Re: [WikiEN-l] resolution-l
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:01 PM, wrote: > I believe that you are mistakenly supposing that the list would discuss *a > particular* case. I believe that the original proposal was to create a > list that would discuss the resolution process itself, not a particular case > of it, but rather the entirety of the process. Correct. In reality though its next to impossible to intelligently deal with anything at a macroscopic level without getting somewhat into certain specific examples. So certain cases will come up, though they won't be officially handled on the list. But likewise its impossible to deal well with particular cases without getting a serious overview. The latter concept is I believe the status quo, and thus is the main reason why I propose a dedicated list. -Steven ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Ben Kovitz wrote: > Wikipedia-editing is pretty far removed from subject-matter > expertise. It's more about searching and summarizing and > collaborating. It's closer to being a librarian than any other > occupation. Librarian? Nah. There are lots of consultants in many fields whose work consists of researching then writing a report. They use their expertise to help them find the information related to a specific query, then formulate a report. *That* is much like Wikipedia. Steve ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
Charles Matthews wrote: > How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of > public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed > and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate > it? This is a really good point. Subject-matter expertise is one thing. Skill with writing is another. Skill with editing Wikipedia is yet another. Wikipedia-editing is pretty far removed from subject-matter expertise. It's more about searching and summarizing and collaborating. It's closer to being a librarian than any other occupation. Saying, "Subject-matter experts are morally obliged to edit Wikipedia" is not too far from saying, "Subject-matter experts are morally obliged to volunteer at library help-desks." Ben ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
But who is heard when people read a Wikipedia article? *An expert* is not heard, that is, no particular expert is heard, because we have no attribution. Cited sources are heard, where sources are cited, for a particular sentence. But even then we get citation creep when those sentences are not enquoted. That is, people will modify or hitch a ride on a sentence with additional quips not found in the underlying source. So in our Marilyn Monroe article we *had* cited a source claiming that her father's country of origin was cited as Norway on her birth certificate. Which is a claim with no evidence. And the source cited, did not state this either. Someone had hitched that "Norway" onto a sentence which had simply read that her father's name was Mortenson on her birth cert. A casual reader cannot disentangle these overlying changes, but may assume this is the voice of the cited expert. I fail to see how when reading any of our articles, a person is actually reading the words of any particular expert. In a *relatively few* articles sources are cited and the actual extracted sentence is enquoted. Those I find the most useful, as you can be fairly sure the source actually states what the quoted sentence states, without repeating the look-up. Will Johnson In a message dated 8/2/2009 9:24:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, lunasan...@gmail.com writes: I don't think I'd ever go chiding someone over it, but he brings up a solid point: if you hope to be heard, you need to speak in such a way that people will listen -- this may sometimes include speaking *where* people will listen. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM, David Gerard wrote: > http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > > He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. > I don't think I'd ever go chiding someone over it, but he brings up a solid point: if you hope to be heard, you need to speak in such a way that people will listen -- this may sometimes include speaking *where* people will listen. As Charles mentioned, though, experts do quite a lot for us, just by producing those reliable sources we so direly need. -Luna ___ 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] Health advice from the web
David Goodman wrote: > this is information that essentially > everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is > available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries > (slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with > absolutely impeccable official references, but which the medicine > wikiproject refuses to add. > > why? people might misinterpret it; we shouldn't tell people how to > treat illnesses, this is the role of physicians, it's different in > different countries, it changes frequently, there are all sort of > special considerations, and so on. (The arguments against each should > be obvious: we tell people everything else about treating the > illnesses, physicians should not hold a monopoly of medical care, we > can easily give the different approved dosages just as we give the > different drug names, everything else relative to medicine changes > also & we update the encyclopedia, everyone understands that there are > exceptions as with everything else in the world.) Would it accurate to say that the main concern is blame-avoidance? That is, giving out certain kinds of information carries legal or ethical responsibility, because people will take important action based on that information. Legal and medical information are the classic examples. However, the great strength of Wikipedia is its approach of "better to make errors and let people fix them than to get nowhere by trying to prevent errors before they happen". That's how Wikipedia grew, and it goes head on against the arguments you mentioned above. It's a strange thing for