Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:36 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 1/7/2009 7:57:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: Encyclopedia and record of only what has been published in reliable secondary sources are not synonymous terms. And yet the community needs a method of determining Is this encyclopedic? We already loosely use an expression like this is not encyclopedic in AfD. Apparently there is some sort of processing going on, on the editor level, to allow them to determine that. If the determination is simply the answer to the question Has this ever been published by anyone anywhere? then we come back again to Notability, since this answer destroys notability entirely. However the community seems to want Notability. And so my conclusion is that this contradiction means that This has been published is not a full answer to Is this encyclopedic? Well, you've also switched scales. Notability, defined as some level of coverage from sources, works on a topic level. If you applied it to the article content level - every claim must be double-sourced - it would be disastrous. I mean, I'm not saying secondary sources are useless. I'm just saying, knowledge published in reliable secondary sources and encyclopedia are not equivalent. That's a statement on a line-by-line, fact-by-fact scale. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 1/8/2009 7:06:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: I mean, I'm not saying secondary sources are useless. I'm just saying, knowledge published in reliable secondary sources and encyclopedia are not equivalent. That's a statement on a line-by-line, fact-by-fact scale. Okay but you're talking past me, because I never espoused this position either. In fact quite the opposite. If I had I would have *no room whatsoever* for primary sources right? No sense in quoting a primary source if the knowledge had already been published in a secondary source. I'm sure you can see this. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated sainto...@telus.net writes: Many new ideas are tangential to a general education about a subject, but are no less important to the advancement of knowledge. Textbooks are instruments for parroting the party line of received wisdom. They do little to address controversial issues. Controversial issues can be handled by citing two conflicting textbooks :) I'm sure that the author of the controversy, wrote her own textbook on it, shortly afterward. If she didn't then we shouldn't *tthurst* her onto the main screen either. I am not at all suggesting that these ideas be put into the main screen. Nor am I saying that subjects must be controversial, since that would be a presumption of controversy. One merely writes about what he finds; if there is a controversy there will always be someone else available to document the other side. 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 1/6/2009 5:40:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckh...@fastmail.fm writes: If by community you mean WP policy then no such decision has been made. It is perfectly acceptable to write certain articles entirely from primary sources. Indeed, many biographical articles are written entirely from primary sources. But I agree that most articles that can be based mostly off of secondary sources should be based off of secondary sources. --- No, by community I mean that our policy was and is the creation of our policy editors. I agree that this is a huge problem. It puts the policy writers in conflict with those who like to make contributions. And then the policy instructs the editors, who then modify it again, and it then instructs again, in a feedback loop. We as a community, set our own policy, after the core nebulous concepts were outlined. I dispute that it is acceptable to write using solely primary sources, or that our policy states that. Most of us do not participate in policy editing because we find the whole process to be one big mind-fuck. That said, it is grossly arrogant to perpetrate the myth that the policy writers reflect the community. The real contributors function best in the topics that interest them, and if they're lucky they'll avoid the wrath of some autocratic know-nothing that wants to impose the literal interpretation of obscure policy. If you do not find primary sources acceptable that's fine; don't use them in your own writing. That does not justify your dictating such a semantic distinction on others. 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Jan 7, 2009, at 3:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: wjhon...@aol.com wrote: It isn't necessary to go so far back. A large part of the important mathematics of the 1980s and 1990s does not appear in textbooks, or does so only implicitly, because there is little incentive for anyone to rewrite it. This is a contradiction. If work on Number Theory were important than surely my new book on Number Theory would include it. If editors are solely referring to old notebooks, than that's their own issue. That doesn't prevent the rest of us, from using only the newest textbooks if we so choose. The very definition of important is, that many people cite it. If no one cites it, it's not important. This is a bizarre definition of important; it might work for influential or popular, but that is not what makes something important. Many new ideas are tangential to a general education about a subject, but are no less important to the advancement of knowledge. Textbooks are instruments for parroting the party line of received wisdom. They do little to address controversial issues. Well, and on top of that, publishing is a commercial enterprise. Even academic presses make decisions on what to publish in part based on what they think they can avoid completely losing their shirts on. So by relying too heavily on the question of what is published, we inject a really problematic commercial bias into what we do. Encyclopedia and record of only what has been published in reliable secondary sources are not synonymous terms. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 1/7/2009 7:57:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: Encyclopedia and record of only what has been published in reliable secondary sources are not synonymous terms. And yet the community needs a method of determining Is this encyclopedic? We already loosely use an expression like this is not encyclopedic in AfD. Apparently there is some sort of processing going on, on the editor level, to allow them to determine that. If the determination is simply the answer to the question Has this ever been published by anyone anywhere? then we come back again to Notability, since this answer destroys notability entirely. However the community seems to want Notability. And so my conclusion is that this contradiction means that This has been published is not a full answer to Is this encyclopedic? Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
2009/1/6 Carl Beckhorn cbeckh...@fastmail.fm: The idea that these sources should be avoided entirely would simply be silly. The idea that it's better to avoid primary sources entirely is more applicable when primary source means blog post. And even then that can be just silly. e.g. [[EXA]] - the original developer's blog post announcing it is a highly relevant source, and it's ridiculous to purge it based on robotic interpretation of the wording of the NOR rule. It is unfortunate that we can no longer assume that guidelines will be interpreted with a drop of good sense, and instead have to write them in damage control mode. