Re: [WikiEN-l] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/18/2008 6:12:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: I mean, I agree with you on what you say should be allowed. The problem is that Wikipedia policy does not agree with us.>> - Derida writes in English. Are you saying a reasonable, educated person cannot understand Derida whatsoever? No possible way, they can even get any grasp on what he is saying? Is that what you're saying? Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:15:10AM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote: > I am not sure the point applies as well to NOR, where we do actually run > into the problem that we need to have some way of differentiating > between an acceptable interpretation of a source and an unacceptable > one. The only method we have is to engage in discussion on the talk page. I often say something like "Anybody can edit Wikipedia, but not everyone can edit every article". In practice, I find that it's not specialized topics that are more difficult, but topics that are associated with actual political or religious debates. One incident I remember involved an article where an editor wanted to introduce a certain type of proof that the editor found more intuitively clear. In the editor's opinion, the way that the proof is ordinarily presented in the literature is non-ideal because of the way that certain basic parts of the field are organized. Responding to this sort of proposal is extremely difficult without a broad knowledge of how the literature as a whole deals with a particular topic, because there's no single source that can be consulted to settle the debate. This type of high-level decision about the fundamental organization and due weight of ideas in a certain article will always require a broad knowledge of the field. - Carl ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 18, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Carl Beckhorn wrote: > > This topic came up on this list a while back, and Jimbo Wales > posted what I thought was a very reasonable opinion at > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-April/092995.html And that's a very good point about NPOV - I've actually long thought that NPOV is a very clever way of dealing with the problem of deviant epistemologies - from Lyotard to radical Christian fundamentalists. I am not sure the point applies as well to NOR, where we do actually run into the problem that we need to have some way of differentiating between an acceptable interpretation of a source and an unacceptable one. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
Phil, This is a On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:01:01PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote: > Yes. I agree. (Though I quibble with your use of interpretation) It's a general fact of life that Wikipedia talk is out of touch with critical theory. This is partially because the population at large is not well educated about it, partially because CT is stereotyped as pomo navel-gazing by some critics, and partially because Wikipedia was founded by an Objectivist. So, even if we all know that every act of writing is an act of interpretation, and that there is no such thing as a pure uninterpreted source text, for the purposes of WP the terminology in WP:NOR is meant to be read in a naive, uneducated sense. This makes some sense, as NOR would not be improved by adding a long introduction to critical theory at the top. This topic came up on this list a while back, and Jimbo Wales posted what I thought was a very reasonable opinion at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-April/092995.html - Carl ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:56:07AM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote: > An article that heavily relies on Searle to summarize Derrida would be a > disaster. And yet the best ways to counterbalance Searle involve primary > sources. I see what you are saying. I have the same issue with mathematics research papers, if they are considered "primary sources". My personal solution, which allows me to reconcile NOR with actual practice, is that Derrida's essay in response to Searle is not a "primary source" from the point of view of NOR. According to NOR, primary sources are: "Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Note that "peer-reviewed papers making analytic or synthetic arguments" are not included in that list. If "primary source" for NOR actually included Derrida's response to Searle, but not Searle's argument, then the problem you see would be genuine. However, if Derrida's argument is considered a primary source, then Searle's should also be considered a primary source. Unfortunately, due to the wide range of things that are considered "primary sources" by different fields, I don't think there is really much hope for a clear PSTS section in the NOR policy. Recently I have just been ignoring it. If you make any progress in clearing up the language on the NOR page, that would be wonderful. - Carl ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 18, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Carl Beckhorn wrote: > This is not a very common issue in mathematics except for certain > philosophical > aspect, and fringe/pseudoscience topics. But I think it would be > more important > in writing about Derrida. Derrida is perhaps the most thorny example you could pick here, given that one of the biggest controversies over him is whether he engages in intentional obfuscation. That is, his critics accuse him of saying nothing sensible at all. This has obvious limitations for the purposes of summarizing Derrida. But even beyond that, one of the fiercest critics of Derrida, John Searle, runs into the major problem that he egregiously and systematically misunderstands Derrida. Derrida, in fact, has an 82 page essay taking him to task for doing that. Searle, in his major engagement with Derrida, accuses Derrida of saying things that it is transparently clear that Derrida never said, and that virtually nobody who is sympathetic to Derrida thinks he said. And, of course, the primary respondent to Searle's critiques? Derrida, who ripped them to shreds. So now we've got a double problem - Derrida mounted such an effective response to Searle that nobody has seen much value in repeating the effort. Certainly Derrida's response gets a great deal of priority, and is largely responsible for Searle's importance as a main critic of Derrida (since he is one of the critics Derrida has spent the most time engaged with). An article that heavily relies on Searle to summarize Derrida would be a disaster. And yet the best ways to counterbalance Searle involve primary sources. The correct solution is to summarize Derrida's essay, summarize Searle's response, then summarize Derrida's response to Searle. Then you have the conflict neatly described. And you work with your fellow editors to make sure that everybody agrees with the descriptions of what is claimed in each essay, and you get to a decent result. And inasmuch as the Derrida article deals with these issues, that is what happened. But that is manifestly not what NOR allows. And what NOR allows would not lead to a good Derrida article. