Hi there. I haven't posted to the list before, but I've been
editing under the callsign "CYD" for for quite a while now.
I'd like to point out a number of crackpot articles recently
contributed by the user Reddi:
[[Plasma cosmology]]
[[Dynamic theory of gravity]]
[[Rotating magnetic field]]
These articles are written in a very obtuse and confusing way,
which makes the specific claims impossible to pin down, let alone
correct. Furthermore, the references are chosen in a misleading
way to make the topics look like they are well-received. For
example, the article on "plasma cosmology" contains links to
various studies of plasmas, including the IEEE Transactions on
Plasma Science. These studies have however no relevance to the
purported topic, which is an "alternative cosmology to the Big
Bang theory."
In addition, there have been several equally incoherent edits to
articles such as [[Luminiferous aether]].
Any suggestions about what to do?
-- CYD
Recently, I have seen multiple requests for pages that were once autimatically updated, like Orphaned pages, to be updated. It is my understanding, that the automatic updating of these pages was turned off because the server was running slowly. Since then, we have gotten a second server. So could someone please turn these services back on?
Thanks,
Michael Becker
aka Mbecker
aka MB
Are you still denying that your name is Adam? If you aren't Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons],
why are you using his name? If you are, why do you deny being named Adam?
Here we come to issue #1 of why I was banned, Im banned because I just can't please everyone. Some people want me banned because I don't use the name Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons], others want me banned for using it! No matter what name I use, somebody will argue that my usage of said name is clear reason for banning.
He then noted that I was banned for "* attacking RK for being a Jew" and that my forthright honesty (a lack thereof for which I am too be banned) is ALSO grounds for banning me, Vicki cares not the least for whether RK is truthful, for whether I am innocent or guilty of attacking RK, of whether others who have (or allegedly have) attacked RK are banned -- all he cares is that I am to be banned for any reason whatsoever simply because.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
JT wrote:
> ...The reason why I suggested Jimbo, Brion
> and Mav was because Jimbo . . . well in his
> case the reason is obvious, Brion is our number
> 1 software guy and Mav is someone widely
> respected who has shown on the whole great
> tact, is a consensus builder and is someone whom
> from what I have seen is not likely to have a 'head
> the posse' approach but would approach the issue
>demanding a high level of proof.
I'm flattered to be nominated to your vision of a Triumvirate but IMO if
anybody is going to have the power you suggest it should be the whole Senate
(that is, all Admins).
BTW, I've been accused of being an archetypical "maverick" before with a
tendency to be a "cowboy" and "shoot from the hip" so your nomination may
have been misplaced. ;-)
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
My wife and daughter are going on vacation soon, and so for one week,
I'll be able to fully indulge my natural inclination to stay on the
net 18 hours a day. :-) So I plan to do some things that I haven't
had time for.
Once upon a time, I did a study of our site and Britannica's,
comparing our articles to theirs. As I recall, I used our 'random
article' feature to select ten topics, and then I compared theirs and
ours. (But I seem to remember finding some subjects on which we
didn't have an article and they did, so I don't know how I could have
done that.)
What I'd like to do is sit and explore Britannica and Wikipedia,
comparing and contrasting our strengths and weaknesses, with an eye
towards my REAL project for the week, which is to put together a
"Roadmap to 1.0" for Wikipedia.
So far, we have put aside most talk of 'finalizing' articles for a 1.0
release because there was so much left to do. But now I think that we
have a huge number of articles, nearly complete coverage in many
common areas, and that it would be wise to start thinking about how
and when we might produce a '1.0' version to make it easy for content
re-users to produce CD-ROMs, books, whatever.
One of the crucial components in deciding when to make a push for
something like that is our overall level of completion. And measuring
against Britannica is a good way to assess that.
What methods should I use? I obviously can't read both works cover to
cover in a week. :-) So I have to randomly sample somehow, I guess.
And I might supplement my random sampling with some 'linear' checks
like: do we have an article on every leader of every nation? Do we
have an article on every city in a list of the 100 most populus in the
US? Things like that.
--Jimbo
Someone posted these anonymously on my User_talk page. I thought that
they were of sufficient interest to post to the mailing list.
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Anti-Semitism&diff=1104682…http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Jew&diff=1104783&oldid=110…
RK, you're a longtime contributor, highly valued, but I'd like to ask
you to tone it down a notch. Referring to the contributions of others
as "Neo-Nazi-like revisionism" is not kind, and it causes people to
get very upset, and with good reason I think.
On the second link you wrote "You don't understand Wikipedia's NPOV
policy at all. It does ''not'' mean that everyone must agree with the
text." I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I would say that NPOV
does require us to write the text in such a way that all reasonable
people can agree to it.
So, yeah, it's basically impossible to appeace every lunatic on the
face of the earth, but we do strive to write in such a fashion that
the only remaining objections _are_ lunatic.
Which means something very close to 'everyone must agree with the
text'. (Certainly, your interlocutors in these debates are not
lunatic, although they may very well be wrong on a number of things.)
I do understand that anti-Semitism and Judiasm are intensely emotional
issues for many, nearly as controversial as bird naming conventions.
(Ha, ha, a little levity in a serious post, sorry.)
This means that on these topics, more than any others, we need to be
ready to work with kindness and to minimize combativeness.
Since this post is critical of RK, let me say this: I am only
criticizing his _style_, and on all of the _content_ issues that I
have looked at (a very small number compared to all that has been
written), I tend to agree with him completely, and I do share his
concerns about anti-Semitism slipping quietly into our articles.