Wikipedians to oppose including a certain broad category of information, which everyone agrees is valuable and noteworthy, simply because errors and misinterpretations are possible. Now, medical information is particularly prone to a certain kind of dangerous misinterpretation. Naïve readers want simple claims they can rely on, like "X cures Y". The reality is that drugs always have trade-offs, and there's enough variation among people that treatments affect different people in different ways. Naïve readers are prone to lift statements out of context or simplify them dangerously: "Wikipedia said X cures Y, but all I got was hives!" when actually the text said, "X cures Y in 60% of people, and it causes hives in 0.2% of people"--perhaps in a big table, mixed in with lots of other information. On top of that, those numbers are usually statistical extrapolations, open to debate, and the medical consensus is always shifting, and there is always dissent. Maybe the folks here can brainstorm a way around this. Can you tell a few specific bits of information, say, about just one specific drug, that would be nice to include, but that raise the blame-related objections? (Or, if I've got the underlying concern wrong, please post about that.) Ben ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
Only as much as off-duty doctors, lifeguards, EMTs, etc. have to attempt to save someone's life. Good-samaritan laws exist for a reason. ~A On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:26, David Gerard wrote: > http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > > He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. > > (I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little > ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they > don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.) > > > - 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] Health advice from the web
Steve Bennett wrote: > Ben Kovitz wrote: >> attention to tags? I know it's 2009, and I know tags will never go >> away, but most tags still strike me as both anti-wiki and page >> clutter. If a page has a problem, fix it. > > That attitude is "anti-wiki". I can diagnose far more problems than I > have time, knowledge or inclination to fix. Fixing is better than > tagging. Tagging is better than ignoring. This is a good point. The traditional wiki way is to always be "live": no "under construction", no tags, just a real, functioning product right now. To make an improvement, you just make the improvement. But, as I frequently need to be reminded, "Wikipedia is not typical". While I have seen some wikis degenerate into vast sets of pages that offer almost no content right now, but promise lots of content and fixes in the future, that hasn't happened on Wikipedia. By and large, tagging has worked well. It sounds like tagging would work well with drug safety information, but as David Goodman has pointed out, the real issue is not how to get the attention of editors, but conscious disagreement about whether that information belongs on Wikipedia. Indeed this might not be best resolved in the usual "just do it" wiki way. Or perhaps there is a "just do it" approach that would address the concerns of the people who have opposed posting the information. Ben ___ 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] IRC Group Contacts Surgery, August 2009
Yes I'm reminded of that lack of accountability in this exchange: A: Why did you, as an admin, do action X within Wikipedia? B: Well I asked on IRC and they told me to do it A: Who told you to do it B: I can't remember but I'm sure it was someone who thought I should do it. A: So you yourself have no reason to, as an admin, do the action you did? B: Yes I asked on IRC. This is a true story. Which is why IRC should be shut down. There is no accountability, and no transparency. And yet things which pass on it, are then imposed in-project with no back-trail. Will Johnson In a message dated 8/2/2009 11:43:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sainto...@telus.net writes: Jay Litwyn wrote: > One reason they are not publicly archived is so that discussions are not > driven into DCC for want of not being held to word, quoted, or caught > displaying a degree of ignorance or a prominent prejudice that you actually > want to be argued out of. It can be live and off the cuff remarks, perhaps > even admissions about personal and otherwise private life. There really is > no telling how your logs will date. I remember one time when it was newsfeed > about war in Tibet, then noise about magnetic levitation. I find IRC tiring > to read and follow when it gets active, then boring when it slows down. Then > there was that ad for carbonated black piss. The trick is to make the logs > yourself in whatever group you want, and pretty much keep it to yourself. > > I prefer having nothing to do with IRC, but I am often left with the impression that its participants come to some agreements which they treat as decisive elsewhere. That subverts acountaability. 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 **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
As a Randian I would have to say that no, I have no moral obligation to give up my effort for any compensation other than that compensation which I declare as my due. This is not to say that Ayn Rand would not contribute, only that the compensation of such contribution must be that which she would request, not that which the community would offer. When these two are the same, than an expert would have no problem with contributing. You are not required to sacrifice your work for the greater good. The greater good is better served when you achieve a heroic effort within your own desired framework. Not that framework imposed by others. Brilliance is never achieved by committee. Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ 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:Paradoxes