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:11:55PM -0800, Delirium wrote: I think it's perfectly applicable to journal articles as well. I personally, at least, think it's usually inappropriate to directly cite a new-research result to the journal article, since evaluating journal articles, and placing them in proper historical and disciplinary context is itself a quite difficult bit of original research. That sort of research is usually known as writing and is what we are supposed to use talk pages to discuss. Mark already hits on the main point in his next quote: what is appicable to medical articles may not be applicable to mathematics articles (and physical science articles will have their own issues, and so on). One thing to keep in mind as we move forward in this discussion is that analysis of sources is only original reasearch in the sense of WP:NOR if the analysis is actually included in the text of the article, or is implicit in the arguments there. In order to assess the due weight and neutral point of view for various topics, we have to consider the historical and disciplinary context of our sources using our broader knowledge of the subject. This is research in some sense, but it is not prohibited in any way. An exception might be important but entirely uncontroversial results, which are not likely to ever get a whole lot of critical analysis. So if some mathematical theorem is proven, I don't have a problem with citing the paper that proves it. This is exactly the situation. Being encyclopedic means that our articles will often include slightly obscure (but still relevant) results and facts, the type of results that will not appear in an introductory textbook. These can sometimes be cited to gradtuate textbooks, but other times the primary literature is the best source. This is especially true if we're looking for a source that comes out and says something directly, to make it easier for a half-trained reader to verify the citation. The situation with medical research is entirely different, unless there are some medical journals publishing papers that employ the axiomatic method. That's what survey articles, textbooks, summary mentions in other papers, works like Mathematical Reviews, and so on are for---much better to cite those. Mathematical Reviews should be cited extremely rarely on wikipedia (I could go on about this issue, since I'm a mathematician, but I won't). If other papers are classified as primary sources then we run into the problems Phil has been complaining about. Also, it's possible for several articles to talk about the same idea without explicitly mentioning each other, depending on how meticulous the authors' citation practices are. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
Carl Beckhorn wrote: On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:11:55PM -0800, Delirium wrote: I think it's perfectly applicable to journal articles as well. I personally, at least, think it's usually inappropriate to directly cite a new-research result to the journal article, since evaluating journal articles, and placing them in proper historical and disciplinary context is itself a quite difficult bit of original research. That sort of research is usually known as writing and is what we are supposed to use talk pages to discuss. Mark already hits on the main point in his next quote: what is appicable to medical articles may not be applicable to mathematics articles (and physical science articles will have their own issues, and so on). One thing to keep in mind as we move forward in this discussion is that analysis of sources is only original reasearch in the sense of WP:NOR if the analysis is actually included in the text of the article, or is implicit in the arguments there. In order to assess the due weight and neutral point of view for various topics, we have to consider the historical and disciplinary context of our sources using our broader knowledge of the subject. This is research in some sense, but it is not prohibited in any way. I agree that *some* amount of original research is impossible in any sort of writing that involves synthesis, and I also agree with you that this varies by disciplines. I'd say most of the problems with directly citing journal articles to construct novel summaries of a topic have happened in medical, historical, and political articles, which has driven some of the policy developement. That's particularly problematic because in, say, history, synthesis of sources is basically what research in the field *is*. But I'd also be skeptical of a general mathematical article, on something like [[calculus]] or [[statistics]], which was constructed mostly from journal articles. Especially with overview articles, secondary or tertiary sources provide not only citations for specific facts, but citations that give evidence for something really being consensus in a field, or considered an important issue in a field. Just a bunch of primary source references isn't really verifiable in the sense that I can track down the references and thereby be confident in the article's accuracy, because I have no idea why these references were selected out of the thousands of journal papers written every year, whether they are representative of the field, whether they're a highly biased subset, etc. So I'd be skeptical if our [[calculus]] article had an impeccably cited section on a part of calculus that no textbook or widely cited survey saw fit to mention. I guess I tend to view it mostly pragmatically, looking to see if a particular use of sources jumps out at me as likely to be due to someone trying to push a novel theory or not. The skepticism goes up when there are in fact already a number of secondary or tertiary sources---then I wonder why the article author felt it necessary to write their own novel overview of the subject directly from the primary literature, rather than referring to any of the extant ones. -Mark ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Jan 6, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Carl Beckhorn wrote: * For results that are sufficiently new that they are not yet covered by secondary literature. I can think of several research programs with numerous papers by numerous independent authors, with significant scientific interest, but no coverage outside of journals. These areas have no sources that on their face are accessible to a reader without specialized knowledge; the wikipedia article may be the most accesible writing on the subject. A secondary aspect of this which has recently occurred to me is the lies to children problem - elementary textbooks in scientific fields (chemistry, I know, does this. YMMV with other fields) simplify things for practical purposes. Advanced education in chemistry is, from my understanding, in part about learning all the ways that you were lied to in earlier classes, The moral of this story is that source-based writing is a dodgy model. In fact, one does not learn simply by reading the sources, and one, by extension, cannot summarize knowledge simply by regurgitating them. There is a reason that schools supplements reading with oral lessons. Complete reliance on published secondary sources is a myth at best. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
n a message dated 1/6/2009 2:37:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckh...@fastmail.fm writes: * For results that are sufficiently new that they are not yet covered by secondary literature. I can think of several research programs with numerous papers by numerous independent authors, with significant scientific interest, but no coverage outside of journals. These areas have no sources that on their face are accessible to a reader without specialized knowledge; the wikipedia article may be the most accesible writing on the subject. --- I'm not comfortable with the idea that Wikipedia is going to be the *source* for a new summary and synthesize of primary source material. That is the very position that we strove to exclude in the policy language. Rather, we should be the source for a new summary and synthesize of secondary material, with balancing primary interjections where needed. Once we begin to collect primary material as a new presentation, than we are becoming the very textbooks that we are supposed to be citing as our sources. Encyclopedias are not textbooks, they summarize textbooks. Authors of encyclopedia articles sometimes interject some primary material, but only in brief, sporadic, isolated cases, and perhaps in some cases where they themselves are editors of new material outside the work. I think that the policy patrollers would agree with the essential understanding that primary source material should supplement articles. Articles should not be essentially based upon it. It's use should be auxiliary. *If* there is a specific situation where an article has no secondary source citations, than a realistic question could be raised as to why we have an article on it whatsoever. Specifics would be helpful. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:02 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: snip An object takes on increased significance, with the number of publications mentioning it. Do we want a work that has a list of the 3 billion known stars numbers each with their own articles showing their apparent brightness, density and distance from the Earth? It would swamp the entire project. Random page would become worthless. So we focus on what others have determined to be important, based on the number of citations to it. Have you seen the discussion about towns and village stubs on ANI? Sorry, should have provided a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Editor_creates_100.2C000_or_more_non-notable_articles.21 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:51:10PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Specifics would be helpful. The result described at [[Green-Tao_theorem]] was groundbreaking and of extraordinary scientific interest. It will no doubt eventually be covered in a text some day. The present article is just a stub, but if we were to expand the article to something longer, the main sources at the moment would have to be journal articles. There is a 0% chance this article would be deleted at AFD. The stub [[Ω-logic]] describes a much more esoteric theory [1]. There is a secondary source for this - a survey article written by Woodin himself. Again, any expansion of the article would need to use journals as its main sources. I think this has a much lower chance of being covered by a text any time soon. I picked these because they are already existing articles. I can also think of several research programs that could have a wikipedia article but do not. Going farther, there's a large collection of articles for which there are secondary sources on the broader topic, but only journal sources for large sections of the technical material. I will write a separate email on the topic of creating new survey articles on Wikipedia. - Carl [1] If the Unicode link doesn't work, pick the second article in the list at [[Omega-logic]], the one with a capital Omega. ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:51:10PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I'm not comfortable with the idea that Wikipedia is going to be the *source* for a new summary and synthesize of primary source material. That is the very position that we strove to exclude in the policy language. An issue here is that there is a continuum between list of articles and prose articles, not a discrete spectrum. On one hand, we probably all agree that [[List of cathedrals]] is permitted to draw from as many primary sources as desired provided that there are clear and appropriate criteria for inclusion. That is, nobody would say we have to directly copy our list of cathedrals from a list someone else has compiled, or that it even has to cite secondaryu sources at all. One step removed from this are articles like [[List of cohomology theories]]. These, again, are permitted to draw from primary sources at will, provided the standards for inclusion are valid. One step further are articles that consist of a series of summary-style paragraphs on several related topics. These are essentially glorified disambiguation pages. One example is [[Reduction (recursion theory)]]. In this particular case there are plenty of secondary sources, but if we were to really tighten up the referencing some things would need to be cited to journals. And none of the sources presently included would be readily understandable by an untrained reader, apart from the verification of direct quotes. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:02:47PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure. 150 to 200 years ago, Sophie Germain published a very valuable insight into Fermat's Last Theorem. It isn't necessary to go so far back. A large part of the important mathematics of the 1980s and 1990s does not appear in textbooks, or does so only implicitly, because there is little incentive for anyone to rewrite it. I believe the situation is similar in many areas of the humanities and social sciences. This has never meant that wikipedia does not want to include this work. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 1/6/2009 4:17:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckh...@fastmail.fm writes: The result described at [[Green-Tao_theorem]] was groundbreaking and of extraordinary scientific interest. It will no doubt eventually be covered in a text some day. The present article is just a stub, but if we were to expand the article to something longer, the main sources at the moment would have to be journal articles. There is a 0% chance this article would be deleted at AFD. - I think extraordinary scientific interest is pushing it ;) It is *already* covered in a text. In fact, I note, just on Google Books, at least six print secondary sources which *mention* it, and a few go into details. You mistake my point, if you think I was suggesting that an article, with secondary mentions, even if trivial, is an AfD candidate. What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate. However the main point here is on the appropriate mix of primary and secondary sources. We're not really discussing AfD quite. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:44:58PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: It is *already* covered in a text. In fact, I note, just on Google Books, at least six print secondary sources which *mention* it, and a few go into details. A book which only mentions a theorem but doesn't go into depth is useless as a source. I would always cite the original paper in preference. What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate. Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for the article, and would not include them when I add material. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckh...@fastmail.fm wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:44:58PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: It is *already* covered in a text. In fact, I note, just on Google Books, at least six print secondary sources which *mention* it, and a few go into details. A book which only mentions a theorem but doesn't go into depth is useless as a source. I would always cite the original paper in preference. Why not both? Wikipedia requires editorial judgment for some things, but selection of primary sources is one of the more tricky ones, and a secondary source showing that you are not cherry-picking the primary sources is a good safeguard. What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate. Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for the article, and would not include them when I add material. Consider those oblique secondary sources to be notability sources to allow the use of the primary sources. 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:12AM +, Carcharoth wrote: Why not both? Wikipedia requires editorial judgment for some things, but selection of primary sources is one of the more tricky ones, and a secondary source showing that you are not cherry-picking the primary sources is a good safeguard. I wouldn't cite a source that just says Thoerem X was very interesting because such a source is of no interest to someone who is trying to learn more about Theorem X, and because such a source would never be cited in the scientific literature. The point of sources is fundamentally to enable readers to learn more about the topic. A reader who knows nothing about the material is in no position to worry about whether the sources have been cherry-picked, and has to trust whoever wrote the article. This is true for both secondary and primary sources. There are many discredited secondary sources that no knowledgable writer would use, but which would seem perfectly reasonable to an untrained reader. What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate. Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for the article, and would not include them when I add material. Consider those oblique secondary sources to be notability sources to allow the use of the primary sources. I usually only mention the notability sources at an AFD, when someone needs an infusion of clue. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:35:34PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: If the community has decided that it doesn't trust an article built using solely primary sources, than that is what it has decided. If by community you mean WP policy then no such decision has been made. It is perfectly acceptable to write certain articles entirely from primary sources. Indeed, many biographical articles are written entirely from primary sources. But I agree that most articles that can be based mostly off of secondary sources should be based off of secondary sources. I think we're drifting away from the original topic, which was not whether secondary sources in general are preferred. Nobody disputes that they are. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:23:48PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The very definition of important is, that many people cite it. If no one cites it, it's not important. Remember that I do not count a name check of a theorem as an actual source for the theorem (since it is not actually a source in any ordinary meaning of the word source). This may be leading to some misunderstanding. Another issue is the cyclical nature of academic research. It's perfectly possible for a microfield to spring 25 peer reviewed papers in a decade and then pass out of fashion or have all the accessible results exhausted. Some of these microfields will get a book written about them, some will not. All are of encyclopedic interest. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 1/6/2009 5:40:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckh...@fastmail.fm writes: If by community you mean WP policy then no such decision has been made. It is perfectly acceptable to write certain articles entirely from primary sources. Indeed, many biographical articles are written entirely from primary sources. But I agree that most articles that can be based mostly off of secondary sources should be based off of secondary sources. --- No, by community I mean that our policy was and is the creation of our policy editors. And then the policy instructs the editors, who then modify it again, and it then instructs again, in a feedback loop. We as a community, set our own policy, after the core nebulous concepts were outlined. I dispute that it is acceptable to write using solely primary sources, or that our policy states that. I also dispute that many of OUR biographical articles are written entirely from primary sources. If they are they should be flagged as problematic. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 1/6/2009 6:13:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckh...@fastmail.fm writes: This is partially because the standards we permit for sources on biographies of living people are incredibly lax. I view this as an unfortunate side effect of the desirable goal of having thorough sourcing. I don't see why you claim on the one hard that the standards are lax, and then you say Encarta and Encyclopedia Brittanica. You've lost me. Are you claiming that Brittanica is not a reliable source? The standards for sources on BLPs are not lax imho, they are stronger than anything else. Perhaps if you made your point more clearly. I don't see the issue you're trying to draw with the other sources. My point is specifically primary versus secondary, not any other point. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote: If work on Number Theory were important than surely my new book on Number Theory would include it. That does not follow. ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckh...@fastmail.fm wrote: [...] But as long as we try to treat * Inventiones Mathematicae * Being and Time * drudgereport.com as the same type of primary source, we're doomed to an incoherent policy. Perhaps it is time to simply separate out RS into domain-specific subpolicies that acknowledge this, and avoid the whole problem for everything not in the humanities... RS as a very high level guideline, with RS-SCIENCE and RS-MEDIA and RS-BIOGRAPHY and RS-PHILOSOPHY as subpolicies as applicable, etc... -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckh...@fastmail.fm wrote: [...] But as long as we try to treat * Inventiones Mathematicae * Being and Time * drudgereport.com as the same type of primary source, we're doomed to an incoherent policy. Perhaps it is time to simply separate out RS into domain-specific subpolicies that acknowledge this, and avoid the whole problem for everything not in the humanities... RS as a very high level guideline, with RS-SCIENCE and RS-MEDIA and RS-BIOGRAPHY and RS-PHILOSOPHY as subpolicies as applicable, etc... -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Yes, because subguidelines haven't been a train wreck for things like notability, and led to total incoherency where one main guideline would serve far better, or... Oh, wait. Using primary sources as described, for purely descriptive claims, is not a problem. Rather, treat the criticism itself with the weight it deserves as well. If no other reliable sources have seen fit to comment on the criticism (be that to agree with it, refute it, what have you), it's not that important and doesn't deserve much weight. Same with any refutation of the criticism from its target. We can very easily state A states B is wrong because C. B denies this because D. That's not an inappropriate use of a primary source. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
Carl Beckhorn wrote: On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 07:07:37PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Our policy was fashioned in a deliberate way to prevent the use of primary sources where there is no secondary source mention. That was deliberate. We have always permitted the use of academic research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. These are crucial both for the results they contain and for their link to the historical record. The difficulty is that these sources have to be considered secondary sources in order to mesh our best practices with the literal wording of NOR. But many people like to consider them primary sources. The idea that these sources should be avoided entirely would simply be silly. The idea that it's better to avoid primary sources entirely is more applicable when primary source means blog post. I think it's perfectly applicable to journal articles as well. I personally, at least, think it's usually inappropriate to directly cite a new-research result to the journal article, since evaluating journal articles, and placing them in proper historical and disciplinary context is itself a quite difficult bit of original research. That's what survey articles, textbooks, summary mentions in other papers, works like Mathematical Reviews, and so on are for---much better to cite those. To take an even more direct example, in the medical field, summarizing the results of all the studies that have been done on a particular subject is a meta-analysis, and a publishable, first-class research project in itself. If no prominent meta-analysis in an area exists, it would be original research for Wikipedia to attempt to directly crawl through the primary literature and write our own, beyond something simple and non-committal like studies have found both positive [1,2] and negative [3,4] results. An exception might be important but entirely uncontroversial results, which are not likely to ever get a whole lot of critical analysis. So if some mathematical theorem is proven, I don't have a problem with citing the paper that proves it. But if, say, an antidepressant was shown to be no better than placebo---now we're in a controversial, murky area, where anyone can cherry-pick primary sources to make an argument for all possible conclusions. -Mark ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:28 PM, George Herbert wrote: Phil - can you be more specific about that policy? Where is it? on 1/2/09 12:18 PM, Phil Sandifer at snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: Sure - it's actually WP:NOR - specifically, the line that all statements from primary sources must be easily verifiable by someone without specialist knowledge. This poses a significant problem for articles on scholars and specialists, whose writings provide a crucial perspective that, by its nature, cannot be replaced. It's a problem for a large band of articles - academic topics really, by their nature, can't function well when crucial sources need to be summarized without use of specialist knowledge. Currently the discussion is proving how deeply pathological the anti- specialist bias is, with the suggestions being made, in all seriousness, that no sources that require specialist knowledge should be used, and that it is desirable to have people edit articles in areas they do not know anything about. This is stunning, Phil. Now perhaps you and other persons on this List can appreciate the growing stone wall that I, and many other editors, have been confronted with for a long time. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
2009/1/2 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: on 1/2/09 12:18 PM, Phil Sandifer at snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: Currently the discussion is proving how deeply pathological the anti- specialist bias is, with the suggestions being made, in all seriousness, that no sources that require specialist knowledge should be used, and that it is desirable to have people edit articles in areas they do not know anything about. This is stunning, Phil. Now perhaps you and other persons on this List can appreciate the growing stone wall that I, and many other editors, have been confronted with for a long time. See, it's nothing we didn't appreciate already. However, this list is a place for more general discussion, not where any binding decisions are made. The trouble with anyone can edit is that anyone can edit. And that you can't get away from idiocy. Suffering fools is in fact required. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
