Aas a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't A at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted. snip ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.com wrote: FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea. No-one claims we have achieved NPOV. Indeed, most everyone would think that, ultimately, it is unattainable. It is a goal and a guiding principle. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority. As far as I've found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral reliable source, with the odd exceptions. Tris On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote: FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea. From: FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie This is (when stripped down) basically a straw man post. It uses quotes by others saying Aas a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't A at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted. snip ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
Tris: You're not insane, are you? Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article. From: Tris Thomas t...@waterhay.co.uk To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:28:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority. As far as I've found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral reliable source, with the odd exceptions. Tris On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote: FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea. From: FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie This is (when stripped down) basically a straw man post. It uses quotes by others saying Aas a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't A at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted. snip ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
Um, don't think so! Again, this is an isolated example. There may be many articles like this, but overall they will be a tiny percentage of the total articles in Wikipedia. NPOV has by no means been achieved throughout Wikipedia, as said before it's a goal many articles are neutral reliable. On 09/04/2009 14:33, Bill Carter wrote: Tris: You're not insane, are you? Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article. From: Tris Thomast...@waterhay.co.uk To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:28:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority. As far as I've found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral reliable source, with the odd exceptions. Tris On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote: FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea. From: FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie This is (when stripped down) basically a straw man post. It uses quotes by others saying Aas a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't A at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted. snip ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.com wrote: Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article. It has been delinked, not removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Pressdiff=282741269oldid=282729469 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] NPOV is a big lie
Now how about restoring the NPOV article about the man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:43:36 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.com wrote: Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article. It has been delinked, not removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Pressdiff=282741269oldid=282729469 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] NPOV is a big lie
Bill, as far as I can tell, with very limited knowledge on the subject, he seems notable enough. I am happy to support the article being put on will support that if it does. I've added a little comment to the talk page on it to consider. Cheers On 09/04/2009 14:45, Bill Carter wrote: Now how about restoring the NPOV article about the man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article From: Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:43:36 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carterbilldeancar...@yahoo.com wrote: Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article. It has been delinked, not removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Pressdiff=282741269oldid=282729469 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 ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
Hi David Gerard: I suggest you take a personal interest in the Alan Cabal article and see that NPOV is upheld: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article Bill From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 8:03:40 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie 2009/4/9 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: This is (when stripped down) basically a straw man post. It uses quotes by others saying Aas a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't A at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted. This is a much better reply than I could have bothered writing. - d. ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
First, let me thank the moderators for approving my letter. Replies to two different people here. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: ... it is sadly regrettable that you were not able to choose the initial forum where you published your diatribe with more discernment. I disagree. As I said in the letter itself, there is not a better place for this message than Jimmy Wales' user talk page. This is because I am deliberately confronting him. If I can't confront a person on the talk page for the leader (at least by reputation) of the project, where can I? User talk pages in current practice are not for blogging or personal communication I think you may not understand what an open letter is. Why don't you look it up on Wikipedia? An open letter cannot be dismissed as either a blogs or a personal communication. User talk should be squarely about improving the encyclopaedia. This *is* about improving the encyclopedia--by improving its leadership, the way that the media reports about it, and what Wikipedians themselves know about it. You may not have taken the trouble to acquaint yourself with the methods by which legitimate feedback and comment on wikimedian matters is currently channeled, but it would very much be worth your while, to facilitate a smoother communicative experience. This illustrates a sort of silly, condescending manner of speaking among Wikipedians that really ought to stop. Enough said. Tris Thomas wrote: Can this just not stop? Stop? But I am not continuing something, I am starting something. I have never confronted Jimmy Wales publicly in this way for his lies, and described them as lies, ever before. I am absolutely insisting, once and for all, that the record be corrected and that Jimmy Wales be held to account for his appalling and self-serving behavior toward me. The way to stop it is for Jimmy Wales to be shamed into ceasing his misrepresentations of Wikipedia's early history--or else for him to earn a wide public reputation as a completely unreliable source about it. Either way will suit me fine. Until then, I will continue to confront and shame him with archived evidence of his mendacity. I would hope that those with an interest in sound leadership and honesty would appreciate and support my efforts. Everyone knows that you once described each other as co-founders therefore, if that's what Jimmy described you as back then, that's what you are. I'm glad you're convinced. Then let's ask the Wikimedia Foundation to reaffirm what it said about me in its very first press release. Anyway, this isn't just about the label co-founder, as you'll see if you read the letter. Why the continuous childish bickering-everyone knows what happened it makes absolutely no difference now. What I see as childish is the unnecessary tip-toeing around Jimmy Wales, and people supporting and making excuses for what *really is* just