My three cents worth (inflation, you know):
Any article in Wikipedia should present information in such
a way that a person of average intelligence who's motivated
to learn can interpret it and use it. In the process, some
education is absolutely necessary. A number of articles
start with arcane, technical language that even a polymath
genius would have trouble deciphering if that isn't one of
his/her knowledge areas. Presenting knowledge is a process
of education. I assume that Rotem Dan meant that entries
should not be pedantic in nature, with which I agree, but
they must be educational by way of being accessible. For
instance, if an article states something like "The
geological history of sedimentary rock is stratigraphic in
nature," (not a real example in W.), then it should be
rephrased to say something like "The geologic history of
sedimentary rock is stratigraphic in nature; that is, the
history is shown by the succession of strata, or layers."
Then stratigraphic may be re-used without explanation,
because it's been adequately explained. Simply putting in a
link for stratigraphy is not sufficient (though it should be
there) and invites the user to get lost in a maze of
multiple open windows and computer stress.
--
John Knouse
jaknouse(a)frognet.net
Axel Boldt <axelboldt(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>--- Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > User 213.136.111.101 wrote a treatise on stealing credit card numbers
> > in [[Leet]] which was reverted, but the information is still there in
> > the history. Can we get it out of there? Zoe
>
>It is a hoax. They are trying to get your credit card number, not
>telling you how to steal someone else's credit card number.
>Maybe even a candidate for [[Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense]].
I would call it "fraud" rather than a hoax. I've emailed Hotmail, informing
them of the situation, in the hopes that they will shut down the
htm_basedata_pxqcode68423(a)hotmail.com account, thereby protecting gullible
fools from losing their credit card numbers.
-- Tim Starling
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
User 213.136.111.101 wrote a treatise on stealing credit card numbers in [[Leet]] which was reverted, but the information is still there in the history. Can we get it out of there? Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
I have been silent reading a mass of misinformed and silly
attacks on Larry's fine article on philosophical knowledge
and epistemology. Some attacks on his work are even
motivated by a misplaced desire to be politically correct,
and I can stay silent no longer.
Let's state the problem simply: Larry did NOT write an
article on: The many ways that people in all cultures and
ethnic groups use words that may be translated as
"knowledge."
If Larry did write such an article, then I agree his text
was very poorly written, and culturally biased. However, he
never wrote such an article. Instead, he wrote an article
on what philosophers mean by term knowledge; specifically,
how can human beings be _certain_ that what we think we
know is actually true.
This is a very precise meaning of the term "knowledge", and
is a part of a 3000 year old Western philosophical
tradition, which also happens to be multicutural. (In
dozens of nations, we see that Jews, Christians, Muslims,
atheists, Humanists, Unitarians, etc. all believe that
classical and modern western philosophy is a valid way, if
not the most valid way, of making responsible statements
about knowledge.)
Some people here on this Wikipedia list are saying that
people in various Eastern religions happen to use words
that might be translated into English as knowledge, and use
these words in ways that are different than Larry's text
shows. Well, duh. They also are using the word in a
different context, to describe something quite different.
In fact mystics of all traditions (both Western and
Eastern, by the way) often use terms like "knowlege" in
ways that are obviously contrary to what philosophers mean
by the term.
Somehow people have failed to notice that Larry's text
*already* presupposes that people use the word "knowledge"
to mean different things. His article is a fine summary of
how philosophers *respond* to those uses of the words.
Larry is not ignorant, and neither are all the philosophers
that have lived for the last 3000 years. We know that
people make many claims of "knowing" facts. His article
goes on from ther to ask "HOW do we know with any certainty
that what we think is true, actually is true?" "How do we
know that what we claim to be knowledge really is
knowledge?" And the article builds from there.
So people are criticising him because they don't understand
what he was writing about. Further, his article happens to
be NPOV. It is not, by any means, his personal point of
view. It is a good summary of the current philosophical
consensus at this time.
Can this article grow, develop and be improved? Yes.
Should we link together the ways that other people use the
word "knowledge", and compare and contrast them to how
philosophers use this term? Yes. But we shouldn't tear
Larry's text apart for sins he just never committed.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
Rotem writes:
> 4. Encyclopedic article should cite and base the
> ideas and concepts presented, preferably by
> reference to known experts in the field (In this
> case World-recognized philosophers)
As an aside, I'm still excited and surprised to find
topics wikipedia hasn't yet covered. I just wrote a
brief stub on [[ephemeral film]] a few days ago--a
very new field of study. Before 1982, when Rick
Prelinger began to collect the films, they were almost
universally mocked and dismissed. But, in Prelinger's
view, these films--industrial, social guidance, driver
safety, drug prevention films etc.--all serve as
unintentional documentaries of the social environment
of the time and place they were made.
I bring this up because sometimes the known experts in
a field are very few indeed. In this case, it's both
fun & daunting to start an article on the subject and
hope to cover it accurately and fairly. On the one
hand, it's nice to know (and feel a bit smug) that it
will be years, perhaps decades, before Britannica
covers what you've just written about. And, on the
other hand, I'm sure Britannica has an article on
[[D.A. Pennebaker]].
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
Fred writes:
> One way might be to (with their consent) make a
collect
> phone call to them at the number they provide and
> delivery of mail with signature confirmation to the
> address they provide as well as
> reply to an email to the address they provide.
>
> This would be for a full account with all
privileges.
Wow. This is very nearly the last thing I'd want to
happen to wikipedia. In fact, I'd rather see Jimbo
decide to close the site altogether.
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
I found it rather strange being inundated with e-mails concerning individual
users' identities. Now a new topic seems to have arisen out of nowhere. I
read parts of "Larry's text" some time ago and thought it was the exact
opposite of "encyclopaedic": If I ever posted such a text it would
immediately be removed, and I'd be crucified as the POV guy par excellence.