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:45 PM, David Gerard wrote: > At least it tries to be erudite. It's a good sample of what > Wikipedians are like when they meet over drinks - talking lots of > ridiculously erudite rubbish and confusing all the civilians at the > table :-) Heh. I guess we should at least use an [OT] subject marker or something. I don't really mind if a bunch of messages that are clearly off topic come through. But it sucks when a real thread has a bunch of random philosophising in it. Steve ___ 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] Lists and redlinks and link maintenance
This is a nice writeup. It would make a good addition to the "lists discussion" page you link. An essay on this that ties into other ways to convert reliable datasources into pages via a list-creation step (sometimes resulting in a list, sometimes resulting in a topic outline, and sometimes resulting in better encyclopedia articles), would also be useful. --SJ On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > I recently created three lists of winners of scientific awards, partly > because it needed doing, partly to see how good our coverage is now > (and how many articles remain to be written in such fields) and partly > to take a more systematic approach to checking links. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_N._Potts_Medal > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Medal > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Franklin_Institute) > > The year ranges are: 1911-1991, 1915-1997, and 1998-2008 respectively. > The lists consist of scientists across a range of fields, with 99, > 114, and 80 entries respectively. The number of redlinks vs blue links > (at the time of writing) are: 51 vs 48, 3 vs 111, and 18 vs 62, > respectively. > > The relatively high numbers of redlinks for the Potts Medal is due to > it being a somewhat lesser medal than the other two (which are > essentially the same medal, but the latter one arising after a > reorganisation of the awards process of the Franklin Institute, > Pennsylvania, USA). It was very encouraging to see that there were > only 3 redlinks in the Franklin medal list, but given the calibre and > stature of some of the names there, that was to be expected. 18 > redlinks (from 80) on the medal covering the last ten years is not too > bad when you consider that coverage of current scientists is not > always that good. > > I've summarised this on the talk pages, and also laid out there the > approach I took to checking the links: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Howard_N._Potts_Medal > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franklin_Medal > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Franklin_Institute) > > The process is essentially this: > > 1) Create list from reliable source > > 2) Check for typos and other mistakes > > 3) Check all redlinks to see if a redirect can be created > > 4) Check all blue links for wrong links and disambiguation pages > > 5) Disambiguate where possible > > 6) Disambiguate incorrect blue links to red links where possible > > 7) Leave sources behind that were found while disambiguating to redlinks > > 8) List redlinks on talk page and check back periodically to see if > articles created > > 9) Create articles on the redlink list as alternative to waiting for > others to create > > 10) Periodically repeat search for redirects to create, and checking > that links are accurate > > From experience, watching a redlink list like this fill in, or > checking a list of blue links remains accurate, the common and not so > common changes are: > > A) A redlink turns blue, but the article is about someone else (turn > back into redlink by disambiguating) > > B) A redlink turns blue, but it is a disambiguation page someone has > created (disambiguate if possible) > > C) A blue link turns from an article into a disambiguation page (and > someone forgot to fix the incoming links) > > Are there any other common situations where the status of a link changes? > > One of the annoying things is that sometimes you can have a grouping > of possible titles and possble redirects (e.g. A. Other, Any Other, A. > M. Other, Any Middle Other, Any Other (disambiguator), and so on), and > sometimes redlinks for more than one possibility have been created, > but until the actual article has been created, it is not possible to > create the other redlinks as redirects because there are bots that > will delete these as "broken redirects". I've never managed to figure > out a satisfactory solution to this. > > Anyway, I did this "list maintenance" and tracking thing previously > for the Royal Medal article, which is now (thanks to another editor) a > featured list. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Medal > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Medal > > You can see on the talk page the timings of when the redlinks turned > blue. It should be interesting to see how fast that happens for those > three lists I've set up above, for the lists I created recently. > Providing, of course, that I resist the temptation to create some of > those articles myself (I will, at some point), and that everyone on > this list doesn't rush off to create some of those articles... :-) > > Anyway, what I wanted to know was whether there are places on > Wikipedia where such approaches to lists and checking links is > documented? I do remember something about various lists of entries > from places like the DNB. > > Ah here we are: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/DNB_lists_discussion > > "List maintenance
[WikiEN-l] Lists and redlinks and link maintenance
I recently created three lists of winners of scientific awards, partly
because it needed doing, partly to see how good our coverage is now
(and how many articles remain to be written in such fields) and partly
to take a more systematic approach to checking links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_N._Potts_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Franklin_Institute)
The year ranges are: 1911-1991, 1915-1997, and 1998-2008 respectively.