on 1/1/09 9:52 AM, Phil Sandifer at snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: This really is how bad our policy formation has gotten - there is a sincere belief that specialist knowledge is actually harmful to Wikipedia. It's the dominant culture, Phil. And, sadly, it is the way the Project has been headed for some time now. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
on 1/1/09 9:52 AM, Phil Sandifer at snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: This really is how bad our policy formation has gotten - there is a sincere belief that specialist knowledge is actually harmful to Wikipedia. on 1/1/09 11:10 AM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: It's the dominant culture, Phil. And, sadly, it is the way the Project has been headed for some time now. Marc Riddell Soon a group of persons will design an encyclopedia project with the same free-editing capability as Wikipedia, but which will creatively and effectively combine input from the specialist and generalist alike. We'll see. Marc ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Jan 1, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: on 1/1/09 9:52 AM, Phil Sandifer at snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: This really is how bad our policy formation has gotten - there is a sincere belief that specialist knowledge is actually harmful to Wikipedia. It's the dominant culture, Phil. And, sadly, it is the way the Project has been headed for some time now. Indeed. But it is, in practice, not difficult to find the most pernicious pieces of bad policy that allow that move, and to make it so that people who are actually interested in writing a useful resource for our readers can do so. As it stands, Wikipedia is increasingly at risk of having its quality swept away by the increasingly large community, and the resultant drop in quality of the average community member that entails. This hard and fast rule against specialist knowledge - and the bizarre belief that the solution is to strengthen it - is a key place where pushing back is beneficial. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Jan 1, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: on 1/1/09 9:52 AM, Phil Sandifer at snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: This really is how bad our policy formation has gotten - there is a sincere belief that specialist knowledge is actually harmful to Wikipedia. It's the dominant culture, Phil. And, sadly, it is the way the Project has been headed for some time now. on 1/1/09 1:28 PM, Phil Sandifer at snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed. But it is, in practice, not difficult to find the most pernicious pieces of bad policy that allow that move, and to make it so that people who are actually interested in writing a useful resource for our readers can do so. As it stands, Wikipedia is increasingly at risk of having its quality swept away by the increasingly large community, and the resultant drop in quality of the average community member that entails. This hard and fast rule against specialist knowledge - and the bizarre belief that the solution is to strengthen it - is a key place where pushing back is beneficial. Our last two posts must have waved at each other as they went by :-). Phil, I have been pushing back for the three years that I have been here. And it is worse now than when I came. And a great part of the problem is that the leadership that does exist here appears to condone the current thinking. I believe it is time for me to help build an alternative. Marc ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
2009/1/1 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Phil, I have been pushing back for the three years that I have been here. And it is worse now than when I came. And a great part of the problem is that the leadership that does exist here appears to condone the current thinking. I believe it is time for me to help build an alternative. If your pushing back was here *rather than* on the wiki, it will have been useless. Did you try on the wiki itself? - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
I hope you'll forgive me - I've joined this mailing list half-way through this discussion. I am interested in what's being said, but am having a hard time trying to summarize it in my head. If I'm right, Phil is complaining that NOR contradicts NPOV because someone won't necessarily be able to defend themselves in their article because what they say (eg through a letter) will be OR, and therefore the article won't have NPOV? And then there's the discussion about whether the subject of an article can request the permanent deletion of that article? But then of course we'll have the scenario where only generally positive articles remain. Can't we just have it so that they insist that Wikipedia correct factual errors about themselves? And what's all this about spoiler warnings? Has there been a recent policy change? Where does one find out about these things? Thank you for being patient! I look forward to participating in the mailing list constructively. ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 12/31/2008 7:53:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, crustyb...@gmail.com writes: If I'm right, Phil is complaining that NOR contradicts NPOV because someone won't necessarily be able to defend themselves in their article because what they say (eg through a letter) will be OR, and therefore the article won't have NPOV? --- No. What Phil is stating is that NOR contradicts NPOV because of a line which states that primary sources may only be used for descriptive clauses (not interpretive ones). Therefore, since what an author writes is a primary source, they cannot defend themselves from perceived false interpretations of others, which are secondary sources. My counters included an attack on whether an op-ed is really secondary. And also an attack on whether a self-review is really primary. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: snip So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's consensus. Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages? Carcharoth Have you tried just removing the ridiculous clause that creates this 'paradox'? Or, better yet, just using the source anyway? Sometimes after all the squabbling over the years that makes it seem like a deadlocked controversy, all it really takes is standing up and pointing out when somethings just dumb. And doing the not dumb thing. And that makes policy. IAR is there for a reason... not to be silly, or meta, but because sometimes, when something keeps us from improving the encyclopedia for long enough we get fed up with it, we have a way to just step over it (the encyclopedia being the product of our core project values, not interplay between clauses of policy that gets progressively more wonky every year). There is no conflict between the policies. There's a conflict with whats written. That is not the same thing. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- -Brock ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
Please specify which three words, thanks. Phil Sandifer wrote: On Dec 27, 2008, at 11:26 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Link me the essay Derida wrote and I will summarize it. Then your problem will disappear and we won't have to hear any more about him :) (or her or it or goat). Derrida is a good example, but he's not the extent of the problem. By the way, you are aware Phil, that subject's speaking about themselves, in their own articles, have a wide latitude. Right? They do. Except for this idiotic three word phrase, inserted into NOR three years ago without discussion by a single editor looking to win a content dispute. Remove the phrase, problem solved. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