self-serving dishonesty. Please just get over it, it's damaging Wikipedia itself, which I don't think Larry wants to do, just seems so pointless. It is not pointless to get the record corrected and to hold our leaders to high standards of honesty. This may require courage, but it is essential to having a truly open, transparent community that has any chance of deserving the label democratic. In the end, assuming the Wikipedia community and Board reacts to this in a mature, decent manner, it could come out of this stronger and better. On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. --Larry ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Apr 9, 2009 9:11am, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: You may not have taken the trouble to acquaint yourself with the methods by which legitimate feedback and comment on wikimedian matters is currently channeled, but it would very much be worth your while, to facilitate a smoother communicative experience. This illustrates a sort of silly, condescending manner of speaking among Wikipedians that really ought to stop. Enough said. For once, I agree with Mr. Sanger. Unfortunately, the Wikipedian culture is now fossilized into strange patterns that are strange, unnecessarily complex, difficult to learn, and don't quite work the way they're supposed to anymore. I know you say you wish you'd done more in the beginning, but you can't and we have too much of a barrier to entry. Enough said. ~O ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: In the end, assuming the Wikipedia community and Board reacts to this in a mature, decent manner, it could come out of this stronger and better. On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. What hole are we in, pray? Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Dear Larry Sanger: Please keep Citizendium going and do not step down in two years as, I believe, you have previously stated. Eventually more writers are going to show up at Citizendium if it proves to have a more collegial and collaborative atmosphere. We are currently stuck with Wikipedia, but you offer a great alternative. Bill From: purple.clou...@gmail.com purple.clou...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:24:38 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales On Apr 9, 2009 9:11am, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: You may not have taken the trouble to acquaint yourself with the methods by which legitimate feedback and comment on wikimedian matters is currently channeled, but it would very much be worth your while, to facilitate a smoother communicative experience. This illustrates a sort of silly, condescending manner of speaking among Wikipedians that really ought to stop. Enough said. For once, I agree with Mr. Sanger. Unfortunately, the Wikipedian culture is now fossilized into strange patterns that are strange, unnecessarily complex, difficult to learn, and don't quite work the way they're supposed to anymore. I know you say you wish you'd done more in the beginning, but you can't and we have too much of a barrier to entry. Enough said. ~O ___ 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] Green Ink Day
It seems to be Green Ink Day on the list. *sigh* ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger wrote: It is not pointless to get the record corrected and to hold our leaders to high standards of honesty. This may require courage, but it is essential to having a truly open, transparent community that has any chance of deserving the label democratic. One thing about history and Wikipedia, is that we are supposed to let historians write it. Really, if you are asking me personally to choose between your version of history, and what you say is Jimbo's, I would prefer a third-party, dispassionate account. So much for history. If you also want to advocate for something else, relative to the Wikipedia community, go ahead. This comment is so obviously policised and personalised, that I'd prefer to keep a clear wall between it and the foundation myth. Charles ___ 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] Green Ink Day
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:43, purple.clou...@gmail.com wrote: Could you please explain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink -- Jim Redmond [[User:Jredmond]] ___ 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] Green Ink Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink 2009/4/9 purple.clou...@gmail.com Could you please explain? On Apr 9, 2009 9:40am, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to be Green Ink Day on the list. *sigh* ___ 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] Green Ink Day
Snap! :) 2009/4/9 Jim Redmond j...@scrubnugget.com On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:43, purple.clou...@gmail.com wrote: Could you please explain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink -- Jim Redmond [[User:Jredmond]] ___ 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] Green Ink Day
Oddly enough the Wikipedia article makes even less sense than the original declaration. bibliomaniac15 --- On Thu, 4/9/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: From: James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:59 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink 2009/4/9 purple.clou...@gmail.com Could you please explain? On Apr 9, 2009 9:40am, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to be Green Ink Day on the list. *sigh* ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Agree with Sam, I'm not supporting Jimmy because it's clear in calling himself the sole founder he is wrong shouldn't do it, but I really don't see the need to continue this issue. There is no tiptoeing around Jimmy Wales as can be seen by many people's views on here(I'm sure he's reading it) in Wikipedia articles. There is a general consensus that on this particular matter, Jimmy is unreliable almost everyone agrees, so why the continuation? If there is anyone here who believes that Jimmy is right is the sole only founder, please make yourself known, otherwise can we just end this pointless, yes pointless, feud. Just my view! :,) On 09/04/2009 17:33, Sam Korn wrote: On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: In the end, assuming the Wikipedia community and Board reacts to this in a mature, decent manner, it could come out of this stronger and better. On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. What hole are we in, pray? Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. ___ 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] Green Ink Day
it is common to refer to correspondence of any kind (including email and webpages) as being in green ink, so long as it broadly fits the following identifying characteristics: - Stridency - Impertinence - Unreasonableness - Unrealism - Fancifulness - Obsessiveness 2009/4/9 Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com Oddly enough the Wikipedia article makes even less sense than the original declaration. bibliomaniac15 --- On Thu, 4/9/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: From: James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:59 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink 2009/4/9 purple.clou...@gmail.com Could you please explain? On Apr 9, 2009 9:40am, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to be Green Ink Day on the list. *sigh* ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. -- geni ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/9 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that, although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered the founder./cite Or something like that. -- Sam Yes, that is an appropriate description of the situation. 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