The lists consist of scientists across a range of fields, with 99,
114, and 80 entries respectively. The number of redlinks vs blue links
(at the time of writing) are: 51 vs 48, 3 vs 111, and 18 vs 62,
respectively.
The relatively high numbers of redlinks for the Potts Medal is due to
it being a somewhat lesser medal than the other two (which are
essentially the same medal, but the latter one arising after a
reorganisation of the awards process of the Franklin Institute,
Pennsylvania, USA). It was very encouraging to see that there were
only 3 redlinks in the Franklin medal list, but given the calibre and
stature of some of the names there, that was to be expected. 18
redlinks (from 80) on the medal covering the last ten years is not too
bad when you consider that coverage of current scientists is not
always that good.
I've summarised this on the talk pages, and also laid out there the
approach I took to checking the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Howard_N._Potts_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franklin_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Franklin_Institute)
The process is essentially this:
1) Create list from reliable source
2) Check for typos and other mistakes
3) Check all redlinks to see if a redirect can be created
4) Check all blue links for wrong links and disambiguation pages
5) Disambiguate where possible
6) Disambiguate incorrect blue links to red links where possible
7) Leave sources behind that were found while disambiguating to redlinks
8) List redlinks on talk page and check back periodically to see if
articles created
9) Create articles on the redlink list as alternative to waiting for
others to create
10) Periodically repeat search for redirects to create, and checking
that links are accurate
>From experience, watching a redlink list like this fill in, or
checking a list of blue links remains accurate, the common and not so
common changes are:
A) A redlink turns blue, but the article is about someone else (turn
back into redlink by disambiguating)
B) A redlink turns blue, but it is a disambiguation page someone has
created (disambiguate if possible)
C) A blue link turns from an article into a disambiguation page (and
someone forgot to fix the incoming links)
Are there any other common situations where the status of a link changes?
One of the annoying things is that sometimes you can have a grouping
of possible titles and possble redirects (e.g. A. Other, Any Other, A.
M. Other, Any Middle Other, Any Other (disambiguator), and so on), and
sometimes redlinks for more than one possibility have been created,
but until the actual article has been created, it is not possible to
create the other redlinks as redirects because there are bots that
will delete these as "broken redirects". I've never managed to figure
out a satisfactory solution to this.
Anyway, I did this "list maintenance" and tracking thing previously
for the Royal Medal article, which is now (thanks to another editor) a
featured list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Medal
You can see on the talk page the timings of when the redlinks turned
blue. It should be interesting to see how fast that happens for those
three lists I've set up above, for the lists I created recently.
Providing, of course, that I resist the temptation to create some of
those articles myself (I will, at some point), and that everyone on
this list doesn't rush off to create some of those articles... :-)
Anyway, what I wanted to know was whether there are places on
Wikipedia where such approaches to lists and checking links is
documented? I do remember something about various lists of entries
from places like the DNB.
Ah here we are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/DNB_lists_discussion
"List maintenance, first pass. Add {{tick}}, {{dn}} and {{mnl}}
templates, respectively for correct bluelinks, bluelinks needing
disambiguation and bluelinks that are definitely wrong." [...] List
maintenance, second pass: redirecting redlinks. Go through creating
redirects and adding {{tick}} to new bluelinks."
That comes closest, I think, to what I was describing above.