I wanted to reread portions of Larry's text now to see if I was wrong then,
but again there is no way. Is Wikipedia down again? Wouldn't it be more
pressing to solve those technical problems?
Kurt Forstner aka KF
Anthere,
I always take your comments seriously. I am going to take some time off from Wikipedia while I think about what you wrote.
Au revoir,
Edmond Le Pauvre
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthere [mailto:anthere6@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:09 PM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Censorship article
Ed.
1. Whatever you try to pretend now, what you did
appeared to be censorship. It is especially obvious as
you were the only one strongly against the content of
the article, when all the other ones merely said it
could be under another title
2. When I tried to talk to you about it, you just
didnot answer. Moving an article to a talk page, and
just "leaving" while saying "this is not good guys,
please do work it until it is" is not exactly a
collaborative way to resolve issues
3. You abused your sysop powers, while yourself
engaged in an edit war on this article, you threatened
Steve of being banned if he tried to revert the
artile. This is not exactly a good way to promote
confidence and collaborative work, and this is exactly
what I would call sysop abuse.
4. You banned an anonymous ip just after one edit
*you* disagreed with. I think it is pushing the red
button a little bit quickly, without giving the person
the opportunity to talk about what he was doing. This
again is not exactly a collaborative attitude
5. I wonder what would happen to me if I were adopting
exactly the same attitude than you on this
article...want a parallele ? Say, I don't appreciate
one article on iraq war, so I entirely moved it to the
talk page, and say "Hey, work on this, this is not
acceptable as it is not representative of all views".
Then, each time someone try to revert the article, I
will threaten to ban him ?
How many minutes until I am banned for doing so do you
think ?
6. And yes, last point, though you seem to imply the
opposite here, Steve has not been insisting on
preserving the article just as it was. You just never
let the opportunity to do anything on that piece.
Yes, that is ironic.
And yes, that is extremely sad also.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
OK. That is it. I've definitely come across the most revolting thing on
wikipedia. An anonymous user how now decided to use the name of a recent
dead person, Rachel Corrie. It is stomach churning to think that anyone
could be so tactless as to use a dead person's name and spread it all across
the wiki doing edits, etc. We didn't say say you cannot choose a recently
dead person's name because no-one could have imagined that anyone would be
so sick as to do it. Obviously there are sickos out there who stoop to this
repulsive level.
That's before you get into the contents, which is just YET ANOTHER rachel
corrie shrine, littered with every image that can be found. Some people on
wiki have been sailing very close to the POV wind in their promotion of
image upon image of Rachel, a lof of them totally irrelevant. Just the same
shots repeated in a different pose. Rachel looking to camera in the USA.
Rachel looking to camera in Gaza. Rachel looking to camera again in the US
(but this time with a frown! Obviously we NEED to show her smiling AND
frowning!!! The agendasizing of the main article on her with photographs is
bad enough. Creating a User:RachelCorrie is beyond disgusting. What next?
Supporters of the Iraq War creating a user name under the late British
soldier Ian Malone's name with pro-war images. Supporters of George Bush
creating a username to promote images for the President. Supporters of
Saddam creating a user name in his name to put pro-Saddam images on? This is
getting ridiculous and is making an ass out of wikipedia and showing
monumental disrespect to a recently deceased person. God forbid that any of
Rachel's family should do a google search and find wiki has someone claiming
to be their daughter or sister. What sort of sad sicko would be tactless and
crude enough to do such a thing?
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
What's really difficult is this:
* to describe one's most cherished, most deeply held beliefs
but NOT
* to insist that others agree with (or even respect) those beliefs
How many of us can simply say what we believe, and be content to let it go at that? I'm not even sure I myself am capable of that -- and I'm a fairly easy-going, tolerant kind of guy.
Many of us, certainly including me, sublimate this desire to see our beliefs reflected in print, by incorporating them into Wikipedia articles. We are allowed to do this, of course, provided that they are expressed *neutrally* -- that is, not asserted as FACTUAL but presented as the POV of someone outside the Wikipedia community. (I think Larry and I disagreed over whether it's ethical to do this, I might add.)
Most of what I put into the Wikipedia touches on controversial subjects, although I have been known to enter the odd indisputable fact now and then. Why, just yesterday I wrote about Graffiti (Palm) -- 'cuz it's on my ViewSonic PDA.
I try very hard to present POVs which I disbelieve just as clearly as those I believe. My goal is always that no one ought to be able to discern MY point of view from my edits alone. If I succeed more than half the time, I think I'm doing fairly well.
And some of my prose has lasted untouched for months at a time (in one case, well over a year) -- even though it touches on issues which typically arouse the greatest antipathy when DEBATED. But the consensus of Wiki writers on some of these examples is, de facto, that I expressed it best.
To my great distress, I don't always do so well. Hardly a day goes by when someone has to revert one of my edits, because MY point of view slipped in, rendering an article non-neutral. I appreciate all those fixes, even if I don't always say so ^_^
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: koyaanis qatsi [mailto:obchodnakorze@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:02 AM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RE: Wikipedians as war criminals
Jimbo writes:
> It might be interesting (but probably dangerous and
> destructive so I'm not actually in favor of doing
> it) to have a poll of regular contributors on a
> number of political issues, just to see where we
> lie. I suspect that we're almost everywhere except
> the center. :-)
That would be interesting, but dangerous to the
community? Now that you mention it, I could see work
on the 'pedia descending into a big bickerfest. I'll
take that as a gentle reproach for bringing my POV
into it. :-)
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l