[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

[Renée Bagslint]

A recent Signpost piece, "Good faith gibberish",
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-11-24/Humour&oldid=811658169
chooses to mock the claimed incomprehensibility of certain Wikipedia
articles, two of which are mathematics articles by the same author.  There
are three things which, taken together make this a matter of concern to the
wider community.

Firstly, the article is by an account self-described "as a WP Visiting
Scholar, and Wikipedian in Residence".  It is thereby flagged as an
emanation of the movement.

Secondly, the alleged incomprehensibility of the mathematics articles,
which are correct and succinct, is entirely attributable to the ignorance
of the Signpost's author and editors.  Even those completely ignorant of
mathematics could have used Google Books to discover that the
Federer--Morse Theorem is not, as suggested, a hoax.

Thirdly, the author selected for mockery in this way, user:r.e.b., is not
only an expert, but an extremely distinguished mathematician, at a level
equivalent to a Nobel prize-winner in another discipline.  He has written
numerous articles on mathematics and I have long thought that Wikipedia
scarcely deserves his work.  Now I'm sure of it.

So there we have it.  A Wikpedian-in-Residence makes it clear that "experts
are scum".  Is this the message the community chooses to present going
forward?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Renee and all,

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:49:39 +
Renée Bagslint  wrote:

> A recent Signpost piece, "Good faith gibberish",
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-11-24/Humour&oldid=811658169
> chooses to mock the claimed incomprehensibility of certain Wikipedia
> articles, two of which are mathematics articles by the same author.  There
> are three things which, taken together make this a matter of concern to the
> wider community.
> 
> Firstly, the article is by an account self-described "as a WP Visiting
> Scholar, and Wikipedian in Residence".  It is thereby flagged as an
> emanation of the movement.
> 
> Secondly, the alleged incomprehensibility of the mathematics articles,
> which are correct and succinct, is entirely attributable to the ignorance
> of the Signpost's author and editors.  Even those completely ignorant of
> mathematics could have used Google Books to discover that the
> Federer--Morse Theorem is not, as suggested, a hoax.
> 
> Thirdly, the author selected for mockery in this way, user:r.e.b., is not
> only an expert, but an extremely distinguished mathematician, at a level
> equivalent to a Nobel prize-winner in another discipline.  He has written
> numerous articles on mathematics and I have long thought that Wikipedia
> scarcely deserves his work.  Now I'm sure of it.
> 

First of all note that I appreciate r.e.b's contributions and thank him for
them.

That put aside: that article is clearly marked as "humour" based on the URL.
Should it still be taken seriously? Furthermore, how much do Signpost humour
articles reflect the official stance of the Wikimedia Foundation? Finally, note
that it is expected that one's work will face some criticism, either valid or
false, and one should learn to cope with it. I've written about it here -
http://shlomifishswiki.branchable.com/Encourage_criticism_and_try_to_get_offended/
and here -
http://shlomifishswiki.branchable.com/Never_Try_to_Please_Everyone/ .

I'm not saying that signpost piece is commendable, but it should be taken in
proportion.


> So there we have it.  A Wikpedian-in-Residence makes it clear that "experts
> are scum".  Is this the message the community chooses to present going
> forward?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 


-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://is.gd/htwEXQ - Integrating GNU Guile into GNU coreutils

I used to be arrogant. Now I’m simply perfect.
— one of Shlomi Fish’s relatives, http://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

[Robert Fernandez]

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Renée Bagslint 
wrote:
>
> So there we have it.  A Wikpedian-in-Residence makes it clear that "experts
> are scum".


It is remarkably inappropriate for you to put this phrase in quotation
marks giving them impression that it is an exact quote when these words
appear nowhere in the piece.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

[Renée Bagslint]

Robert Fernandez thinks it is "remarkably inappopriate" to put the
phrase "*experts
**are scum"* in quotation marks as if it were a quotation from the
Signpost. No. This is a quotation, which perhaps he did not recognise, from
a rather long-standing and well-known essay,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Anti-elitism which discusses this
very issue and is a convenient and common way of summarising the attitude
exhibited in the article.

Does Robert have any views on the topic of this thread?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

[Robert Fernandez]

You're right, my mistake.  Sorry I did not get your allusion, just as you
didn't get the entire point of the Signpost piece.  These things happen.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Renée Bagslint 
wrote:

> Robert Fernandez thinks it is "remarkably inappopriate" to put the
> phrase "*experts
> **are scum"* in quotation marks as if it were a quotation from the
> Signpost. No. This is a quotation, which perhaps he did not recognise, from
> a rather long-standing and well-known essay,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Anti-elitism which discusses this
> very issue and is a convenient and common way of summarising the attitude
> exhibited in the article.
>
> Does Robert have any views on the topic of this thread?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

[Peter Southwood]

Usually a good idea to cite your source for a quotation that may be 
controversial, or where the source may not be obvious. 
(Yes, this is common sense, but common sense is not as common as it is touted 
to be. (as we all know, or do we?))
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Renée Bagslint
Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2017 7:29 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

Robert Fernandez thinks it is "remarkably inappopriate" to put the phrase 
"*experts **are scum"* in quotation marks as if it were a quotation from the 
Signpost. No. This is a quotation, which perhaps he did not recognise, from a 
rather long-standing and well-known essay, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Anti-elitism which discusses this very 
issue and is a convenient and common way of summarising the attitude exhibited 
in the article.

Does Robert have any views on the topic of this thread?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>