2008/12/30 Brock Weller brock.wel...@gmail.com: Have you tried just removing the ridiculous clause that creates this 'paradox'? Indeed. It got edit-warred back by someone so dedicated they got 3RRed for it. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 12/30/2008 1:18:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, george.herb...@gmail.com writes: You weren't evil, but what you did was, and the truly evil people noticed. My trying to walk the tightrope ended up helping enable evildoers on Wikipedia, and that still bothers the hell out of me. Wikipedia has always been about a battle being Good and Evil. It's about time we all realized this. Good is whatever you do, you want, and you think would be super duper. Evil is everyone who thinks your ideas stink. The only way Good can prevail, is in a civil war, where we exterminate the Evil-doers. I'm signing up recruits now. The war will start in two weeks. 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
I disagree on the synopsis of *why* the wording used was used, but regardless I haven't yet seen any serious attempt to actually address the specific issue. And when I asked about volunteering to address the specific issue, I was essentially told the issue was more broad. That seems to be a kind-of skittering out from under the problem, not really an attempt to address it. I don't think addressing it requires a change to the wording. I'd like to see first, a serious attempt to address it on the specific article topic, and *only when that is found to be impossible* then resort to examining the policy language. 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
2008/12/30 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: encyclopedia to go fuck with us using the same logic. In retrospect, I would probably not have fought the auto-revert campaign approach, but I should have thrown a fit about this on policy boards and hauled a bunch of you up to Arbcom for abuse of process. Where were you in the arbcom cases (plural), then, if you objected at the time? - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 12/30/2008 2:37:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, george.herb...@gmail.com writes: my work and social life suffered Now we see the problem. Delete Work and Social Life. Replace with Unemployed and No Life. Problem solved. Will The Problem Solver 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
2008/12/28 wjhon...@aol.com: All of that is primary source material. Your opinion about a source is a primary source. A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary source. That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a secondary source. Opinion pieces are all primary material. NPOV is paramount. NOR and V are good ways to get there. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: snip So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's consensus. Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages? 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Dec 28, 2008, at 12:51 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: Perhaps a simple exemption to the NOR page to cover the described problem? I suppose. Though truth be told, the described problem is going to be the vast majority of notable specialist topics - any time you have multiple sources on a specialist's work, the secondary sources commenting on the work get in under looser standards than the specialist's own defenses of his work. It's a NPOV problem. And those specialist topics are, presumably, what the no specialist knowledge clause is going to deal with. So the question becomes, if specialist topics are the exception to the no specialist knowledge clause, what exactly is that clause doing for us that is not already covered by other parts of policies? -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Dec 28, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Carcharoth wrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote: snip So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's consensus. Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages? I'm sorry, I should give a more complete answer here. Yes, and among the stellar responses created by the people who currently populate our policy talk pages and thus, by default, control our policy formation is that the correct solution is to not cover the criticism of the person in depth either, thus removing the balance problem. Yes. Apparently the road to a NPOV encyclopedia is now to avoid posting any information whatsoever. This is what happens when the old-timers leave the policy pages, by the way. The worst of the Taylorized take over. Which is why I keep bringing these things up on the list - in the hopes that the comparative sanity of the list will wander back to the policy pages and start fixing these messes. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote: So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's consensus. Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages? I'd imagine there'd be a huge argument, with no resolution, and since there's no resolution we have to keep it at status quo, which means to leave the phrase in. This is one of the classic ways to make a change on a controversial policy about which there is no consensus: Make the change anyway but do something to ensure it stays in for a while--either sneak it in and hope it stays unnoticed, or use delaying tactics. Once it's been in long enough, you've won; it's now status quo and while the change is still controversial, the controversy now means you can't change it back. Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic . ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net: Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic . Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b) clearly original research to declare as spoiler (c) having six different venues to tell you you're wrong and to go away must be because of clever politics on the part of those you disagree with, not because you're actually wrong or anything. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net: Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic . Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b) clearly original research to declare as spoiler (c) having six different venues to tell you you're wrong and to go away must be because of clever politics on the part of those you disagree with, not because you're actually wrong or anything. Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here... 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On 28 Dec 2008 at 00:44:00 EST, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: What I said is that subjects speaking about themselves have a wide latitude. If the New Bedford Post (newspaper) reports that Britney Spears was born on Mars and Britney in her personal blog reports that I was not!, we can report both, and equally, even though Britney is speaking in-the-first-person. Don't be silly... we all know that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. So they should have said Britney was born on *Venus*. Up Uranus! -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:18:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: This is generally speaking both a poor description of primary sources and of our internal definition of them. Okay and I say Not ! Which is as useful a rejoinder isn't it :) The sole useful alternative view, would be that *both* report and counter-report are secondary sources. The simple fact that a person is speaking about their own work, doesn't make their words primary for that, it depends on the context in which they are speaking. I.E. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, David Gerard wrote: clearly original research to declare as spoiler I can't believe you're still saying this. It is, of course, an example of exactly the kind of specious objections that still had to be addressed and added to the controversy. A spoiler warning is a statement about content and as such, is exempt from the original research rules, in the same way that it's not original research to declare this article is subject to BLP (without a reliable source which says that the article is subject to Wikipiedia's BLP policy) or this article may contain unverified claims (without a reliable source which says that the article contains unverified claims). Or to use a recent example, *your own* claim that we should have quality warnings on Wikipedia. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-October/095845.html Pray tell, how is a spoiler warning original research and a quality warning not? ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote: Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here... No, it's about a rule abuse which combines the status quo rule with the need for consensus to make changes: you're not supposed to make a change for which there is no consensus, but if you manage to do so anyway, everyone's stuck with it since there's also no consensus for changing it back. I pointed out that this particular abuse was used to remove spoiler warnings too. ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:27 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The sole useful alternative view, would be that *both* report and counter-report are secondary sources. The simple fact that a person is speaking about their own work, doesn't make their words primary for that, it depends on the context in which they are speaking. I.E. You can't have your cake and eat it too. For the most part, we'd treat anything by Person X as a primary source for [[Person X]]. I mean, if we want to make an explicit exception for a category, that's fine, but right now, nothing I can see in NOR even slightly undermines the idea that an article by Person X is a primary source for [[Person X]]. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