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:12:26AM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote: > "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the > accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated > person without specialist knowledge." The way I have always read that par of NOR, books ''about Derrida'' are secondary sources, which do not have this "without specialist knowledge" proviso. It's only if you want to write your article directly from Derrida's work that the primary sources issue comes into play. - Carl ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:40:27PM +1100, Mark Gallagher wrote: > Phil has hinted at it, but the primary reason we should be able to summarise > and rephrase the words of humanities experts is that if we don't, our > articles > won't make any gosh-darned sense ... Not only the humanities. This same issue appears in technical science and mathematics articles equally well. And the current practice is that we can indeed summarize and reword technical material to make it more accessible. There are three main requirements (all informal, nowhere spelled out). (1) the summary should be in agreement with the consensus of written opinion in the field N.B. The only way to tell if an article satisfies (1) is to have a very good sense of the overall consensus in the literature. In practice this means actually being familiar with a large chunk of literature in the field. But this is already implicit in the principle of undue weight - how can you decide if something has undue weight without knowing how that thing is covered in the literature? (2) the summary should not introduce new theories or new interpretive frameworks For example, contemporary mathematics is all about finding very general systems of which various specialized systems are just concrete examples. But in WP articles we avoid creating any ''new'' general systems, even if it appears possible to do so. This is a common error in new editors, who may try to develop an entirely new taxonomy of some area, or try to replace theorems with more general theorems that don't appear in the literature. That would be OK in print, if you could get it published, but not on WP. (3) when there are several conflicting opinions in the literature, the article's summary should give due weight This is not a very common issue in mathematics except for certain philosophical aspect, and fringe/pseudoscience topics. But I think it would be more important in writing about Derrida. - Carl ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:52 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else, > without > injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary. I don't think that's the problem, Will. I think most anyone who would want to summarize Derrida on Wikipedia can do that. The problem is that WP:NOR says explicitly that they're not allowed to. It says, and I quote, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Now, perhaps you don't think that explicitly rules out Derrida. But on the face of it, it does. And in plenty of people's interpretations, it does. I mean, I agree with you on what you say should be allowed. The problem is that Wikipedia policy does not agree with us. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:01:01PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote: > But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that > require expert knowledge to understand. I use such sources all the time for mathematics articles. There's simply no way to require verifiability but also exclude the best sources as "too technical". If there is a policy document that actually forbids these sources, that can be changed. But I don't think that NOR actually does forbid them, at the moment. - Carl ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM, wrote: > Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else, without > injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary. You start right here, Will... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrida Crack open one of his books. Click the "edit this page" button up top. And away you go! :-) 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/18/2008 1:41:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, m...@formonelane.net writes: Phil has hinted at it, but the primary reason we should be able to summarise and rephrase the words of humanities experts is that if we don't, our articles won't make any gosh-darned sense ...>> You *can* summarize and rephrase the words of humanities experts. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can, as an expert editor, create new synthesis and analysis, never before published. I suggested quoting, and paraphrasing, would make the article more readable. I never suggested that it be an article of quotes. Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else, without injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary. Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
G'day Will, > In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, > writes: > Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that > > can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge.>> > --- > Then why be short? > Quote him. > If you want the general reader to agree on your summary of Derida's > belief > on A, then quote Derida discussing A. I don't know if you've looked at our articles discussing deconstructionism lately, but the absolute *last thing* we need is more impenetrable writing. Quoting Derrida can be likened to pouring oil on troubled fires. Phil has hinted at it, but the primary reason we should be able to summarise and rephrase the words of humanities experts is that if we don't, our articles won't make any gosh-darned sense ... Cheers, -- Mark Gallagher 0439 704 975 http://formonelane.net/ "Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/17/2008 7:01:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that require expert knowledge to understand.>> I don't concur with that interpretation of what we were trying to convey. We already have articles that require expert knowledge in order to summarize sources. So apparently others, also view the policy a bit looser than you are doing now. Summarize the effect of the Chandrasaker limit on the properties of a Black Hole ? That requires an expert to understand, or at least a grounding in Astrophysics that the typical reader wouldn't be able to grasp. When we write, we write to the typical reader (say tenth grade level or below), that doesn't mean that all of our editors must also *read* at that level or *understand* at that level, or consistently with each other. Which is why we have experts in areas, and our policy specifically states that an expert in the area of the subject material should agree with your summary. Not that all readers in the world should. Novels, fiction in general, is usually not of such a technical nature that it requires jargon or a great amount of in-depth study to understand what the novel is saying. The in-depth study would be reserved to understanding what the novel is *meaning*. The "why", not the "what". We don't allow physicists to go spinning off into theories about what broader meaning Black Hole behaviour has on the rest of the cosmos, without a source. And we don't allow literary critics to expound on the deeper meaning of Kafka turning into a giant cockroach versus say a giant turtle, without a source. We state what occurs, or did occur, without going into deeper issues of why and what-if. Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/17/2008 6:58:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: I do not think that the style of having our Derrida article consist primarily of lengthy quotes from Derrida would pass muster. -Phil>> - A good article imho is a mixture of quoted and paraphrased material. Personally I find biographies that have no quotes to be a bit dry. I really like to hear the subject speaking in their own words in my head, instead of a bunch of so-called experts talking *about* the subject and not allowing them to speak themselves. So a good first stab at it, would be a mixture and then see where the community takes it after that. The best defense is a good offense. Be Bold. Just do it. Just say Yes to Drugs. That last one just slipped in there, I don't know why. Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 6:01 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > As expert editors, we are allowed to summarize our sources. > A summary is a description of the source. > A summary *of the source* is not a criticism of the source, nor an > interpretation of the source vis-a-vis some other source such as > "Here he makes an > obvious allusion to the Iliad although in a post-modern Kakaesque > melange" > > Your opinion of what the source is saying is a summary, your opinion > of > *why* the source is saying what it's saying is not a summary of > that source. > It's an evaluation of the source. Yes. I agree. (Though I quibble with your use of interpretation) But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that require expert knowledge to understand. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 6:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, > snowspin...@gmail.com writes: > > Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that > can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge.>> > > > --- > Then why be short? > Quote him. > If you want the general reader to agree on your summary of Derida's > belief > on A, then quote Derida discussing A. I do not think that the style of having our Derrida article consist primarily of lengthy quotes from Derrida would pass muster. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge.>> --- Then why be short? Quote him. If you want the general reader to agree on your summary of Derida's belief on A, then quote Derida discussing A. Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
