Stan wrote:
I think you're touching on the root of frustration here. Wikipedia
is supposed to be a secondary source, not a primary one, which
means that every factoid in it should be extracted from somewhere
else, preferably from the published work of a recognized authority.
**Actually, Stan, you misunderstand the difference between primary and
secondary sources. I think you may mean that the 'pedia is not supposed
to be articles that are original research? If that's the case, what I
am saying is neither original nor is it new. If for some reason only
other encyclopedias and general popular history and lower-division texts
are considered appropriate as sources, but not scholarly books and
articles meant for a narrower audience (or even primary sources) then we
are truly working towards the lowest common denominator. Just because
it hasn't trickled down to the mass audience doesn't make it cutting
edge or some wild theory.
When there are multiple authorities disagreeing with each other,
it's a difficult situation for editors. For instance, you've alluded
to latest research or latest trends among historians, but is the
latest trend authoritative? Not really, because maybe it's just a
fad and will be discredited by an article - maybe even one of yours! -
a year from now. Although we'd always like to pick up the latest
info possible, in some cases I think we have to hold back, just use
what is at the most recent edge of consensus, and note that more
recent claims are not yet settled.
**How very patronizing -- again, this idea is hardly new. The 1982
version of Hollister's "Medieval Europe" first published in 1964, says
that Charles the Bald became sole ruler of West Frankland, "which
evolved into Modern France" (p.106). The implication is clear that
there was no France at this time -- approximately 300 years after
Clovis.
**The crux of the problem is that we are using modern boundaries and
modern concepts of nations anachronistically. **For example, Edward
James' book, cited on the page in question, is about the history of
France -- it's been a while since I've read it, but I would wager money
that he calls the Merovingians kings of the Franks (rex francorum). Yet
the book is called Origins of France or something like that -- why?
Because we want to know where the France of today came from, and its
modern roots are in the post-Roman, Germanic world of the Franks (not to
mention all the Roman and Christian things they adopted. You might
notice that the books Jacques cites are fairly recent -- in academic
terms as recent as the Geary books I cite -- and I could name others, if
I didn't have a ton of papers to correct. By the way, what makes you
assume that I am stating a view not currently held among those people
whose studies focus on the period?
Merovingians as not-French is definitely in the radical rethink
category, and it may be a decade, or a generation, or even longer,
before it comes to be generally accepted.
** Why do you think this? What evidence do you have? Even Anthere
admits to the possibilities of what I am saying.
Until then, trying to edit Wikipedia based on the assumption that the
assertion is true
is going to be hard; you're going against an army of editors who
are backed by a horde of published authorities with reputations
much higher than your own.
**Again, that's pretty patronizing. Did you read at all what I had
written? It includes the fact that French people traditionally consider
Clovis a king of France, but that this is not properly true, in that
France didn't exist. In fact, have you read any of the discussions on
the talk pages (where there are a couple of comments that demonstrate
that a compromise view makes sense)? And, since you have jumped into
the fray ready to tell me that, as nice as they are, my views just don't
jibe with what "most people know based on published authorities," I have
to ask you one question. Why exactly do you think you have enough
background knowledge on the subject to tell someone who has probably
read a lot more on the subject for the past 15 or so years, including
reviews of the books I haven't yet gotten to (which means I have an idea
of what colleagues think of these newfangled theories) that her judgment
as to what is accepted and what isn't, is in question?
JK -- building up the first scream
> >
> > I think this is what is known as 'blaming the
> > victim'... Apparently I must
> > have 'made him mad' in the first instance by
> > correcting what at first
> > appeared to be genuine mistakes on the Crass
> > article... It seems I continued
> > to 'make him mad' by reverting deliberate vandalism,
> > as did camemebert, Zoe,
> > Danny & others. Michael/Weezer/NOFX or whatever he's
> > calling himself today
> > hasn't actually attacked my userpage (yet) but has
> > written abusive comments
> > and attributed them to me as well as the other
> > people I mentioned. Only Zoe
> > seems to have been treated to having her user page
> > altered to make vulgar
> > inuendos regarding her sexual preferences, from
> > which I can only deduce that
> > this strange individual not only has a problem with
> > Wikipedia, he also has
> > issues with women. For me, my duty is to support Zoe
> > against this
> > inadequate's mysoginism, not to suggest that she
> > only has herself to blame
> > for upsetting him.