David Gerard wrote: 2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net: Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic . Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b) clearly original research to declare as spoiler (c) having six different venues to tell you you're wrong and to go away must be because of clever politics on the part of those you disagree with, not because you're actually wrong or anything. That was actually one of those rare instances where a mailing list campaign worked. Too bad that one otherwise sane Wikipedian has been infected by chronic wiki-tetanus over this. 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
2008/12/29 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: I can point to articles that source statements and claims to Tolkien's letters, or quotes from those letters. The articles should probably, more technically, point to secondary literature that uses those letters as a source, but there always seems to be exceptions where directly citing the letter seems the best way to allow verifiability. I can certainly attest that quoting a secondary source can give undue weight when the secondary source is giving only one interpretation of what a letter might mean. And the concern that quoting the letter directly is original research is also very real. Interpretation of the meaning of what someone has said can be very tricky. Please get to WT:NOR promptly. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/29 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: I can point to articles that source statements and claims to Tolkien's letters, or quotes from those letters. The articles should probably, more technically, point to secondary literature that uses those letters as a source, but there always seems to be exceptions where directly citing the letter seems the best way to allow verifiability. I can certainly attest that quoting a secondary source can give undue weight when the secondary source is giving only one interpretation of what a letter might mean. And the concern that quoting the letter directly is original research is also very real. Interpretation of the meaning of what someone has said can be very tricky. Please get to WT:NOR promptly. Will you and Phil (and others) join me? :-) 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
2008/12/29 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Please get to WT:NOR promptly. Will you and Phil (and others) join me? :-) Already there, and trying to discuss it with people who would rather break 3RR with blind reverting then say in their block appeal but I was right! Just the sort of people you want working on the fine nuances of Wikipedia policy. - 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
Phil Sandifer wrote: Yes. Apparently the road to a NPOV encyclopedia is now to avoid posting any information whatsoever. Drastic, but it works. Killing the patient is an established strategy for getting rid of the disease. This is what happens when the old-timers leave the policy pages, by the way. The worst of the Taylorized take over. Scientific management requires a higher power to assign tasks, but our masses have rejected intelligent design. Old-timers are too concerned with their rising blood pressure to spend much time being thoughtful with the idiots that write these rules. Which is why I keep bringing these things up on the list - in the hopes that the comparative sanity of the list will wander back to the policy pages and start fixing these messes. You're a raving optimist! 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Ray Saintonge wrote: That was actually one of those rare instances where a mailing list campaign worked. I forget, are mailing list campaigns supposed to be good or bad? ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
Sure but in this case, to what you actually refer, is an refutation by him, of his position on some philosophical point, etc etc. That's not really about him per se, in the same vein that say I was born in Topeka is about him. If he, as a Topekian, engaged in an long-winded argument with another, about his activities on the cheerleading squad of Topeka high, then shouldn't we say, that his long-winded repartee is a secondary source, on the primary assertion that I was the most decorated cheerleader in Topeka High history. If you're going to take the position that any opinion about a primary-source-assertion is secondary, simply because it is addressing an underlying original statement-of-fact, than a consistent approach is that this is true, no matter if the speaker is also the subject themself. That seems consistent to me, and would remove your quandary. Will Johnson In a message dated 12/28/2008 2:44:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:27 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The sole useful alternative view, would be that *both* report and counter-report are secondary sources. The simple fact that a person is speaking about their own work, doesn't make their words primary for that, it depends on the context in which they are speaking. I.E. You can't have your cake and eat it too. For the most part, we'd treat anything by Person X as a primary source for [[Person X]]. I mean, if we want to make an explicit exception for a category, that's fine, but right now, nothing I can see in NOR even slightly undermines the idea that an article by Person X is a primary source for [[Person X]]. -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 **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense. On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote: Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here... No, it's about a rule abuse which combines the status quo rule with the need for consensus to make changes: you're not supposed to make a change for which there is no consensus, but if you manage to do so anyway, everyone's stuck with it since there's also no consensus for changing it back. I pointed out that this particular abuse was used to remove spoiler warnings too. Yes, and I was pointing out that David and others should stick to the topic of the thread. As you said, you did (just), but then my post wasn't in reply to your post. It was a reply to David's post. I go as off-topic as anyone, but I've seen what happens when threads get hijacked to discussing spoilers... Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
If true, then we couldn't and shouldn't even try to summarize what he wrote. If his writing was deliberately inscrutable nonsense, then we would probably do better just to quote part of it, showing that, and move on. Will Johnson In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:31:13 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cuncta...@gmail.com writes: There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense. **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:30 AM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense. What's that sound of ghostly laughter I hear? 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Dec 28, 2008, at 8:30 PM, The Cunctator wrote: There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense. Were this true, it would indeed be a problem. However, not only is that not true, it is also not relevant, as this problem exists in a general case that affects every single person who is notable for work in a specialist field and who has ever been criticized. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