I may agree with that but I am still waiting for mainstream media talking about it and Larry's claims in the open before thinking about editing that page. Fayssal F. Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 18:15:16 +0100 From: geni geni...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: f80608430904091015t42c71370j9ccf28885624c...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2009/4/9 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. -- geni -- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 69, Issue 22 ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Another set of replies. I wrote: ... On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. Sam Korn replied: What hole are we in, pray? The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say that will convince you. Bill Carter wrote: Dear Larry Sanger: Please keep Citizendium going and do not step down in two years as, I believe, you have previously stated. Eventually more writers are going to show up at Citizendium if it proves to have a more collegial and collaborative atmosphere. We are currently stuck with Wikipedia, but you offer a great alternative. Bill, I appreciate the compliment! But it is my intention to begin--soon--to seek a successor. It is deeply important that the torch be passed in truly open, democratic projects. I have other projects in the works to start, anyway. Charles Matthews wrote: One thing about history and Wikipedia, is that we are supposed to let historians write it. Really, if you are asking me personally to choose between your version of history, and what you say is Jimbo's, I would prefer a third-party, dispassionate account. I am not asking you to choose versions of history, I am asking you to acknowledge that Jimmy Wales has self-servingly denied, distorted, or ignored provable facts that ought to be acknowledged on *anybody's* version of history. Tris Thomas wrote: ... but I really don't see the need to continue this issue. There is no tiptoeing around Jimmy Wales as can be seen by many people's views on here(I'm sure he's reading it) in Wikipedia articles. There is a general consensus that on this particular matter, Jimmy is unreliable almost everyone agrees, so why the continuation? If there is anyone here who believes that Jimmy is right is the sole only founder, please make yourself known, otherwise can we just end this pointless, yes pointless, feud. This is not a feud, Tris. This is me publicly confronting a liar with evidence. A feud would be more of a matter of competing claims with no way of sorting them out. There *is* a way to sort the claims I dispute out: by looking in the archives and interviewing people. Moreover, and I'm not sure how many times I am going to have to say this, it isn't just about the matter of being a co-founder and me getting credit. If you read the letter, you'll see why I say so. While I do of course want proper credit for my achievements, what I want even more is to correct the record in general, and to dissuade Jimmy Wales from being so fast and loose with the truth, as I said. I am now convinced this requires a public confrontation, because the low-level and private remarks I have made in response to him over the last five years or so obviously haven't worked. It will only stop when Jimmy Wales changes his tune, or he is so discredited in public that no one listens to him on the subject any longer. Sam Korn said: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. geni said: It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. True, but it's more than that, you know. The problem isn't just inconvenience to the community. In an encyclopedia project, the inherent value of the truth itself ought to be accorded a lot of weight. In addition, you have Wikipedia's reputation in the broader world to think about. The sort of person who is permitted to speak on its behalf, and who still enjoys a lot of credence in claiming sole credit for starting it, says a lot about the
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Another set of replies. I wrote: ... On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. Sam Korn replied: What hole are we in, pray? The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. A problem you are trying to stir up. As far as Wikipedia [being] an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, that is an artifact of your own wishful thinking. As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. I do think an apology is due you from Jimmy Wales, but that ought to be the end of it. Fred Bauder ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Two more replies... Charles Matthews wrote: Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil. Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely flaming Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained. I wrote: Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Fred Bauder replied: A problem you are trying to stir up. A problem I am exacerbating--quite right. Do you have a problem with that? As far as Wikipedia [being] an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, that is an artifact of your own wishful thinking. Well, if that's really what you want to think, Fred, I'm not going to spend my time trying to convince you otherwise. Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling. As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply. I do think an apology is due you from Jimmy Wales, but that ought to be the end of it. If Jimmy Wales were to apologize, he would have to admit that he had done something wrong., and for me to believe an apology, I should have to see him correct the record and say he was wrong. What are the chances of that happening? I think I know Jimmy well enough to know he will never do that. --Larry ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger wrote: Two more replies... Charles Matthews wrote: Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil. Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely flaming Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained. Actually, though I may be an inner circler, the combination of forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not unfamiliar to me. Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, you've decided to treat us to some trolling. Those who have something in mind that is not merely effective - as mudslinging may be - tend to approach debates in other ways. Fred Bauder replied: As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply. I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't. Yes, the bit where you write: Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling. You know, I think you may really feel that some people are inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in your own case. You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's in the pillory. Cutting to the chase, it seems perfectly easy to say a pox on both your houses in the dispute on the founder badge; and yet to defend Wikipedia. In fact it's been a good few days, with positive write-ups in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the London Observer. Noam Cohen in the NYT mentions there is a professional class of Wikipedia skeptics. If you haven't already, you should see the context there. Charles ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: I predict it won't stop it for a moment. Mike Johnson of CZ has noted before that criticising Wikipedia is the quickest way to publicity for Citizendium: http://moderndragons.blogspot.com/2007/05/modern-dragons-now-with-20-more-umlauts.html As I commented on that post, it's not clear that's good for Citizendium in the long run. Entirely too many Citizendium contributors appear to be in it to be against Wikipedia, rather than e.g. to write an encyclopedia. Further note from Tara Hunt: How not to build a community: Part I: the anti-community http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/06/how-not-to-build-community-part-i-anti.html The first mistake I ever made in community fostering is to position the company I worked for in opposition to another one (can't find that post, but I was an idiot). So let me offer this unsolicited advice: Rule #1 in building your own reputation is to never ever ever build it on the grounds that it is different/better/etc. than an established company See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 - the successful forks don't spend their time railing against the other tine of the fork ... they get on with being good of their own account. - d. ___ 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] Green Ink Day (stick to Alan Cabal)
