Zoe wrote:
>You're just trying to throw semantics around to prove an untenable point.
The dictionary defines "semantics" as "the study or science of
meaning in language." I thought that's exactly what we were
discussing.
This is the last comment I'm going to make on the topic. I've said
what I have to say, and I think prolonging this discussion with Zoe
would merely waste my time and try the patience of others.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
The issue is not that he dislikes the lists. The issue is that he feels that the lists are going against the standards of Wikipedia. You have a right to ignore hate speech, unencyclopedic or blatantly wrong content. However, if it doesn't belong there, you remove it.
Now, whether it does belong there or not remains to be seen...I've seen good aguments on both sides. I do think that [[List of songs whose title does not appear in their lyrics]] is a bit ridiculous, but other than my knee-jerk reaction to it, I can't really think of a strong argument against it. (I've already considered the 'Encarta doesn't have that list' argument, and it's pretty weak.)
Original Message:
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:53:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Lists which are sheer nonsense
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
--0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much? Don't you have the option of ignoring them?
Zoe
Zoe wrote:
>That's nonsense. "anti-American" does not carry the same use of the
>word as "American".
I see. So what you're saying is that the "American" in
"anti-American" is a different word entirely than the "American" in
"pro-American" or "American values." Wow. I had no idea! :)
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
Okay, we've gone a bit loony on the list thing, but it's all in good fun. No one has to *read* these lists.
I personally ignore all the "list of" articles. I have yet to find any useful information in them. If I want to find Canadians, for example, I just use the index (er, the Search feature).
It's better than a POV edit war...
Uncle Ed
Since I objected to the acronym search that popped up Amazon links,
I'm obliged to send this one along. There are ads on the page, but
they are not linked to the acronyms themselves.
http://www.acronymsearch.com/
Companion site to the handy
http://www.onlineconversion.com/
for numerical conversions.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
On Monday 03 March 2003 10:47 pm, The Cunctator wrote:
> > Eh? Consensus is used to arrive at decisions. Semantic
> > arguments tire me - esp since they tend to change the
> > subject of discussions.
>
> By that logic, a Dodge Dart is equivalent to New York City, since cars
> are used to arrive at destinations.
>
> If you're going to put words in my mouth, I'd appreciate it if you
> respect the meaning of those words.
Sigh - more semantic arguments.
Consensus means an "agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief." It is
also, esp here, a shorthand term used to refer to the process by which that
agreement is reached. So even though I should have said "consensus building
process" that doesn't mean there wasn't an agreement.
> There certainly had been a consensus, a consensus of people who had
> little-to-no involvement in developing the entries. The discussion
> naturally attracted people who wanted to change the status quo, rather
> than those who were happy with it. Shouldn't a proper consensus involve
> more than a people who all want to jump on the same bandwagon?
So by your argument anybody who creates a set of pages that are not
encyclopedia articles that are viewed as being counter to the goals of our
project by a majority of long-time users, can simply not participate in
mailing list and other meta discussion to prevent the moving or deletion of
the pages they created? Come on - they can easily sign-on with a throw-away
email address and participate in our method of governance. Everybody here -
from the rank newbie to the people who have been around since the founding of
the project - can all participate.
Also, the discussion of this issue went on for months and was on a publicly
available and readable mailing list which was and still is easy to find
access to on meta and through the Main Page. There was ample opportunity for
people to express their views. So just because they didn't doesn't mean that
the consensus is invalid. Your above argument actually argues against the
whole system and not just this case.
> Popularity arguments tire me - esp when they involve groupthink.
What tires me is the fact that you have been working against the very people
trying to enact the consensus. Just because you don't agree with (hardly any)
consensus doesn't mean that the other people on this mailing list have such
weak constitutions that they subvert their owns views in favor of a perceived
group decision. In my experience the opposite is usually what happens:
peoples' views are so diverse and so strong that there is often no clear
consensus and we are left with the status quo.
It's fine if you don't want to help move these non-articles but please don't
work against those that are trying to move the content to their new home. If
I were MyRedDice I would find it very discouraging after working several
hours moving these entries that one person unilaterally changed all the moves
to mere copies (saying only "please don't" in the edit summaries). The point
in the first place was to move - not copy the material (granted the pages
should have been cross-wiki redirected instead of redirected to [[September
11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Casualties]] but that is the only thing MyRedDice
did wrong).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 1]]
(Sensitive viewers should look away now)
User:Fuck You has just appeared and is making a long series of vandalistic
edits. I'm having a grand old time reverting them all, but if a developer
sees this and wants to ban him, then please do.
lp (camembert)
I wrote:
>>The term "American" has multiple meanings, including the following:
[SNIP]
>>(3) supportive of the U.S. government, politically conservative,
>>pro-war (For example, the House Un-American Activities Committee
>>declared U.S. citizens "un-American" for various alleged political
>>sins. and more recently you can find examples of newspaper columnists
>>declaring U.S. peace protesters "anti-American.")
Zoe replied:
>I find (3) highly offensive. That is NOT a definition of "American"
>and to claim it is is to create a straw man to shoot down legitimate
>use of the term, which is to definie people who live in the United
>States.
It doesn't matter how offensive you find this usage, the fact is that
it exists. Here are a few examples that I plucked off the Internet:
> The communist anti-war leftists are not satisfied with their
>large anti-American rallies, they now intend to try to stop the war
>when it starts.
http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1778
>It boggles my mind to see the attention given to anti-war and
>anti-American protesters in the United States.
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02262003/public_f/32922.asp
>As Vietnam veterans we know all too well the demoralizing effect the
>anti-American anti-war protesters have on our mothers, fathers, sons
>and daughters as they fight to keep America safe and free
http://www.pal-item.com/news/stories/20030228/localnews/1081575.html
>The "Peace" Movement: a Front for the Anti-American Left?
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6007
>Will handwringing Democrat ex-presidents and the anti-American
>protesters they encourage admit they were wrong when the first
>McDonald's opens up in Saddam Hussein's gulag on the Tigris?
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/1/114743
I've selected these examples because they each refer specifically to
anti-war *citizens of the United States* (including former U.S.
presidents) as "anti-American." Clearly, the authors of these
passages believe that it is possible to be both a "U.S. citizen" and
still "anti-American."
Like Zoe, I find this usage of "American" offensive. It attempts to
wrap conservative politics and pro-war sentiments in the flag of
patriotism. I hope Zoe will join me in objecting to this usage
wherever it occurs. Nevertheless, we have to take language as we find
it and recognize that words have multiple meanings and connotations
that are created, not by dictionaries or committees, but by their
actual usage in the real world.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
Cunctator insists on having an article at [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]], despite many other people's objections. There seemed to have developeda consensus that the article be called [[Homophobic hate speech]], but Cunctator decided unliaterally to change that. We need a decision that everybody can live with.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
At KQ's request, I have taken away his "sysop rights". I understand, however, that they are his for the asking any time he changes his mind.
Ed Poor
Wikipedia Developer