Are you claiming that every author has at least one critic who states that they wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense? That would be a hard proposition to evidence. Will Johnson In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:40:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: However, not only is that not true, it is also not relevant, as this problem exists in a general case that affects every single person who is notable for work in a specialist field and who has ever been criticized. **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
Link me the essay Derida wrote and I will summarize it. Then your problem will disappear and we won't have to hear any more about him :) (or her or it or goat). By the way, you are aware Phil, that subject's speaking about themselves, in their own articles, have a wide latitude. 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
I thought the last time I checked subjects were asked to *not* edit their pages... And generally when they do... Someone shouts COI at them. (I generally agree with subjects not dictating their pages but some of the users that deal with COI in the past were not always that nice to the subjects Anyway, I just wanted to point out that subjects don't get THAT much leeway. St leafy not as of 3 months ago.) On 12/27/08, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Link me the essay Derida wrote and I will summarize it. Then your problem will disappear and we won't have to hear any more about him :) (or her or it or goat). By the way, you are aware Phil, that subject's speaking about themselves, in their own articles, have a wide latitude. 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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 ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Dec 27, 2008, at 11:26 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Link me the essay Derida wrote and I will summarize it. Then your problem will disappear and we won't have to hear any more about him :) (or her or it or goat). Derrida is a good example, but he's not the extent of the problem. By the way, you are aware Phil, that subject's speaking about themselves, in their own articles, have a wide latitude. Right? They do. Except for this idiotic three word phrase, inserted into NOR three years ago without discussion by a single editor looking to win a content dispute. Remove the phrase, problem solved. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Dec 27, 2008, at 11:58 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: I thought the last time I checked subjects were asked to *not* edit their pages... And generally when they do... Someone shouts COI at them. (I generally agree with subjects not dictating their pages but some of the users that deal with COI in the past were not always that nice to the subjects Anyway, I just wanted to point out that subjects don't get THAT much leeway. St leafy not as of 3 months ago.) Though this is irrelevant to the discussion. This problem exists primarily for externally published sources. Here's the basic situation where we hit a problem. Person A is a scholar working on Technical Subject X. Person B publishes a scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal attacking Person A's work. Person A responds to the article at length - the venue here doesn't matter particularly, but let's say it's in a peer- reviewed journal as well. In the article [[Person A]], Person B's article is a secondary source, and can be summarized freely. But because a primary source cannot be used for claims that are not easily verified by non-specialist readers, Person A's response, which is a primary source for [[Person A]], cannot be used the same way to respond. NPOV problem. -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] NOR contradicts NPOV
You're mistaking what I said. I did not say that subjects can edit their own wiki biographies with impunity and force. What I said is that subjects speaking about themselves have a wide latitude. If the New Bedford Post (newspaper) reports that Britney Spears was born on Mars and Britney in her personal blog reports that I was not!, we can report both, and equally, even though Britney is speaking in-the-first-person. A subject's own statements, about themselves, can always be reported in their own biography. I'm not saying that they would edit those in. I'm saying that we can. Not that we should or must, only that we can. Will Johnson In a message dated 12/27/2008 8:58:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, wilh...@nixeagle.org writes: I thought the last time I checked subjects were asked to *not* edit their pages... And generally when they do... Someone shouts COI at them. (I generally agree with subjects not dictating their pages but some of the users that deal with COI in the past were not always that nice to the subjects Anyway, I just wanted to point out that subjects don't get THAT much leeway. St leafy not as of 3 months ago.) On 12/27/08, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Link me the essay Derida wrote and I will summarize it. Then your problem will disappear and we won't have to hear any more about him :) (or her or it or goat). By the way, you are aware Phil, that subject's speaking about themselves, in their own articles, have a wide latitude. 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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] NOR contradicts NPOV
Sorry about the double post... Vesck was supposed to be crack but my blackberry made it into some non word. Again sorry On 12/28/08, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org wrote: Ah ok will sorry about that... You are correct there. This is a problem, however the solution needs to clearly deal only with the specified situation above... As not to make vesck theories any easier to get on wikipedia. Perhaps a simple exemption to the NOR page to cover the described problem? On 12/28/08, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: You're mistaking what I said. I did not say that subjects can edit their own wiki biographies with impunity and force. What I said is that subjects speaking about themselves have a wide latitude. If the New Bedford Post (newspaper) reports that Britney Spears was born on Mars and Britney in her personal blog reports that I was not!, we can report both, and equally, even though Britney is speaking in-the-first-person. A subject's own statements, about themselves, can always be reported in their own biography. I'm not saying that they would edit those in. I'm saying that we can. Not that we should or must, only that we can. Will Johnson In a message dated 12/27/2008 8:58:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, wilh...@nixeagle.org writes: I thought the last time I checked subjects were asked to *not* edit their pages... And generally when they do... Someone shouts COI at them. (I generally agree with subjects not dictating their pages but some of the users that deal with COI in the past were not always that nice to the subjects Anyway, I just wanted to point out that subjects don't get THAT much leeway. St leafy not as of 3 months ago.) On 12/27/08, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Link me the essay Derida wrote and I will summarize it. Then your problem will disappear and we won't have to hear any more about him :) (or her or it or goat). By the way, you are aware Phil, that subject's speaking about themselves, in their own articles, have a wide latitude. 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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 ___ 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] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 12/27/2008 9:11:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@gmail.com writes: In the article [[Person A]], Person B's article is a secondary source, and can be summarized freely. But because a primary source cannot be used for claims that are not easily verified by non-specialist readers, Person A's response, which is a primary source for [[Person A]], cannot be used the same way to respond. If this seems what we intended, than all I can say is, it wasn't. Involved hypothetical discussions are hard for me to follow without specific examples. In your example A: blah blah blah god is dead etc B: You're full of it A: No I'm not All of that is primary source material. Your opinion about a source is a primary source. A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary source. That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a secondary source. Opinion pieces are all primary material. 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-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=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