Please ignore this Green Ink Day nonsense, and address the Alan Cabal article that has been expunged from Wikipedia's mainspace to its userspace for unjust reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article Bill From: Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 1:07:56 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day Oddly enough the Wikipedia article makes even less sense than the original declaration. bibliomaniac15 --- On Thu, 4/9/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: From: James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:59 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink 2009/4/9 purple.clou...@gmail.com Could you please explain? On Apr 9, 2009 9:40am, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to be Green Ink Day on the list. *sigh* ___ 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] Green Ink Day (stick to Alan Cabal)
2009/4/9 Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.com: Please ignore this Green Ink Day nonsense, and address the Alan Cabal article that has been expunged from Wikipedia's mainspace to its userspace for unjust reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article For those wondering what's going on, this article has been through a deletion discussion four times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal (March 08) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(2nd_nomination) (January 09) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(3rd_nomination) (March 09) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30 (DRV, March 09) I make no comment on the merits. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
Is there a Wikipedia forum, the mailing list is all well good, but wouldn't a forum be much more useful?! Tris ___ 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] Green Ink Day (stick to Alan Cabal)
NOTE: The deletion review was actually held on March 30th to April 4th or 5th. You made an error. Furthermore, it was speedy deleted. You CANNOT speedy delete an article with 40 fucking references. This is scandalous. From: Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 3:38:25 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day (stick to Alan Cabal) 2009/4/9 Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.com: Please ignore this Green Ink Day nonsense, and address the Alan Cabal article that has been expunged from Wikipedia's mainspace to its userspace for unjust reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article For those wondering what's going on, this article has been through a deletion discussion four times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal (March 08) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(2nd_nomination) (January 09) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(3rd_nomination) (March 09) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30 (DRV, March 09) I make no comment on the merits. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
An unofficial one that editors frequent? On 09/04/2009 20:48, David Gerard wrote: 2009/4/9 Tris Thomast...@waterhay.co.uk: Is there a Wikipedia forum, the mailing list is all well good, but wouldn't a forum be much more useful?! Not an official one. - d. ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
Some time ago we had the Wikback, but ever since UninvitedCompany left that's been down in the drain. Personally I like forums better than mailing lists, but I'm not planning to go to WR just to get a forum experience. bibliomaniac15 --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Tris Thomas t...@waterhay.co.uk wrote: From: Tris Thomas t...@waterhay.co.uk Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Forum To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 12:46 PM Is there a Wikipedia forum, the mailing list is all well good, but wouldn't a forum be much more useful?! Tris ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
2009/4/9 Tris Thomas t...@waterhay.co.uk: An unofficial one that editors frequent? Closest I can think of is the Village Pump :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VP UninvitedCompany started a forum a while ago which attracted a good range of editors, but which I haven't heard much of lately. (I can't stand the forum interface myself.) - d. ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
Can you get Wikipedia Review to take up issue with the speedy deletion on March 30th, 2009 of the re-created Alan Cabal article, which was followed by a demented deletion review a day later I believe? Here's the article in question about journalist Alan Cabal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article It looks to me to be a fucking notable article with plenty of citations. Bill From: Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 4:00:15 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Forum There is Wikipedia Review: http://wikipediareview.com/ It is not considered favourably by many. 2009/4/9 Tris Thomas t...@waterhay.co.uk: Confused now??!! On 09/04/2009 20:52, Wily D wrote: The - uh - main one is pretty politically contraversial. Bian On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Tris Thomast...@waterhay.co.uk wrote: An unofficial one that editors frequent? On 09/04/2009 20:48, David Gerard wrote: 2009/4/9 Tris Thomast...@waterhay.co.uk: Is there a Wikipedia forum, the mailing list is all wellgood, but wouldn't a forum be much more useful?! Not an official one. - d. ___ 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 ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Larry Sanger wrote: It is not pointless to get the record corrected and to hold our leaders to high standards of honesty. This may require courage, but it is essential to having a truly open, transparent community that has any chance of deserving the label democratic. One thing about history and Wikipedia, is that we are supposed to let historians write it. Really, if you are asking me personally to choose between your version of history, and what you say is Jimbo's, I would prefer a third-party, dispassionate account. So much for history. If you also want to advocate for something else, relative to the Wikipedia community, go ahead. This comment is so obviously policised and personalised, that I'd prefer to keep a clear wall between it and the foundation myth. Charles I agree totally with Charles, here. When How Wikipedia Works goes into its 23rd printing :) hopefully we will be able to rely on other people's dispassionate sifting of the historical record (what there is of it; much of what is disputed is over what was said in personal conversations, though seemingly not much public effort has been made so far to find out what the other parties in those conversations think). Larry and Jimmy are not the only early Wikipedians, and someday hopefully there will be a better detailed history of the whole endeavor in the black-hole, missing-edit-history years. (I can see this being printed by one of those obscure university presses, on thick paper with extensive footnotes...) In the meantime, of course, the public will continue to learn about the project through the news and their own searches, as they always have, and the rest of us will go about our business. The Wikipedia story is not exciting because of any single person's contributions to the projects; it's the aggregate over time that matters, and outside of the larger context of the project, none of our contributions (no matter how much, or how little) are worth much. (Founding doesn't mean much if other people don't run with it; and contributing to a wiki doesn't get you very far if others don't also build the web). But this is not a negative aspect -- as Andrew Lih said at the end of The Wikipedia Revolution, we are _all_ lucky to have been a part of such a revolutionary project, and we should all take personal pride in that. -- phoebe ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