--Jimbo
Jtdirl stated: Adam: please...come back to wiki, talk it through with Jimbo and get it OKed...and...I...will be happy.
Yes, but try and remember that it is Jimbo who has the problem with me, not I who has the problem with Jimbo. There is naught that I can to do to sway Jimbo, and in fact, this post here will almost certainly serve to harden Jimbo against me, for he has consistently sent me angry letters after any public statement in which I criticize him; he will certainly find it critical for me to "put the blame on him" and state that it is him who keeps me banned, not I (through my refusal to atone for various grievances) who keeps me banned.
Also, I do believe I have stated that my name isn't Adam on numerous occasions.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>From: Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu>
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Over the weekend...
>Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:26 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by
>mc10-f2.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 28 Jun
>2003 11:13:20 -0700
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5SIDII05099;Sat, 28 Jun
>2003 18:13:18 GMT
>Received: from mathserv.ucr.edu (mathserv.ucr.edu [138.23.203.200])by
>pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5SICaI05055for
><wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:36 GMT
>Received: from math-cl-n01.ucr.edu (math-cl-n01.ucr.edu [138.23.203.119])by
>mathserv.ucr.edu (8.11.7/8.11.7) with ESMTP id h5SI9jP18151for
><wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: (from toby@localhost)by math-cl-n01.ucr.edu (8.11.7/8.11.7) id
>h5SIGQ113313for wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:26 -0700
>(PDT)
>X-Message-Info: UZmYcfFpTCewzfqvyl1d15R59mlxBfYY
>Message-ID: <20030628181625.GB12850(a)math-cl-n01.ucr.edu>
>References: <BAY1-F69xKZMqA4dxfE0000d390(a)hotmail.com>
>In-Reply-To: <BAY1-F69xKZMqA4dxfE0000d390(a)hotmail.com>
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
>Sender: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>Errors-To: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l@wikipedia.org>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia
><wikien-l.wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/>
>Return-Path: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2003 18:13:20.0975 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[F4ED25F0:01C33DA0]
>
>james duffy wrote in part:
>
> >Is there any program that can be written to keep track of any new users
> >coming from those IPs and perhaps highlight them to a handful of senior
> >figures on wiki?
>
> >But that private eye program should not be generally available. All users
> >should be treated with the presumption of innocence.
>
>Watch out that we don't develop a corps (or cabal?) of "senior figures"
>that keep tabs on suspected bad guys without others' knowing what's going
>on.
>We have [[meta:List of Michael's pseudonyms]] available to all;
>any list of DW's pseudonyms should similarly be open to inspection.
>To be sure, such lists should state up front that these are /suspected/.
>(Michael's now does.)
>
>
>-- Toby
The reason why I suggested this method is to avoid mass troll hysteria
breaking out as can happen, understandably given the behaviour of some
trolls, everyone was spending their time watching the IPs and all ganging up
on some new user, with each new user from those IPs being presumed guilty
until proven innocent.
What I was suggesting that a very small number of universally respected
wikipedians (eg, Jimbo, Brion and Mav) would have access to a program that
would give them the chance to spot suspicious activities by "new" users from
the range of IPs associated with DW or Michael. They could privately monitor
the situation and if they are seriously worried that the likes of DW is back
then raise the issue with everyone. In addition as now we would all be
keeping our eyes out. And if we all had suspicions we could raise the issue,
with they having the additional program to check out general wiki suspicions
about a user.
To call that some sort of elitist cabal is misleading. Everyone organisation
on the planet have people to keep an eye out for potential problems. After
all I and most wikipedians have no access to the programs that run wiki, nor
do I want it. But that does mean that those that do are some sort of
secretive elitist canal. Unless wiki has some sort of program, we give
trolls like DW the advantage, unless individual users do what I did and
spent hours and hours trawling through the suspicious user's contributions
to find patterns.
But having mass access to to such a program could cause more problems than
it would solve and risk creating witchhunts. Allowing one or two universally
accepted people a chance to /quietly/ check out the behaviour of a
mysterious user first would offer wiki a chance calmly to keep an eye out
for DW et al, in the process causing miminal disruption to wiki unless they
have clear evidence that /something is going on/ when the issue would be
raised with everyone.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_war_over_genetically_modified_food
In the revision of 7:53 2 Jul 2003, we read:
>Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Grune party), Vicepresident
>of the Landwirtschaftsausschuss (committee of agriculture?) of the
>European Commission said on the 1.July.03: "In America 55% of the
>consumers are against GM food and 90% in favor of a clear
>labelling. The Bush government is ignoring the demand of his own
>people."
A little rough, but the point of view is attributed. It's completely
uncontroversial, I suppose, that Graefe did say such a thing, and it's
just the sort of thing that we expect Green Party politicians to say.
But in revision 8:03 2 Jul 2003, we see this new line appear: "Also
American consumer demand that, but the Bush administration is ignoring
that fact." That's written as an assertion _by Wikipedia_.
This is a blatantly political statement, and whether or not it is
actually true is irrelevant. (I personally think it is preposterous,
but that's the nature of finding POV claims, I suppose -- the ones
that stick out for us are the ones that we find particularly silly.)
Citing a politician from the German Green Party saying such a thing is
wonderful. The cite itself gives the reader sufficient context to
evaluate the claim, and in any event _Wikipedia_ is not making a
political claim at all.
It would likely be helpful to have a balancing quote from a scientist,
of course, but it isn't strictly speaking necessary.
What *is* necessary is that Wikipedia avoid making claims of this
sort.
--Jimbo