> >
> > Best wishes Graham (Quercus robur)
>
> I'm sorry. What I said was completely uncalled for.
>
No problem.
graham (quercus)
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 13:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No-FX
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a side note, if you stopped getting these vandals
> so mad at you, they wouldn't keep vandalising your
> userpage (as I understand, this has happened more
> than
> once).
> --LittleDan
And how do you suggest I do that?
Zoe
(moved Zoe's reply to the bottom for logical of reading order)
I think this is what is known as 'blaming the victim'... Apparently I must
have 'made him mad' in the first instance by correcting what at first
appeared to be genuine mistakes on the Crass article... It seems I continued
to 'make him mad' by reverting deliberate vandalism, as did camemebert, Zoe,
Danny & others. Michael/Weezer/NOFX or whatever he's calling himself today
hasn't actually attacked my userpage (yet) but has written abusive comments
and attributed them to me as well as the other people I mentioned. Only Zoe
seems to have been treated to having her user page altered to make vulgar
inuendos regarding her sexual preferences, from which I can only deduce that
this strange individual not only has a problem with Wikipedia, he also has
issues with women. For me, my duty is to support Zoe against this
inadequate's mysoginism, not to suggest that she only has herself to blame
for upsetting him.
Best wishes Graham (Quercus robur)
Here is the latest on my user page:
Please leave and don't come back until you can cooperate and work in the
spirit of creating something valuable.Jacques Delson
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jacques_Delson> 22:31 25 May 2003
(UTC)
This is the page in question:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs
Where I have tried to give some historical context to the differing
viewpoints - the very same kind of neutralizing that Michael Tinkler,
Paul, Mav, and I (among many others) did in the Germany-Poland wars. I
still find it odd that, when I'm talking about something I know much
more about, I am somehow less credible .
Also please see the talk page.
Thanks
Julie
>But I can't understand why this
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3A843-870_Europe.jpg
>is fair use. The map has been created for an encyclopedia
>or an history textbook. If this is fair use, is there any
>picture we may not use?
It depends on its source. Many maps designed as teaching aids aren't
copyrighted, for the very good reason that they are copied by teachers
throughout an educational system. Others are issued with the instruction
"for educational use only". If the former, without copyright there would be
no problem in usage. If the latter, one could argue that as wikipedia is
clearly for educational and not commercial usage, it could claim usage.
Looking at the image, I would say it probably predates the 1950s though
whether it predates the 1923 copyright limit is hard to say. The nature of
the colouring and font usage I have seen in 19th century documents and
history books but also in the 1950s. It certainly was not designed on a
computer, unless someone was trying to construct a 'retro' look. So unless
we know the source we cannot say whether it is copyright-free,
copyright-expired or designed exclusively for educational use. The trouble
is this seems first to have appeared on wiki under the dreaded DW. Maybe, as
Camembert and others suspected the obnoxious Jacques was really DW in a
French accent, we should ask Jacques before he goes where he got it. Or on
second thoughts, maybe not. We don't want to give him an excuse to stay!!!
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
In a message dated 5/25/2003 10:08:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
maveric149(a)yahoo.com writes:
> But since you are an Admin then you can unblock yourself. Just mossy on
> over
> to http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist and unblock your IP.
>
>
The problem is that I do not want to unblock Michael, who, though I have not
been following it in great detail, it appears really should be blocked.
Danny
>I am getting the "you are blocked" message again.
>Let me clarify. I am not Michael. This is frustrating.
>
>Danny
It is also frustrating to read such a message without one crucial piece of
information: the IP address that needs to be unblocked. ;-)
But since you are an Admin then you can unblock yourself. Just mossy on over
to http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist and unblock your IP.
However we still have two problems; we would like to exclude Micheal but not
block other AOL users.
Both soft and hard security measures have completely failed to affect an
adequate ban in this case, so IMO it is high time for somebody to complain to
AOL about Micheal's continued activities.
--- mav
It turns out that, though Wikipedia said I was logged in, it
said I wasn't logged in, and when I re-logged in, I got my
watchlist back. Strange.
--
John Knouse
jaknouse(a)frognet.net
I second Evercat's nomination for sysop.
- Notheruser
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