2008/12/17 Thomas Dalton : >> 2) is heavily subject to the heckler's veto; someone who's either out to >> cause trouble or (more likely) simply too anal and literal-minded about >> rules says "I'm sorry, I don't accept that" and forces you to take it out. >> Completely at random. > That doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's your accordion. - 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:04:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: In fact, I would bet you that if I were to find the one of my colleagues with whom I most disagree on every point of literary theory and criticism, and pick at random a Derrida essay neither of us had read, we could hammer out a summary of it that we both agreed with. And I would further bet that this would not be possible if I were to pick two random people out of the aisles of my supermarket.>> As expert editors, we are allowed to summarize our sources. A summary is a description of the source. A summary *of the source* is not a criticism of the source, nor an interpretation of the source vis-a-vis some other source such as "Here he makes an obvious allusion to the Iliad although in a post-modern Kakaesque melange" Your opinion of what the source is saying is a summary, your opinion of *why* the source is saying what it's saying is not a summary of that source. It's an evaluation of the source. I can give a good summary of an episode of Bewitched. If I then go on to give detailed critiques and understanding, and interpretations, evaluations, additional references to other things, etc etc that is not a summary of the source. If in "Lady Chatterley's Lover" D.H. Lawrence does not state that "this is a send-up of middle class values" then we cannot, in a summary say "this is a send-up of middle class values". We can summarize what the source is saying. Additional layers, must be left to existing reviewers, not us as editors. *We* are not experts because we can add additional layers, *we* are experts because we can find sources which (they) add those layers for us. Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
> "You can do it as long as anyone reasonable can reach that conclusion" > 1) is not so much a rule as it is a pragmatic statement about not getting > caught violating the rule, and I have no problem with that. > 2) is heavily subject to the heckler's veto; someone who's either out to > cause trouble or (more likely) simply too anal and literal-minded about > rules says "I'm sorry, I don't accept that" and forces you to take it out. > Completely at random. That doesn't sound very reasonable to me. ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote: > NOR is a list of things you can't do, not a list of things you can. > Noting that two things are the same when there is no way a reasonable > person could fail to reach the same conclusion after seeing both > sources is not on the list of unacceptable things, thus (unless > prohibited by other policy) it is acceptable. "You can do it as long as anyone reasonable can reach that conclusion" 1) is not so much a rule as it is a pragmatic statement about not getting caught violating the rule, and 2) is heavily subject to the heckler's veto; someone who's either out to cause trouble or (more likely) simply too anal and literal-minded about rules says "I'm sorry, I don't accept that" and forces you to take it out. Completely at random. ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:09 PM, David Goodman wrote: > "But Derrida is a primary source, so no claims requiring specialist > knowledge are allowed. > > Which effectively rules out all uses of Derrida in the Derrida > article." > > this is dealt with the same way as in politics or religion: we cite > someone for their own viewpoint. for whether it is a complete > statement, or a sophisticated one, or the verdict of history---that's > another matter. Derrida is an authority on what Derrida says--he is > not necessarily an authority on what he ultimately means. Right. The problem is the claim in NOR that "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
"But Derrida is a primary source, so no claims requiring specialist knowledge are allowed. Which effectively rules out all uses of Derrida in the Derrida article." this is dealt with the same way as in politics or religion: we cite someone for their own viewpoint. for whether it is a complete statement, or a sophisticated one, or the verdict of history---that's another matter. Derrida is an authority on what Derrida says--he is not necessarily an authority on what he ultimately means. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Phil Sandifer wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> <> snowspin...@gmail.com writes: >> >> that nobody who has actually >> read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level >> of obvious description>> >> >> Well then there you go. >> You have just recited policy, so go and do it. >> If nobody with an understanding of it, would dispute it, then make >> it so! > > You seem to be ignoring the fact that people are perfectly happy to > remove claims they agree with because some hypothetical, imagined > person might find them non-obvious. The current interpretation of NOR > - which you will find frequently stated on the talk page in the > version of this debate going on there is... well, let me find you a > quote. > > "What you are saying is that some novels require some degree of > interpretation in order to discuss their plot. I have no problm with > that. However, in those circumstances, we need to cite a reliable > secondary source for that interpretation, and not interject our own > interpretation. That is the heart of WP:NOR." > > "ll that we should be focused on in presenting a work of fiction is > the "facts" - the fundamental plot, characters, and those aspects" > > And "Keeping with your earlier example, you stated it is widely known > in this particular work, the narrator was being deceptive. My response > to you would be if the content has some truly encyclopedic value to > it, it should not be entirely that difficult in obtaining a reliable > secondary source that supports it." > > Clearly, as it stands, NOR either supports this approach, or is so > badly written as to lead people to believe that this approach is > acceptable. Much of this stems from the language in question. I remind > you, as it stands, the policy reads: > > "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable > secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, > a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the > accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated > person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a > novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any > interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." > > The phrases that lead against the Stilson situation being described > accurately are "Any interpretation," and "used only to make > descriptive claims." The claim that it is slowly made clear to both > the reader and Ender that Ender killed Stilson is an interpretation, > and it is not "only descriptive." But, on the other hand, it is also > brain-searingly obvious. > > And this is the problem. "Not an interpretation but a description" and > "brain-searingly obvious" are not actually equivalent sets. > > -Phil > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > < snowspin...