2009/8/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> At 05:01 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
>> Even quite patient experts have a limited tolerance for idiocy.
>> For an extreme case, look at the first global warming arbitration
>> case, where the cranks got together to try to get one of the UK's
>> top climate scientist
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as
> Carcharoth suggests. There are two meanings for "reliability."
> Reliability in RS, I claim, depends solely on the publisher, and
> reliability in this sense is about notability, and certainly not
> ab
Abd it seems your slant has shifted, or maybe your shift has slanted.
At any rate, perhaps you could restate your proposal, focusing on what
you think should be advisory and what proscriptive. I don't anyone is
*expecting* experts to do this or that, but that is quite different
from stating th
<>
Experts do not determine what sources are reliable. Consensus does.
<< There are two meanings for "reliability." Reliability in RS, I
claim, depends solely on the publisher, and reliability in this sense
is about notability, and certainly not about reliability in the
ordinary sense, that w
At 05:01 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
>The problem comes not in finding sources, but in establishing due
>weight, convincing anyone that a crank idea is a crank idea and so forth.
That something is a "crank idea" is rarely found in the highest
quality reliable sources. So trying to establish it is d
At 02:27 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
>I'm glad you finally agree with me :)
>Everyone can edit. Experts and non-experts together.
>Anyone can find a source stating that "cats have retractable claws".
>Supposed experts should be able to find that souce faster.
>
>I'm not really interested in an exper
2009/8/14 :
> editing. You might find 200 online sources that state that Mary of Parma was
> born
> in 956, but I can show that none of these are realiable sources. My own
> opinion on when she was born has nothing to do with anything, sources are what
> matters.
The problem comes not in fin
In a message dated 8/14/2009 8:58:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
a...@lomaxdesign.com writes:
> No, they may be expert, but biased, or not good at explaining how
> they know what they know. Absolutely, the best experts can do this,
> and will. But it can also be a lot of work, and many experts w
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>> Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other
>> editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to
>> explain it in the article?
>
> It's quite possible to ex
At 01:49 AM 8/14/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>An expert editor is not a source, the have to edit using sources, just
>like anyone else does. Their personal opinions have and should have
>nothing to do with building articles neutrally. Neutrality is not the
>result of a single editor, it is the
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other
> editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to
> explain it in the article?
It's quite possible to explain it to other people while being unable to explain
it t
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> That's right. I proposed that we *treat* self-proclaimed experts as
> having a COI, i.e., the same basic rules. A badge of honor, not a
> shame. No more arguments about whether a situation is a real COI or
> not. You claim to be an expert, please
ps if you gave a concrete example from a specific article it might
help to see to what you're referring and how to address the issue.
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
To: English Wikipedia ;
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 6:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Wi
At 08:48 PM 8/13/2009, Carcharoth wrote:
>It's striking a balance between experts who WP:OWN articles and revert
>"ignorant" editors who "don't know what they are talking about", and
>requiring experts to carefully explain everything. Ideally, you would
>tell both lots to edit based on reliable sou
At 08:34 PM 8/13/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>"Please don't contentiously edit the article" applies to all editors,
>not just experts. So I can't see the need for this distinction you
>think should exist. I'm still not seeing what you want here clearly.
>
>I certainly hope you wouldn't be able t
At 08:32 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote:
>Just the opposite.
>We want experts to edit the controversial bits.
>Do you really want a swarm of amateurs who have little-to-no basis in
>the field being the sole people editing the most contentious portions?
>That just sounds upside-down to me.
Yes, I understa
nable time, that statement can be removed by
any editor.
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing
the XML article
It's striking a balance between experts who
ions?
> That just sounds upside-down to me.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> To: English Wikipedia
> Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 4:24 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing
> the XML
consensus to
treat experts as having a WP:COI If a conflict-of-interest means
"you're smart we don't want smart people" than we're really sunk.
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiE
: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing
the XML article
At 05:33 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
>Lomax wrote:
>
> >
At 05:33 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
>Lomax wrote:
>
> > we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
> > respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
> > expertise and we want them to advise us.
>
>Nothing says "we respect
At 08:41 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>*That* someone is an expert in field xyz is not a WP:COI, although some
>may see it as a conflict-of-interest (in lower case). For something to
>be a conflict of interest in-project doesn't just require that a person
>has a strong opinion on it, or a history of d
kiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing
the XML article
Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax
wrote:
>
>
>> we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
>> respond to warnings, but we would explain that we re
Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> wrote:
>
>
>> we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
>> respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
>> expertise and we want them to advise us.
>>
>
> Nothing says "we respect you
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
> respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
> expertise and we want them to advise us.
Nothing says "we respect your expertise" like a short-term block :o)
At 08:18 PM 8/11/2009, you wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > 2009/8/11 Steve Summit :
>
> > As someone commented on his blog, one of the problems is that the
> > experts in an area are likely to have been very heavily involved in
> > it.
>
>Also biased by that involv
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/11 Steve Summit :
>> d. wrote:
>
>>> His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't
>>> necessarily agree with.
>
>> Another important aspect of his approach was that he recognized
>> (and even agreed with!) the
2009/8/11 Steve Summit :
> d. wrote:
>> His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't
>> necessarily agree with.
> Another important aspect of his approach was that he recognized
> (and even agreed with!) the concerns over someone like him doing
> any editing.
Yep. He g
d. wrote:
> His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't
> necessarily agree with.
Another important aspect of his approach was that he recognized
(and even agreed with!) the concerns over someone like him doing
any editing.
__
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/08/08/Fixing-XML
(Tim Bray invented XML.)
His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't
necessarily agree with.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubs
30 matches
Mail list logo