Wikipedia Review will make me feel right at home? You mean they'll address this issue which none of you Wikipedia administrators intend to, particularly David Gerard? What's the fucking point of you guys being administrators when you won't address important issues? Since when is it okay to speedy delete a new article re-created with the intentions of addressing all of Wikipedia's notability demands? You guys are running a reckless website and actually receive a deserved amount of negative press. The article in question about journalist Alan Cabal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article Bill From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 4:23:02 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Forum Bill Carter wrote: Can you get Wikipedia Review to take up issue with the speedy deletion on March 30th, 2009 of the re-created Alan Cabal article, which was followed by a demented deletion review a day later I believe? Here's the article in question about journalist Alan Cabal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article It looks to me to be a fucking notable article with plenty of citations. Mosey over there. They'll make you feel right at home. Charles ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
And we shall all hold hands and love one another, right? You obviously have no consideration for fairness and accuracy. I will raise this issue for as long as it takes. You can return to your apathy now. For everyone else, take my angry diatribes seriously and verify the accusations I am making. the article with 40 citations that was speedy deleted remains here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article Bill From: Tris Thomas t...@waterhay.co.uk To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 4:40:53 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Forum Earlier today I was actually relatively supportive of your issue. You, with your last few posts, have turned me against it. I won't try stop it being put on again, but there will be no more support from my end. Firstly, this isn't an administrators mailing list, I've only been a member for a few days-my username is dottydotdot I can still participate fully. Just because not many people have replied to your stuff about Cabal doesn't give you the right to get angry start swearing on what was a perfectly civil mailing list. I highly doubt you will get any support from anyone on this mailing list now, people who once might have supported you. Please don't bother to continue your diatribe. Thank you. :-) On 09/04/2009 21:27, Bill Carter wrote: Wikipedia Review will make me feel right at home? You mean they'll address this issue which none of you Wikipedia administrators intend to, particularly David Gerard? What's the fucking point of you guys being administrators when you won't address important issues? Since when is it okay to speedy delete a new article re-created with the intentions of addressing all of Wikipedia's notability demands? You guys are running a reckless website and actually receive a deserved amount of negative press. The article in question about journalist Alan Cabal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article Bill From: Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 4:23:02 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Forum Bill Carter wrote: Can you get Wikipedia Review to take up issue with the speedy deletion on March 30th, 2009 of the re-created Alan Cabal article, which was followed by a demented deletion review a day later I believe? Here's the article in question about journalist Alan Cabal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article It looks to me to be a fucking notable article with plenty of citations. Mosey over there. They'll make you feel right at home. Charles ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com: Are these IRC transcripts accurate? The source is questionable, but as a minor participant in one of the discussions, it does seem to tally with my (admittedly fuzzy) memories. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up The first one is. -- geni ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
But you know there can only be one benevolent dictator, right? On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Honestly, it's important enough that the Foundation should take an objective look at the facts and make a statement about Wikipedia's history. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. I would like Wikipedians in general to be apprised of my concerns. I believe they are serious and well-justified, and they should not be dismissed without a careful hearing. I do not ask that Jimmy Wales reply here on this list. But I do ask that the powers that be--including the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Board, and the media--hold Jimmy responsible for his very shabby behavior toward me. Let me be clear. This is not just an attempt to tell my side of the story. It is me confronting Jimmy Wales publicly for lying about my involvement in the project after many private requests to stop. You might disagree with me about many things, but we need not disagree about the facts as they can be found in various Internet archives, nor about the necessity of keeping our leaders honest. A readable copy, with some updates, can be found here: http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/an-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-copy/ http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/updates-re-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales / The letter itself follows. --Larry Sanger === Jimmy, I don't know a better place than this for an open letter to you [i.e., than on your user talk page on Wikipedia]. I recently read the Hot Press interview with you. The lies and distortions it contains are, for me, the last straw, especially after http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 this came to light, in which you described yourself as co-founder in 2002. I've reached out to you on a couple of occasions to coordinate our versions - well, my version and your fanciful inventions - about how Wikipedia got started. Last year I read about a speech in which you represented me as being more or less opposed to Wikipedia from the start - despite it being my own baby, really - and I wrote to you saying that if you keep this up, I will speak out. Well, I'm finally speaking out. In Wikipedia's first three years, it was clear to everyone working on it that not only had I named the project, I came up with and promoted the idea of making a wiki encyclopedia, wrote the first policy pages and many more policy pages in the following year, led the project, and enforced many rules that are now taken for granted. I came up with a lot of stuff that is regarded as standard operating procedure. For instance, I argued that talk should go on talk pages and got people into that habit. Similarly, after meta-discussion started taking up so much of Wikipedia's time and energy, I shepherded talk about the project to meta.wikipedia.org - and after that, to Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L. I insisted that we were working on an encyclopedia, not on the many other things one can use a wiki for. I came up with the name Wikipedian and other Wikipedia jargon. I had devised a neutrality policy for Nupedia, and I elaborated it in a form that stood for several years on Wikipedia. I did a lot of explaining and evangelizing for Wikipedia - what it is about, why we are here, and so forth - for example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics%22 Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on kuro5hin.org http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 like this one and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 this. I also recall introducing many specific policy details, the evidence for which is in archives (such as on archive.org) and no doubt in the memories of some of the more active early Wikipedians. These are only some examples of ways in which I led the project in its first 14 months; after I left, there was a lot of soul-searching in the project about what would happen now that it was leaderless (see the quotations linked from http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html this page). When I was involved in the project, I was regarded as its chief organizer. As you can still see in the archives, I called myself Chief Instigator and Chief Organizer and the like (not editor). I also want to correct you on something that tends to harm me: your repeated insinuations that I was fired. In the Hot Press interview, you said I left Wikipedia because you didn't want to pay him any more. You know - and so does everyone else who worked at Bomis, Inc., around a dozen people - that at the end