Here's the example page from that project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Matthews/DNB_Working_List_63
That's getting bit away from general list maintenance, towards merging
from public domain encyclopedias, but the list link check
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars continue
2009/8/2 Ken Arromdee : > That's a more obvious dodging of the question. You're basically saying "I'm > not going to tell you if this argument could possibly be productive", which > is fundamentally dishonest. Refusing to answer a hypothetical is hardly dishonest. - 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
Do experts have an obligation? No. Educators and those whose goal is
to improve the world's knowledge, yes. And everyone has a motivation
to contribute driven by public interest, but not everyone recognizes
it.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>
>> How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of
>> public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed
>> and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate
>
> I'd agree with this. Publishing a reliable source and making it widely
> and freely accessible can be better that contributing to Wikipedia.
> Especially if you are the sort of expert that doesn't have the time
> and patience for Wikipedia. But equally we have an obligation to make
> sure that the trolls and POV pushers don't mess things up or distort
Agreed. Publishing and promoting standards for how to 'announce'
anew publication to Wikipedians, without needing to learn how to edit
a talk page, would be a great start -- something like pingback for all
major mechanisms people use to publish their works online.
To the comment that Wikipedians adding {{cn}} everywhere annoys
experts : this is something we have an obligation to fix. The request
for a citation is a way of making offered expertise more valuable, not
a way of challenging people for thinking they know something useful to
others.We should make the process of getting cites friendly and
rewarding, not annoying and combative.
-Sj
___
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] Rorschach wars continue
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote: > > That's a strange dodging of the question. > > > > If you were convinced that showing the blots causes harm to potential > > patients, rather than to psychologists' self-esteem, would you then support > > the removal of the blots? > > The fact is that I'm not convinced of that, so it's pointless to engage > in hypotheticals about what I would do if I were. That's a more obvious dodging of the question. You're basically saying "I'm not going to tell you if this argument could possibly be productive", which is fundamentally dishonest. ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of > public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed > and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate > it? Those who compile WP tend to have more sophisticated search habits > than putting a single keyword into Google and hoping for the best. > (Someone please reassure me that this is true ...) I'd agree with this. Publishing a reliable source and making it widely and freely accessible can be better that contributing to Wikipedia. Especially if you are the sort of expert that doesn't have the time and patience for Wikipedia. But equally we have an obligation to make sure that the trolls and POV pushers don't mess things up or distort what is being said in the article that is being supported by said reliable source. As for searching. It depends what databases and resources you have access too. I frequently come up against paywalls. There are only so many times you can look around for a different source, or ask someone else (who has access) for a copy. I have something else I want to say about lists and redlinks, but I'll do that in another thread. 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit wrote: >> >> My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which, >> admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's >> inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would >> anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the author) ever be >> interested in reading an encyclopedic treatment of this topic? >> (And in the case of Bo the first dog, the answer is pretty >> clearly "yes".) >> > > I recently checked Wikipedia for an article on my local library, and found > that it was deleted. If Wikipedia isn't "too" deletionist, then it's > "improperly" deletionist. > > C'mon, a library isn't notable? We'd be more effective if we had notability guidelines that explicitly supported expansion of notability to allow more and more granular articles over time. Any monument or building or park that people invested thousands of hours into, or that people from far away come to see, or that thousands of people use a year, is notable in its own right. Sometimes we address the issue of maintaining balance and quality as a perpetual fight over lines in the sand, when it's an important effort worth continual discussion and refinement. As the number of editors interested in a topic area grows -- something that happens as WP includes more and more locally-notable entries, for instance -- the capacity to maintain quality in that area grows as well. Sj ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
David Gerard wrote: > http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > > He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. > So first you need to show that there is an obligation to do anything [[pro bono publico]] if you are an expert. (OK, declaring that you are doing something pro bono helps shore up a reputation as an expert, but that is not quite what we are discussing.) Then you need to prove that the effectiveness of what you so do should be measured in the sort of "mass media" terms implied here: discrimination about whom you inform is pretty much irrelevant. Then you need to show everyone uses Google and never gets down to the bottom of the first page. (These do seem to be getting easier.) How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate it? Those who compile WP tend to have more sophisticated search habits than putting a single keyword into Google and hoping for the best. (Someone please reassure me that this is true ...) 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] IRC Group Contacts Surgery, August 2009