@gmail.com writes: > > that nobody who has actually > read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level > of obvious description>> > > Well then there you go. > You have just recited policy, so go and do it. > If nobody with an understanding of it, would dispute it, then make > it so! You seem to be ignoring the fact that people are perfectly happy to remove claims they agree with because some hypothetical, imagined person might find them non-obvious. The current interpretation of NOR - which you will find frequently stated on the talk page in the version of this debate going on there is... well, let me find you a quote. "What you are saying is that some novels require some degree of interpretation in order to discuss their plot. I have no problm with that. However, in those circumstances, we need to cite a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, and not interject our own interpretation. That is the heart of WP:NOR." "ll that we should be focused on in presenting a work of fiction is the "facts" - the fundamental plot, characters, and those aspects" And "Keeping with your earlier example, you stated it is widely known in this particular work, the narrator was being deceptive. My response to you would be if the content has some truly encyclopedic value to it, it should not be entirely that difficult in obtaining a reliable secondary source that supports it." Clearly, as it stands, NOR either supports this approach, or is so badly written as to lead people to believe that this approach is acceptable. Much of this stems from the language in question. I remind you, as it stands, the policy reads: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." The phrases that lead against the Stilson situation being described accurately are "Any interpretation," and "used only to make descriptive claims." The claim that it is slowly made clear to both the reader and Ender that Ender killed Stilson is an interpretation, and it is not "only descriptive." But, on the other hand, it is also brain-searingly obvious. And this is the problem. "Not an interpretation but a description" and "brain-searingly obvious" are not actually equivalent sets. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > If the most we can do is what a biography of him, and then state > that he > also wrote ten books or whatever, than that's how we have to leave > it. > Brand new explanations, never before seeing the light of the day, > would be > your own original creation. > > Right? No. Derrida wrote things. Those things can be summarized. Derrida's views can thus be summarized. However, the cannot be summarized without specialist knowledge. That does not mean the explanations are new - it just means the explanations are not going to be apparent if I hand _Of Grammatology_ to my barber. They would, however, be relatively apparent if I handed _Of Grammatology_ to another grad student in my department who had not read that book, but who had taken numerous courses over years in literary criticism, and was better trained in reading books like Derrida's. In fact, I would bet you that if I were to find the one of my colleagues with whom I most disagree on every point of literary theory and criticism, and pick at random a Derrida essay neither of us had read, we could hammer out a summary of it that we both agreed with. And I would further bet that this would not be possible if I were to pick two random people out of the aisles of my supermarket. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
I think you're over-analyzing the situation with Derida Phil. On the one hand, you want to create something about Derida, that has never existed in any form before, it seems. That would be a forbidden type of OR. On the other hand, you feel that what sources exist on Derida don't actually explain Derida. So who is going to explain Derida? You? That's not going to be acceptable. If the most we can do is what a biography of him, and then state that he also wrote ten books or whatever, than that's how we have to leave it. Brand new explanations, never before seeing the light of the day, would be your own original creation. Right? Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
<> Well then there you go. You have just recited policy, so go and do it. If nobody with an understanding of it, would dispute it, then make it so! Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:41 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > snowspin...@gmail.com writes: > > The only way > to get a decent, NPOV summary of Derrida is to work through hard > sources that require specialist knowledge.>> > - > > Yes.. and? > The only way to get a decent NPOV summary of Quantum Tunneling or > Group > Theory is also to work through hard sources that require specialist > knowledge. > That's why we have specialists who can do just this. > But as in all things, those specialists must rely on their sources, > not on > their own speculations and postulates. The issue is that when we deal with quantum tunneling or group theory, we deal with scientific papers that were not authored by quantum tunneling or group theory. They are thus secondary sources. For Derrida, the main source for Derrida's philosophy is Derrida's writings. Secondary sources exist, but the good ones comment on and extend Derrida - they do not engage in "Derrida explained" approaches. But Derrida is a primary source, so no claims requiring specialist knowledge are allowed. Which effectively rules out all uses of Derrida in the Derrida article. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: Actually, it is - the observation of similarities is acceptable, but the act of saying that there is an echo, reference, or other connection would be decried as OR (and has been, in fact, in past discussions)>> I agree with Thomas here that we can make trivial inferences. To say "this is a cat" and "that is also a cat" and therefore "here are two cats" is trivial to my mind. So I'd say you simply suggest the OR criers, review that portion of the policy. Notwithstanding the absolutely horrible "plagiarism example" that seems enshrined in wikispace. We still have jury nullification, which has worked in most cases. Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:35 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Ender's Game is from 1985. > Doing a google reality check I get six hundred thousand hits for > "Ender's > Game" (enquoted). > So (even though I've never heard of it), it seems to have gotten a > substantial appreciation base. > For interpretive claims, we, as expert editors, shouldn't need to > rely on > our own words or interpretation or analysis with that level of > interest. > There should be several published book reviews that could be cited > for that > sort of claim. > Right? Maybe. It's possible that, if someone wanted to go digging for book reviews of a 23 year old novel that one of them would mention the Stilson situation in enough detail that we could cite it as an explanation for the overall situation (which is that it is steadily revealed throughout the novel to both the reader and to Ender that Ender killed Stilson). However, I question why an obvious aspect of the novel that any reader of the novel will see (even if it is not there on the level of description, but rather by implication) requires such a snipe hunt to get an incidental mention of something that nobody who has actually read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level of obvious description. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: The only way to get a decent, NPOV summary of Derrida is to work through hard sources that require specialist knowledge.