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: ... it is sadly regrettable that you were not able to choose the initial forum where you published your diatribe with more discernment. I disagree. As I said in the letter itself, there is not a better place for this message than Jimmy Wales' user talk page. This is because I am deliberately confronting him. If I can't confront a person on the talk page for the leader (at least by reputation) of the project, where can I? Soapboxes are pretty cheap these days. Why the continuous childish bickering-everyone knows what happened it makes absolutely no difference now. What I see as childish is the unnecessary tip-toeing around Jimmy Wales, and people supporting and making excuses for what *really is* just self-serving dishonesty. Moreover, I don't think everyone does know what happened during those early years. I've read contradictory statements about it, and have concluded that neither you nor Wales are being 100% truthful. ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
Thank you! Please don't send his rubbish to me! On 09/04/2009 21:47, David Gerard wrote: 2009/4/9 Bill Carterbilldeancar...@yahoo.com: I will raise this issue for as long as it takes. You can return to your apathy now. You're back on moderation while you're on this subject then. - d. ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
Bill Carter schreef: For everyone else, take my angry diatribes seriously and verify the accusations I am making. the article with 40 citations that was speedy deleted remains here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article The article is excellently referenced, but it just fails to make me care. Why is this journalist more interesting than others? What makes him notable? Give us a reason why he should have an article. I'm as inclusionist as no other, but this article doesn't show me in any way how Alan Cabal is different from his colleagues, who don't get an article. (And don't post it to the list: edit the article to make it clear why it should be returned to the encyclopedia.) Eugene ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org: The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, Nah. Sure journalists have worked out that an attack on wikipedia will get them some viewer ship but these days the attacks tend towards outdated recycled stuff or I don't like it. Fresh scandals not so much. coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. We have many many problems. From the POV of the community Jimbo's actions with regards to the founder issue probably ranks somewhere below the fight over the Country X country Y relations articles. That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. What does this have to do with the foundation or the community? Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say that will convince you. Jimbo is not the leader (sue might have a better claim to that but hard to tell) and I think chief spokesbeing is probably jay. -- geni ___ 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] Green Ink Day (stick to Alan Cabal)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.comwrote: NOTE: The deletion review was actually held on March 30th to April 4th or 5th. You made an error. Furthermore, it was speedy deleted. You CANNOT speedy delete an article with 40 fucking references. This is scandalous. It is not really reasonable to say the article was speedily deleted. The third AfD debate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(3rd_nomination)) ran for the full time, and ended in a clear delete consensus. The article was then created again, which made a clear case of speedy deletion under criterion G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). Only after this was noticed and the article deleted under G4 was the AfD close taken to deletion review. During this debate the article history was restored so that non-admins could see the article. A further full time debate was held. There was no consensus to overturn the close, so when the deletion review ended the history was again deleted. Deletion debates do not always come to the right decision, but when they don't, it is a mistake and not a scandal. The reason for the article being nominated for deletion was lack of notability, and not lack of references. The problem with the references is, I suspect, that too few of them are in the sort of mainstream publications which would make a clear case of notability. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Larry Sanger wrote: Two more replies... Charles Matthews wrote: Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil. Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely flaming Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained. Actually, though I may be an inner circler, the combination of forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not unfamiliar to me. Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, you've decided to treat us to some trolling. Those who have something in mind that is not merely effective - as mudslinging may be - tend to approach debates in other ways. Fred Bauder replied: As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply. I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't. Yes, the bit where you write: Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling. You know, I think you may really feel that some people are inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in your own case. You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's in the pillory. To quote Mr Sanger, Wikipedia is bigger than Jimmy Wales. On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: Sam Korn replied: What hole are we in, pray? The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Endless source of scandal and dishonesty? The reputation of Wikipedia? The project's leading light? I credit none of the three. Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. So it's personal. There's nothing wrong with that at all; from a certain point of view, I don't blame you. On the other hand, I'm not interested in getting involved. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say that will convince you. I do not consider Jimmy Wikipedia's leader or its chief spokesman. Perhaps you underestimate the extent to which the project is community-led, community-driven, community-focussed; I don't know. I am not interested, no, in this personal and now-irrelevant dispute. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ 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] List admin foulup
2009/4/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: I have a nasty feeling I pressed the button and just moderated *everyone*. I'll just try to plunger the blockage ... Unmoderated everyone then remoderated the deserving I remembered. If the previously-moderated start posting offensive rubbish in this window of opportunity, I apologise and will return normal lack of service as soon as possible. - d. ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger wrote: All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. Free speech? That's a novel idea. We frequently tell recalcitrant editors that the First Amendment does not apply on Wikipedia, and many of our policies, e.g. [[WP:SOAPBOX]], [[WP:TRUTH]], [[WP:NOR]] are inimical to free speech. However, this is beginning to bore the hell out of me as being not far off Jorge Luis' Borges description of the [[Falkands War]]. I suspect I'm not alone. Whinge as much as you like on your own blog, go to the media if you like, but I am dangerously close to issuing several entirely policy-related blocks. Permanent ones. PS Please wish me a Happy Birthday. ___ 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] Wikipedia Icons