Jay Litwyn wrote: > One reason they are not publicly archived is so that discussions are not > driven into DCC for want of not being held to word, quoted, or caught > displaying a degree of ignorance or a prominent prejudice that you actually > want to be argued out of. It can be live and off the cuff remarks, perhaps > even admissions about personal and otherwise private life. There really is > no telling how your logs will date. I remember one time when it was newsfeed > about war in Tibet, then noise about magnetic levitation. I find IRC tiring > to read and follow when it gets active, then boring when it slows down. Then > there was that ad for carbonated black piss. The trick is to make the logs > yourself in whatever group you want, and pretty much keep it to yourself. > > I prefer having nothing to do with IRC, but I am often left with the impression that its participants come to some agreements which they treat as decisive elsewhere. That subverts acountaability. 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] Rorschach wars continue
Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote: > So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices. >>> Oh... and does this mean that if you were to be convinced that showing the >>> blots does cause harm, you would then support their removal? Or is your >>> position more absolutist, and you don't really care about whether they >>> cause harm or not? >>> >> The harm that they inflict on the self-esteem of psychologists is hardly >> enough harm to justify such action. Showing that something can cause >> harm, is quite different than showing that it does. >> > That's a strange dodging of the question. > > If you were convinced that showing the blots causes harm to potential > patients, rather than to psychologists' self-esteem, would you then support > the removal of the blots? > > The fact is that I'm not convinced of that, so it's pointless to engage in hypotheticals about what I would do if I were. 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On 02/08/2009, David Gerard wrote:
> http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
>
> He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
> Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
Dunno about that. I do know that an expert can be defined as somebody
who has forgotten how he found out what he knows, and I also know that
I have a moral obligation to stick {{cn}} next to what they (or
anybody else) write like that, and that they will doubtless find this
irritating...
ergo, I have a moral obligation to annoy any experts I find in the
wikipedia. ;-)
> - d.
--
-Ian Woollard
"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
___
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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
on 8/2/09 12:26 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > > He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. The "moral obligation" is in ensuring the accuracy of the material. > > (I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little > ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they > don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.) > "Wikipedia's little ways"? Whatever that means. And, for some of us, the joy is in the diving in. And the deeper the pool the better :-). Marc Riddell ___ 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] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. (I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.) - 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] Rorschach wars continue
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the > >> Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for > >> much longer. > >> the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of > >> follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices. > >> > > Oh... and does this mean that if you were to be convinced that showing the > > blots does cause harm, you would then support their removal? Or is your > > position more absolutist, and you don't really care about whether they > > cause harm or not? > The harm that they inflict on the self-esteem of psychologists is hardly > enough harm to justify such action. Showing that something can cause > harm, is quite different than showing that it does. That's a strange dodging of the question. If you were convinced that showing the blots causes harm to potential patients, rather than to psychologists' self-esteem, would you then support the removal of the blots? ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Dan Dascalescu wrote: > Aside from that, let's have a bit of common sense: does anyone > sincerely think that if Martin Niemoeller were alive, he'd object to > the image of that monument being on Wikipedia? Does anyone think that > any of Niemoeller's heirs would object? WTF?! Personally, I think Wikipedia made a big step forward when it stopped expecting individual users to understand copyright law, and instead just set policies that were always going to be within the law. (So no, asking for "common sense" around copyright issues is not a good idea, imho.) Steve ___ 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] Health advice from the web
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Ben Kovitz wrote:
> attention to tags? I know it's 2009, and I know tags will never go
> away, but most tags still strike me as both anti-wiki and page
> clutter. If a page has a problem, fix it.
That attitude is "anti-wiki". I can diagnose far more problems than I
have time, knowledge or inclination to fix. Fixing is better than
tagging. Tagging is better than ignoring.
> For example, if a factual
> claim is unsupported b.s., don't insert {{fact}}, just delete it on
> the spot.
If you *know* it's b.s.. Of course. Even if it's supported b.s.. But
if it's just unsourced, and you don't know if it's true - that's
exactly what fact is for.
> And then again, it does seem like a mass posting of {{missing | safety
> information}} tags on drug pages would quickly set a lot of editors to
> digging up the missing information. It would get the attention of
> editors faster than starting a Project. Despite my objections, that
> might be the most effective way to go.