>> - Yes.. and? The only way to get a decent NPOV summary of Quantum Tunneling or Group Theory is also to work through hard sources that require specialist knowledge. That's why we have specialists who can do just this. But as in all things, those specialists must rely on their sources, not on their own speculations and postulates. Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> [[Chosen (Buffy episode)]] says "The core four share a moment talking >> about going to the mall after saving the world which causes Giles to >> say "the earth is definitely doomed," echoing the end of the second >> episode of the first season of Buffy." This echoing is transparently >> clear - the scenes have similar dialogue, the same set of characters >> (who are the core characters of the entire series), and the line >> about >> the Earth being doomed is repeated in each. This, however, is >> definitely not on the list of what's allowed by NOR. > > NOR is a list of things you can't do, not a list of things you can. > Noting that two things are the same when there is no way a reasonable > person could fail to reach the same conclusion after seeing both > sources is not on the list of unacceptable things, thus (unless > prohibited by other policy) it is acceptable. Actually, it is - the observation of similarities is acceptable, but the act of saying that there is an echo, reference, or other connection would be decried as OR (and has been, in fact, in past discussions) -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: Explaining this while restricting myself purely to description is impossible, as the novel works precisely because of implication of things left unsaid. (Which is par for the course for literary writing) But it is equally problematic to skip over the problem of Stilson, as it is a crucial part of the novel.>> -- Ender's Game is from 1985. Doing a google reality check I get six hundred thousand hits for "Ender's Game" (enquoted). So (even though I've never heard of it), it seems to have gotten a substantial appreciation base. For interpretive claims, we, as expert editors, shouldn't need to rely on our own words or interpretation or analysis with that level of interest. There should be several published book reviews that could be cited for that sort of claim. Right? Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> If nothing else, the list of stuff Carcaroth provided that you wrote >> off is a pretty good list of fundamental debates in the question of >> how to read sources and what they mean - debates that have >> ramifications in all fields. To declare them irrelevant to our >> process >> is... problematic. > > I didn't write off the subjects, I just wrote off reading about them > when they are written using a bunch of made up words. If someone would > like to summarise the debate in English, I'd be very interested to > read it. The debate is in English. > There are appropriate uses of jargon, but the way lit crit > uses it is just designed to make the author look clever. That's flatly untrue. The jargon is there for a reason. Jargon free summaries lose vast amounts of the content. > When it > becomes impossible to tell the difference between the real thing and > satire, you know something has gone horribly wrong. I don't know about you, but I have no problems along this line. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
> If nothing else, the list of stuff Carcaroth provided that you wrote > off is a pretty good list of fundamental debates in the question of > how to read sources and what they mean - debates that have > ramifications in all fields. To declare them irrelevant to our process > is... problematic. I didn't write off the subjects, I just wrote off reading about them when they are written using a bunch of made up words. If someone would like to summarise the debate in English, I'd be very interested to read it. There are appropriate uses of jargon, but the way lit crit uses it is just designed to make the author look clever. When it becomes impossible to tell the difference between the real thing and satire, you know something has gone horribly wrong. ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
> [[Chosen (Buffy episode)]] says "The core four share a moment talking > about going to the mall after saving the world which causes Giles to > say "the earth is definitely doomed," echoing the end of the second > episode of the first season of Buffy." This echoing is transparently > clear - the scenes have similar dialogue, the same set of characters > (who are the core characters of the entire series), and the line about > the Earth being doomed is repeated in each. This, however, is > definitely not on the list of what's allowed by NOR. NOR is a list of things you can't do, not a list of things you can. Noting that two things are the same when there is no way a reasonable person could fail to reach the same conclusion after seeing both sources is not on the list of unacceptable things, thus (unless prohibited by other policy) it is acceptable. ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:51 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I'm a person who likes examples. > Phil, do you have an example article where something is written a > certain > way, or is not, and you'd like it to be something different and what? The examples I have are more articles that seem to me fragile - it's likely that they violate the policy, but they've remained stable thus far. That said: [[Ender's Game]] has, in its plot summary, the following: "After a confrontation with a school bully, Stilson, that (unknown to Ender for the majority of the novel) leaves Stilson dead." Aside from the grammatical problem there, there are some other problems here: In practice, the question of Stilson's death is fairly curious in the novel. The degree to which Ender knows about it is left carefully ambiguous. Furthermore, the revelation that Stilson has died is kept ambiguous - the fact is partially kept from the reader as well as Ender - both Ender and the reader spend most of the novel wondering about this - and both come to realize more and more that Stilson is dead every time Ender returns to thinking about it. Explaining this while restricting myself purely to description is impossible, as the novel works precisely because of implication of things left unsaid. (Which is par for the course for literary writing) But it is equally problematic to skip over the problem of Stilson, as it is a crucial part of the novel. [[Chosen (Buffy episode)]] says "The core four share a moment talking about going to the mall after saving the world which causes Giles to say "the earth is definitely doomed," echoing the end of the second episode of the first season of Buffy." This echoing is transparently clear - the scenes have similar dialogue, the same set of characters (who are the core characters of the entire series), and the line about the Earth being doomed is repeated in each. This, however, is definitely not on the list of what's allowed by NOR. [[The Yellow Wallpaper]] says "Eventually the woman descends into complete insanity, thinking she is a woman who has escaped from inside the wallpaper." This is completely an interpretation of the story, as the narrator is an unreliable narrator. The narrator never says she descends into complete insanity - in fact, she says she is a woman who has escaped from inside the wallpaper. However it is a fundamental interpretation - no summary of the story is possible without understanding the unreliable narrator. And in [[Jacques Derrida]], we hit a huge problem - everything Derrida wrote was very hard to understand. The good secondary sources are also hard to understand. That leaves poor secondary sources and criticism of Derrida, which usually focuses on his lack of clarity. The only way to get a decent, NPOV summary of Derrida is to work through hard sources that require specialist knowledge. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:55 PM, geni wrote: > Strawman. Unhelpfully reductionist response that doesn't actually explain itself and so is worthless. > Blanket denial without at least a line of reasoning behind it is not a > helpful approach to debate. I don't even understand what you're saying here. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer : > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:09 PM, geni wrote: > >> It's very pragmatic. People in general seem to want plot summaries > > Pandering to popular opinion is a dodgy proposition. We regularly > ignore what people in general seem to want on fiction articles. > This is largely our invention - Britannica has relatively few plot > summaries. Now, mind you, I agree we should include them, but we > should recognize that they are not the traditional focus of > encyclopedic coverage of fiction. Depends if you are considering a general encyclopedia or a specialist encyclopedia. > Sure. The issue is, there are other things that are as obvious and > easy to do as plot summaries, that are vital parts of the traditional > conception of how to encyclopedically describe literature, that we do > not allow, and in fact explicitly forbid for reasons that are not the > pragmatic "the customer demands it" argument you present, but rather > because they are "interpretation" and not "description." Strawman. > I'd prefer a pragmatic approach comparable to what we do to solve the > "we don't want citations for obvious statements" problem on WP:V - a > hedge like "material challenged or likely to be challenged." That's a > pragmatic approach. > > What we have now is not. Blanket denial without at least a line of reasoning behind it is not a helpful approach to debate. -- 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
I'm a person who likes examples. Phil, do you have an example article where something is written a certain way, or is not, and you'd like it to be something different and what? An example of the problem would really help clarify it for me. The current policy language was hammered out over several months of minutely detailed debate (IIRC). I fought very hard and long to include primary material whatsoever ! So I'm glad we have it at least, if not fully under my original conception. Will Johnson **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025) ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > Perhaps in universities where students study a wide range of subjects. > In UK universities, most people never go near the English department > but almost all of them will learn how to do academic research and > writing (often as you go along, rather than in a specific class on > it). I am not an expert on the UK university system, but if my hazy memory is correct, the UK system is generally not as invested in the notion of general education as the US system. Thus you don't get a general class on the subject period. We get to another fundamental bias here, but I do think that there is a regard in which Wikipedia, by being invested in being a general resource on everything, is a bit more American in flavor than British. In any case, my point remains - inasmuch as there is a general, multi- field approach to and belief in principles of research and scholarship, as it stands such approaches are more easily located in English departments or in fields that share a large amount of theoretical figures with English departments than elsewhere. If nothing else, the list of stuff Carcaroth provided that you wrote off is a pretty good list of fundamental debates in the question of how to read sources and what they mean - debates that have ramifications in all fields. To declare them irrelevant to our process is... problematic. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
> Sure. And if we want to break NOR into individual field-specific > guidelines, it changes. But a general principles of research and > writing class? That's an English class in almost every University. I > know, because I've taught it. And NOR is a general principles of > research and writing policy. Perhaps in universities where students study a wide range of subjects. In UK universities, most people never go near the English department but almost all of them will learn how to do academic research and writing (often as you go along, rather than in a specific class on 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:09 PM, geni wrote: > It's very pragmatic. People in general seem to want plot summaries Pandering to popular opinion is a dodgy proposition. We regularly ignore what people in general seem to want on fiction articles. > It can also be rather hard to talk about a book/film/legend without > one. > They also appear to be expected of encyclopedia articles. This is largely our invention - Britannica has relatively few plot summaries. Now, mind you, I agree we should include them, but we should recognize that they are not the traditional focus of encyclopedic coverage of fiction. > There is a further lack of accessible sources but that is a fairly > universal problem. However experience shows us that wikipedians are > for the most part able to write things that both the majority of > wikipedians and our general readership are prepared to accept as > reasonable summaries of the plots of the work in question. This being > the case it is perfectly acceptable to allow them to continue doing > so. Sure. The issue is, there are other things that are as obvious and easy to do as plot summaries, that are vital parts of the traditional conception of how to encyclopedically describe literature, that we do not allow, and in fact explicitly forbid for reasons that are not the pragmatic "the customer demands it" argument you present, but rather because they are "interpretation" and not "description." I'd prefer a pragmatic approach comparable to what we do to solve the "we don't want citations for obvious statements" problem on WP:V - a hedge like "material challenged or likely to be challenged." That's a pragmatic approach. What we have now is not. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer : >> >> On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> What? WP:NOR barely mentions lit crit or anything related to it. >>> It's >>> a general policy that applies to literature as much as it does to >>> science or history. I think you may be a little paranoid... >> >> Lit crit, however (or more broadly, English departments), is the >> general discipline under which writing and research skills are taught >> these days. > > I disagree. A scientist learns how to read and write scientific papers > in their science classes. A historian learns how to read and write > historical papers in their history classes, etc. An English professor > isn't going to know the first thing about judging the credibility of a > paper on Quantum Electrodynamics. Sure. And if we want to break NOR into individual field-specific guidelines, it changes. But a general principles of research and writing class? That's an English class in almost every University. I know, because I've taught it. And NOR is a general principles of research and writing policy. I'd also say that an English professor knows a great deal about judging the credibility of a paper on Quantum Electrodynamics. They know the basics of the system of peer review and of academic credentials. They know what an academic journal is. They even know enough grammar and vocabulary to verify, in many cases, whether a given statement matches the one given in a reference. Now, could I peer review an article on Quantum Electrodynamics? No. But I can judge the credibility of a published article on it. I'm even capable of preparing a bibliography on the subject - find articles that mention Quantum Electrodynamics, then classify them based on reputation of journal (not that hard to figure out as an outsider), frequency with which the article is cited, and degree to which the term appears in the article, and I can create a pretty good bibliography of essential sources on the subject. The skills that allow that are taught in English departments. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer : > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:48 PM, geni wrote: > >> And this is one of the reasons why wikipedia policy is what it is. >> This fight has been done by others and they have done it better ( eg >> http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html ). Wikipedia policy is a >> pragmatic approach to the situation. > > Usually, yes. The passage in question, however, is not pragmatic in > the least. > > -Phil > It's very pragmatic. People in general seem to want plot summaries. It can also be rather hard to talk about a book/film/legend without one. They also appear to be expected of encyclopedia articles. So pragmatically we need to produce something the majority of people will accept as plot summaries. Unfortunately for less prominent works there tends to be a lack of secondary sources for such summaries to be based on. There is a further lack of accessible sources but that is a fairly universal problem. However experience shows us that wikipedians are for the most part able to write things that both the majority of wikipedians and our general readership are prepared to accept as reasonable summaries of the plots of the work in question. This being the case it is perfectly acceptable to allow them to continue doing so. -- 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer : > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> What? WP:NOR barely mentions lit crit or anything related to it. It's >> a general policy that applies to literature as much as it does to >> science or history. I think you may be a little paranoid... > > Lit crit, however (or more broadly, English departments), is the > general discipline under which writing and research skills are taught > these days. I disagree. A scientist learns how to read and write scientific papers in their science classes. A historian learns how to read and write historical papers in their history classes, etc. An English professor isn't going to know the first thing about judging the credibility of a paper on Quantum Electrodynamics. ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > What? WP:NOR barely mentions lit crit or anything related to it. It's > a general policy that applies to literature as much as it does to > science or history. I think you may be a little paranoid... Lit crit, however (or more broadly, English departments), is the general discipline under which writing and research skills are taught these days. It is the discipline that generally teaches courses on research, the nature of sources, etc. It is also the discipline out of which the question of what reading is, what one interprets from reading, and what a given passage of text "means." The PSTS section, and particularly the portion in the primary sources section that I am complaining about does make clear declarations about these things. And it's clear that they were written by people who haven't cracked open a book of scholarship on the underlying issues in recent memory. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:48 PM, geni wrote: > And this is one of the reasons why wikipedia policy is what it is. > This fight has been done by others and they have done it better ( eg > http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html ). Wikipedia policy is a > pragmatic approach to the situation. Usually, yes. The passage in question, however, is not pragmatic in the least. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer : > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Please don't! I try and avoid reading about lit crit (I completely >> avoid reading actual lit crit), far too many long words used purely to >> sound clever. > > Not to call Thomas out particularly here, but this attitude is much of > the problem - WP:NOR reads like it was written by a bunch of people > who were really hostile to anything to happen in literary criticism > since World War II, and who thought it best to just ignore it all. > > I suspect that, in fact, it was. > > -Phil And this is one of the reasons why wikipedia policy is what it is. This fight has been done by others and they have done it better ( eg http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html ). Wikipedia policy is a pragmatic approach to the situation. -- 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer : > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Please don't! I try and avoid reading about lit crit (I completely >> avoid reading actual lit crit), far too many long words used purely to >> sound clever. > > Not to call Thomas out particularly here, but this attitude is much of > the problem - WP:NOR reads like it was written by a bunch of people > who were really hostile to anything to happen in literary criticism > since World War II, and who thought it best to just ignore it all. > > I suspect that, in fact, it was. What? WP:NOR barely mentions lit crit or anything related to it. It's a general policy that applies to literature as much as it does to science or history. I think you may be a little paranoid... ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > Please don't! I try and avoid reading about lit crit (I completely > avoid reading actual lit crit), far too many long words used purely to > sound clever. Not to call Thomas out particularly here, but this attitude is much of the problem - WP:NOR reads like it was written by a bunch of people who were really hostile to anything to happen in literary criticism since World War II, and who thought it best to just ignore it all. I suspect that, in fact, it was. -Phil ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
> I think Phil means the debate over authorial intentionality (and > related topics): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentionality > > Though he might have meant other aspects of that debate. > > Other articles that might help: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism > > I could go on... Please don't! I try and avoid reading about lit crit (I completely avoid reading actual lit crit), far too many long words used purely to sound clever. ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> At a number of points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate >> in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation. >> This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled. >> However the view Wikipedia is taking - that there is some core of >> knowledge that is "descriptive" as opposed to "interpretive" - is >> decades out of the realm of accepted. It's a discredited view. > > Could you explain the nature of this debate? While there is certainly > a grey area between "descriptive" and "interpretive" I think the basic > plot elements of a novel aren't generally open to interpretation > (there will be exceptions for certain parts of certain novels, and > those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis). I think Phil means the debate over authorial intentionality (and related topics): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentionality Though he might have meant other aspects of that debate. Other articles that might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism I could go on... 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Phil Sandifer wrote: > Thoughts? Like most things on Wikipedia, attempts to define boundary cases rigidly is impossible. We seem to labor under the (intentionally blinkered?) delusion that it should be possible, if we try hard enough, to set unambiguous policy that removes any need for editorial judgment. -Matt ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