I'm looking for a page I found the other day that has all the WIkipedia icons that are free to use. Can anyone direct me to them? ___ 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] Wikipedia Icons
2009/4/9 Tris Thomas t...@waterhay.co.uk: I'm looking for a page I found the other day that has all the WIkipedia icons that are free to use. Can anyone direct me to them? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia is lots of Wikimedia project logos, though none are free to use - they're all copyright WMF, and trademarked as well. But is that page (or something like it) what you meant? - d. ___ 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] Wikipedia Forum
Bill Carter wrote: Doesn't the mainstream media read this mailing list? I am hoping they will take up the issue of the persecution of Alan Cabal at the hands of many Wikipedians. Why should they? Consensus seems to have been comprehensively established that he's not notable to our standards. See [[WP:HOLE]]. ___ 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] List admin foulup
David Gerard wrote: I have a nasty feeling I pressed the button and just moderated *everyone*. I'll just try to plunger the blockage ... Some days it just seems like everybody's full of shit. ;-) Ec ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:21:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, smo...@gmail.com writes: Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that, although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered the founder./cite - Currently the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention this controversy whatsoever, and consistently calls Sanger co-founder. Will Johnson **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org Fred Bauder replied: A problem you are trying to stir up. A problem I am exacerbating--quite right. Do you have a problem with that? Yes. You can't complain that something is a problem when you are the one who is causing it. Basically, shut up and go and cry in a corner. ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
That would be a matter for Foundation-l then, not wikien-l. 2009/4/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: Honestly, it's important enough that the Foundation should take an objective look at the facts and make a statement about Wikipedia's history. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. I would like Wikipedians in general to be apprised of my concerns. I believe they are serious and well-justified, and they should not be dismissed without a careful hearing. I do not ask that Jimmy Wales reply here on this list. But I do ask that the powers that be--including the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Board, and the media--hold Jimmy responsible for his very shabby behavior toward me. Let me be clear. This is not just an attempt to tell my side of the story. It is me confronting Jimmy Wales publicly for lying about my involvement in the project after many private requests to stop. You might disagree with me about many things, but we need not disagree about the facts as they can be found in various Internet archives, nor about the necessity of keeping our leaders honest. A readable copy, with some updates, can be found here: http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/an-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-copy/ http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/updates-re-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales / The letter itself follows. --Larry Sanger === Jimmy, I don't know a better place than this for an open letter to you [i.e., than on your user talk page on Wikipedia]. I recently read the Hot Press interview with you. The lies and distortions it contains are, for me, the last straw, especially after http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 this came to light, in which you described yourself as co-founder in 2002. I've reached out to you on a couple of occasions to coordinate our versions - well, my version and your fanciful inventions - about how Wikipedia got started. Last year I read about a speech in which you represented me as being more or less opposed to Wikipedia from the start - despite it being my own baby, really - and I wrote to you saying that if you keep this up, I will speak out. Well, I'm finally speaking out. In Wikipedia's first three years, it was clear to everyone working on it that not only had I named the project, I came up with and promoted the idea of making a wiki encyclopedia, wrote the first policy pages and many more policy pages in the following year, led the project, and enforced many rules that are now taken for granted. I came up with a lot of stuff that is regarded as standard operating procedure. For instance, I argued that talk should go on talk pages and got people into that habit. Similarly, after meta-discussion started taking up so much of Wikipedia's time and energy, I shepherded talk about the project to meta.wikipedia.org - and after that, to Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L. I insisted that we were working on an encyclopedia, not on the many other things one can use a wiki for. I came up with the name Wikipedian and other Wikipedia jargon. I had devised a neutrality policy for Nupedia, and I elaborated it in a form that stood for several years on Wikipedia. I did a lot of explaining and evangelizing for Wikipedia - what it is about, why we are here, and so forth - for example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics%22 Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on kuro5hin.org http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 like this one and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 this. I also recall introducing many specific policy details, the evidence for which is in archives (such as on archive.org) and no doubt in the memories of some of the more active early Wikipedians. These are only some examples of ways in which I led the project in its first 14 months; after I left, there was a lot of soul-searching in the project about what would happen now that it was leaderless (see the quotations linked from http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html this page). When I was involved in the project, I was regarded as its chief organizer. As you can still see in the archives, I called myself Chief Instigator and Chief Organizer and the like (not editor). I also want to correct you on something that tends to harm me: your repeated insinuations that I was fired. In the Hot Press interview, you said I left Wikipedia because you didn't want to pay him any more. You know - and so does everyone else who worked at Bomis, Inc., around a dozen people - that at the end of 2001, you had to go back to Bomis'
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:21:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, smo...@gmail.com writes: Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that, although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered the founder./cite - Currently the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention this controversy whatsoever, and consistently calls Sanger co-founder. Will Johnson That is good enough. Original research by Jimmy Wales is no better than anyone elses. 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] Wikipedia Forum