Sounds good to me. In my experience, to get action you need to
indicate that just a little bit of information is missing. People who
fill an empty page with some huge template structure to fill out are
making too much work. But give a small task, and someone wants to
knock it off.
Steve
___
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] Where does en:wp need most help?
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:37 AM, David Gerard wrote: > Efforts like the Wikipedia Selection for Schools are important to help > too (and feed into 0.7 and 1.0). Remember, that's a real actual > encyclopedia DVD being used in actual schools and hugely popular with > teachers, based on all our hard work over the years. *nod* Still working my way around the Wikipedia 1.0 stuff. There's so much of it, and not that well organised yet. But my point stands - we should really have a way of focusing efforts on the important articles first. Instead of "random article" we should have a weighted average thing that is more likely to send you to a high priority article. Or something. Steve ___ 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:Paradoxes
2009/8/2 Samuel Klein : > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> >> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care >> anymore? >> > Magic 8-ball says... no. Not that there's anything wrong with the > discussion. Perhaps we need an 'open' list for people subscribed to > any of the other lists to send threads like this to live out their > happy lives. At least it tries to be erudite. It's a good sample of what Wikipedians are like when they meet over drinks - talking lots of ridiculously erudite rubbish and confusing all the civilians at the table :-) - 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] Rorschach wars continue
Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > >>> I think that AGF requires that we take the psychologists at their word >>> when they claim that they want the pictures removed because they cause harm, >>> rather than to help their income. >>> >> Methinks that posting was a smiley facey wanting. I sincerely >> hope you weren't in dead earnest. >> > What makes you think I wasn't in dead earnest? Because it's obviously silly > that someone would accuse psychologists of that? It's nowhere near as silly > as lots of other things people say with all seriousness over the Internet. The major recording companies use DRM technology to save artists from harm, and not to protect their own vested interests. :-) 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] Rorschach wars continue
Ken Arromdee wrote: > The same argument can be made about any issue which just involves privacy and > not even danger to lives. If you search for Brian Peppers on the Internet, > you can still find all the information you want; that's not an excuse for > Wikipedia to have the article. > But then neither is it an excuse for not having such an article. > Someone else who is thinking of putting the information up can easily think > "even if I didn't put it up, Wikipedia would have the top search ranking". > You end up with everyone passing the responsibility to everyone else to stop > it > first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility Search ranking should not be a factor in deciding whether to have an article. Higher search ranking will develop after an article is written. The argument from diffusion of responsibility could more easily be about the responsibility for failure to add the material. Diffusion of responsibility is more about situations where harm is clearly being done, as with someone being beaten-up. In our case the harm is ambiguous at best. 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] Rorschach wars continue
Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the >> Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for >> much longer. >> the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of >> follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices. >> > Oh... and does this mean that if you were to be convinced that showing the > blots does cause harm, you would then support their removal? Or is your > position more absolutist, and you don't really care about whether they > cause harm or not? > The harm that they inflict on the self-esteem of psychologists is hardly enough harm to justify such action. Showing that something can cause harm, is quite different than showing that it does. Showing of anything is not a proof except to the person doing the showing; it fails to give equal weight to the people who are showing the exact opposite. Perhaps adding a spoiler warning ;-) : "Do not read the following as it risks providing you with insights into yourself." >> If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as >> scientific when exposed to open criticism. >> > You're equivocating on the meaning of "scientific" here--if it means "be more > able to properly use them on other people", yes. If it means "be more able > to properly use them on himself", no. > > Whether tests are scientific has nothing to do with whom they are being used on. If I hypothesize that anyone who sees a picture of a duck in one or more of the blots is a quack that hypothesis still needs to be tested. If it turns out that some of them are only Disney fanatics I would need to revise my hypothesis. I don't know enough about the massive literature on the subject to determine whether it is properly scientific. 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] Wikipedia:Paradoxes
Samuel Klein wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> >> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care >> anymore? >> >> > Magic 8-ball says... no. Not that there's anything wrong with the > discussion. Perhaps we need an 'open' list for people subscribed to > any of the other lists to send threads like this to live out their > happy lives. > I'm inclined to be tolerant of these things, even when they're so full of nonsense. In the time that one writes a 100-keystroke one could hit the delete key a hundred times. 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