Mathematics: Can't get enough original research or validation or exceptions, and please state your assumptions. Physics: No perpetual motion machines, please. Original research in nuclear science is covered by treaties and your local American army base. Biology: Please restrict your original research to photographs. Chemistry: This department actually has a policy regarding notability and what you can say about compounds that hav not been synthesized. Biochemistry: No man's land. There's big pharma, there's governmental collusion, cover-ups, smear campaigns, drug promotions and oodles of tobacco funding. Wanna meet spooks and Britain's future king? Then make a name for yourself in this field. Arts: um...anything goes...sorta...but not here...we just write about arts like policy making and other methods of screwing you, here. We try to make it artful, anyway, just so you do not forget. If I bored you to tears, then I am sorry. Stay away from [[vagina]]. No man will ever be happy until his wife is there. - Original Message - From: "Phil Sandifer" To: "English Wikipedia" Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:30 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus > Picking up on a thread from the anti-intellectualism thread, WP:NOR > currently reads " Any interpretation of primary source material > requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without > a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make > descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any > reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, > an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe > the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary > source." > > At a number of points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate > in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation. > This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled. > However the view Wikipedia is taking - that there is some core of > knowledge that is "descriptive" as opposed to "interpretive" - is > decades out of the realm of accepted. It's a discredited view. > > The counter, which I've seen discussing this on the NOR page, is that > the language represents community consensus, and that's good enough. > > This is troubling to me - most significantly because it suggests that > the community is empowered to set an official Wikipedia position on > the nature of language and meaning, and to settle a decades long > dispute. On the one hand, this seems to me a problem of NPOV - but > it's also an intractible one, as we can't avoid having some policy on > the nature of reading. > > But on the other hand, surely we do not actually intend to empower the > community (by which we really mean the people who wrote NOR) to rule > on issues like this and ignore a huge scholarly debate. > > I don't have a good answer here, so I figured I'd ask the list - to > what extent is the community empowered to set a Wikipedia policy on a > scholarly debate? How do we square this with NPOV? Is there a clever > out to the underlying problem in NOR that sidesteps the debate? > > Thoughts? > > -Phil > > ___ > 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer : > Picking up on a thread from the anti-intellectualism thread, WP:NOR > currently reads " Any interpretation of primary source material > requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without > a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make > descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any > reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, > an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe > the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary > source." > > At a number of points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate > in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation. > This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled. > However the view Wikipedia is taking - that there is some core of > knowledge that is "descriptive" as opposed to "interpretive" - is > decades out of the realm of accepted. It's a discredited view. > > The counter, which I've seen discussing this on the NOR page, is that > the language represents community consensus, and that's good enough. > > This is troubling to me - most significantly because it suggests that > the community is empowered to set an official Wikipedia position on > the nature of language and meaning, and to settle a decades long > dispute. On the one hand, this seems to me a problem of NPOV - but > it's also an intractible one, as we can't avoid having some policy on > the nature of reading. > > But on the other hand, surely we do not actually intend to empower the > community (by which we really mean the people who wrote NOR) to rule > on issues like this and ignore a huge scholarly debate. > > I don't have a good answer here, so I figured I'd ask the list - to > what extent is the community empowered to set a Wikipedia policy on a > scholarly debate? How do we square this with NPOV? Is there a clever > out to the underlying problem in NOR that sidesteps the debate? > > Thoughts? Wikipedia policy is written with a certain degree of pragmatism. Finding secondary sources for descriptive plot mummeries tends to be rather hard and since wikipedians can generally agree on them there seems to be little point in preventing them from doing so. Yes students of literary criticism can argue for endlessly over what descriptive means but most wikipedians are not students of literary criticism so the problem doesn't appear. Sure you can start arguing over the validity of this approach but those kind of conflicts have been done so much better by others. -- 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
> At a number of points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate > in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation. > This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled. > However the view Wikipedia is taking - that there is some core of > knowledge that is "descriptive" as opposed to "interpretive" - is > decades out of the realm of accepted. It's a discredited view. Could you explain the nature of this debate? While there is certainly a grey area between "descriptive" and "interpretive" I think the basic plot elements of a novel aren't generally open to interpretation (there will be exceptions for certain parts of certain novels, and those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis). Also, it's important to note that novels were just an example - in most cases, there isn't even a significant grey area, eg. you can use someone's birth certificate as a reference for their date of birth, you cannot use it as a reference for them having been born during the Great Depression and thus having had a tough childhood. The former is a simple fact, the latter is a (somewhat speculative) interpretation of that fact. ___ 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] The Community vs. Scholarly Consensus
Picking up on a thread from the anti-intellectualism thread, WP:NOR currently reads " Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." At a number of points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation. This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled. However the view Wikipedia is taking - that there is some core of knowledge that is "descriptive" as opposed to "interpretive" - is decades out of the realm of accepted. It's a discredited view. The counter, which I've seen discussing this on the NOR page, is that the language represents community consensus, and that's good enough. This is troubling to me - most significantly because it suggests that the community is empowered to set an official Wikipedia position on the nature of language and meaning, and to settle a decades long dispute. On the one hand, this seems to me a problem of NPOV - but it's also an intractible one, as we can't avoid having some policy on the nature of reading. But on the other hand, surely we do not actually intend to empower the community (by which we really mean the people who wrote NOR) to rule on issues like this and ignore a huge scholarly debate. I don't have a good answer here, so I figured I'd ask the list - to what extent is the community empowered to set a Wikipedia policy on a scholarly debate? How do we square this with NPOV? Is there a clever out to the underlying problem in NOR that sidesteps the debate? Thoughts? -Phil ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