In a message dated 4/9/2009 1:28:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, billdeancar...@yahoo.com writes: Wikipedia Review will make me feel right at home? You mean they'll address this issue which none of you Wikipedia administrators intend to, particularly David Gerard? What's the fucking point of you guys being administrators when you won't address important issues? Since when is it okay to speedy delete a new article re-created with the intentions of addressing all of Wikipedia's notability demands? You guys are running a reckless website and actually receive a deserved amount of negative press. Wikipedia Review will make me feel right at home? Sort-of. Maybe after a bit of flaming, just like everywhere. You mean they'll address this issue which none of you Wikipedia administrators intend to, particularly David Gerard? They will let you say your piece, and then respond to it. It helps to vent to a third-party, and it's possible there might be someone who can help you fix up the article so that it does pass muster who knows. It's worth a shot isn't it? What's the fucking point of you guys being administrators when you won't address important issues? The more you say *fucking* the more people feel sympathy for you. Or is that the other way round? At any rates, we're not all administrators. And I suppose it's possible that Alan Cabal is more important than say are there any burritos left?, but I've never heard of him before today. Since when is it okay to speedy delete a new article re-created with the intentions of addressing all of Wikipedia's notability demands? We are willing here I'm sure to hear what changes you've instituted that make it pass. So far I haven't heard anything specific and I'm too lazy to compare the articles in detail. But you see to have a lot of energy and maybe you could be more forthcoming. You guys are running a reckless website and actually receive a deserved amount of negative press. Wikipedia is reckless. Makes me feel sort-of excited or something. But really Bill, you know there are listeners who are sympathetic to inclusionism, so I'm not sure what advantage you're getting by trying to paint us all with a broad brush here. You catch more flies with honey you know. Will Johnson **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ 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] Green Ink Day (stick to Alan Cabal)
In a message dated 4/9/2009 2:05:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sam.blacke...@googlemail.com writes: The article was then created again, which made a clear case of speedy deletion under criterion G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). -- Provided the material is the same or almost the same. Or is Bill stating that he re-wrote the article? I'm not clear on that point. Will Johnson **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.comwrote: (Snip) I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Actually much of your post was mis-targeted rhetoric on NPOV. I counted 6 times you quoted David Gerard saying the same point (which is dissected above).You did discuss Alan Cabal... yet each time it seemed the format was this: Alan Cabal is horribly treated cite, and so here's /another/ quote of David Gerard saying he sees NPOV as a major innovation of Wikipedia. One could be forgiven for believing your post wasn't really about Alan at all. FT2 Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea. From: FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie This is (when stripped down) basically a straw man post. It uses quotes by others saying Aas a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't A at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted. snip ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
The article [[History of Wikipedia]] has the /encyclopedic/ content on this, which has been broadly stable since 2007 (revision as at today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Wikipediaoldid=282677650#Early_roles_of_Wales_and_Sanger). While drawing attention to a page is a renowned and effective way to guarantee disruption on that topic, that is how /Wikipedia/ presently represents the history. Anyone can edit it, if it is not encyclopedically written. How you personally, or Jimmy personally, represent it /off wiki/, is your own off-wiki real world disagreement, and not a matter of editorial interest. It reflects on the two of you, but that's a personal view and unencyclopedic OR. More to the point: On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. (Snip) My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. I don't agree with your characterization of the encyclopedia as being universally held, nor even that this would be the widest held view out there, sorry. I see gradual traction from the real world endorsing, not rejecting it, if a trend must be found. Your determination to hold anyone to anything (account or otherwise) is of course a matter for yourself and those involved; it's not salient to Wikipedia editing. Since Jimmy doesn't edit the pages much if at all these days, and the Foundation is independent of editorship (as you surely realize), none of this is relevant to encyclopedia writing. It's all politics and desires for perceptions and personal matters, to put it crudely. You say the encyclopedia's credibility and your reputation are at stake, but the encyclopedia entry is fairly well written and the reputational issue that is so important to you, is a real world dispute that most editors who write the content have no stake in at all. Answering your point to Sam Korn: Could I live with being a member of an encyclopedia whose two founders have both at some point acted poorly or said things that were ill considered, or sought personal reputation and aggrandisement? Yes -- because /none/ of that is going to matter a damn when someone looks up the Carbon atom, or Hamlet, or even the entry of the history of Wikipedia itself. I'm not engaged by you or Jimbo, I'm a volunteer writer on a project to produce an encyclopedia. Take the dispute and so long as the encyclopedic pages' content is reasonably well written, put the dispute somewhere else and I promise to ignore it completely. My personal view on who needs to change their stance in this, and who has not acted to the highest standard (one or both of you) is formed, but would not help the projects /encyclopedic content/. FT2 ___ 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] Citizendium
There is a set of check boxes to identify the area in which you are going to be writing. There is no check box for biography which made me hesitate, so I checked the box for history. I don't need 50 words to state that my areas of expertise are in history, biography and genealogy. I can say that in ten at the most. The response I was given back was not welcoming. So apparently Citizendium has no room for critics inside the system? Criticism-from-the-inside, to my mind, is one of the most useful strengths that Wikipedia has embraced. -Original Message- From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium So after the mention of Citizendium once again, I applied to join it. The application page is extremely verbose. So much so, that it's a bit of a turn-off. All I wanted to do was sign up and tweak a few articles to see if the interface was better. They make you create a 50-word biography. What's the point of that? So I used that space to bitch. My application was rejected. I know Larry Sanger reads this. Maybe he could respond. We don't want people who bitch. Sometimes people bitch for the right reasons. What I would do, is make the Sign Up page be at the most Choose a username, choose a password. There's really not much point in making it extremely difficult to join a project. Will Johnson An effort is made to identify your expertise. My problem is that I'm not particularly interested in writing articles on divorce law, and also, although I have a Juris Doctor degree, that is not an actual professional level degree from a legal perspective, there are higher professional studies. Only a few words are required. A rather low test of your patience. 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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
