> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:36:45 -0500
> From: Sascha Noyes <sascha(a)pantropy.net>
> Or my personal favourite:
>
> <sup>[[Articlename#References|<nowiki>[</nowiki>1<nowiki>]</
> nowiki>]]</sup>
Quibble 1: How do you keep the numerals in sequence
if you are editing it and need to insert another citation?
Quibble 2: Less important because less likely, but
how do you keep the link from breaking
if the name of the References section is changed?
Quibble 3: There are probably those who find even
a superscript footnote or endnote too intrusive when
casually reading the article, so ideally there would be
some kind of "show/hide references" mechanism.
Quibble 4: For those who WANT to see the reference,
when you click on the reference you lose your place in
the text you were reading.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)world.std.com alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Whether we deal with article-based disputes is a close issue. While I see
the need and advocate it, I recall great reluctance on the part of the
mailing list to allow arbitration of article content. I'm also posting this
to wikien-l for further comment by the mailing list.
Fred
> From: "Steve Dunlop" <steve-dunlop(a)nerstrand.net>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:39:45 -0600
> To: <arbitration(a)nerstrand.net>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Jurisdiction - keep it simple?
>
> Item [4]. I believe that it is important that we remain available for
> article-based disputes. Some of these will not be able to be resolved
> through mediation. Since "interpersonal" disputes at Wikipedia have their
> roots in article disputes, I think the community would be best served to
> have a means of resolving article disagreements where mediation has failed.
Sascha Noyes wrote:
> Arbitration should be about enforcing policies and not making
> editorial decisions about particular articles or disputes.
It is worth mentioning in this context that we do have policies and
guidelines regarding how to write articles on Wikipedia. For
example, the naming conventions. What do you feel about these
cases, Sascha?
-Martin
In regards to the article, ""Palestinian views of the peace
process", Martin Harper is still censoring historical facts
and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make
improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds
inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable.
On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo writes about this very
situation:
"But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem.
There is no question that a full understanding of the
Palestinian situation requires understanding what
Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There
is no question that one point of contention is whether
Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process
as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they
view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a
longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting
information on that question is unacceptable. This is an
important part of one of the major questions of our time."
On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jimbo also wrote:
"I don't really see how it's original historical research
in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well
documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where
people have chosen to delete rather than work for
neutrality." (End quote)
The problem is that certain people here are violating NPOV
by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of
people, in a limited number of situations. Viewpoints that
he disagrees with, even if they are mainstream and majority
views, are censored and deleted.
In stark contrast, the material I have contributed shows a
wide range of views from a wide range of Palestinian
leaders, so that Wikipedia readers can read the range of
views and make up their own mind. In the recent past,
others have mass-deleted all this material. Today Martin
Harper is doing this all over again. That is unfortunate.
In support of the range of views presented within the
article, Jimbo writeson Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004
"The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good
precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing
viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes
are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views
and background information is given.
Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of
information because it doesn't comport well with the
prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely
victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians
are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and
expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is
simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because
it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels
fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily
arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I
think that the material is good, though not excellent, but
my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as
something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It
should be *improved*.
In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are
left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers
are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the
PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of
Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the
majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction of
Israel.
We can only come to understand that better when we come to
understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But
because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable with
that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't
think censorship is too strong a word."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
----- Original Message -----
From: Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
Date: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:54 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] maverick
> Don't laugh too much, military personnel often have a terrible
> time
> getting good
> information. Remember the tank guy calling the SCO help line from
> his M1A1
> in Desert Storm?
Say WHAT?
You simply must tell this story, Stan.
John
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Unobtrusive Ways of Citing Authority
>
> There are several ways of adding citations that do not clutter up the
> text.
>
> 1. A superscript which point to a footnote.
>
> 2. A hypertext link to the source like
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_wet] which will display [1].
>
> 3. Using comments while editing that do not show up in the displayed
> text:
>
> <!-- via Wikipedia: Pierre de Fermat
>
> last updated: 2004-01-01T18:44:37Z
> 193.230.240.14
Yes. Perhaps nothing more is needed. The paucity
of citations is mainly due to custom and/or preference
rather than to technology. However...
1) is, as far as I know, currently hard to achieve
conveniently and reliably. Internal Wiki links have
to point to a section (and break if the article is
reorganized or the section heading is changed).
This can be done in HTML but I've gotten spoiled
by Wiki markup and am unlikely to put in the effort
myself. Furthermore, how do you keep the superscript
numerals sequential as the article gets edited?
2) only works for Website references, and there
seems to be disagreement about whether it is
proper to include these within the body of an
article. There is certainly a preference for putting
them all in an == External Links == section.
(By the way: current custom is to name the
section "External Link" when there's only one
and pluralize it as soon as there are two, meaning
a Wiki-link to this section is guaranteed to break).
1 and 2 also have the problem of how to
return to where you were in the text after you
read the reference. So, they're too obtrusive if
you wanted to ignore the reference... and even
more obtrusive if you want to read it.
3) is fine, and I'm starting to use this myself,
EXCEPT that a) the presence of references
isn't visible, and b) it is necessary to edit the
article to see the reference.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)world.std.com alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
----------
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:55:43 -0700
To: Steve Dunlop <steve-dunlop(a)nerstrand.net>, <arbitration(a)nerstrand.net>
Subject: Decisions, Opinions, Precedents and Learning from Experience
I suggest that on any matter each arbitrator first state a conclusion such
as accept or don't accept then a brief (or lengthy as it suits them)
explanation of why. These votes and "opinions" should be available to all
users. As to precedents, lets not consider ourselves bound by what we have
done in the past but guided as it were by experience. In the case of matters
we refuse to hear we can watch what happens when we do refuse to hear a
matter. Likewise we can watch our difficulties and the consequences of
acceptance and that experience can guide as a similar matters arise in the
future.
Fred
> From: "Steve Dunlop" <steve-dunlop(a)nerstrand.net>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:39:45 -0600
> To: <arbitration(a)nerstrand.net>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Jurisdiction - keep it simple?
>
> I also think it is important that we, as policy, do not give a reason for
> refusing to hear a dispute. To do so adds considerable work for us since we
> would have to reach consensus on the reason and the wording for each case we
> refuse. Such refusals may make precedents inadvertently so they would
> require careful work to construct.
PMFBI; have just been watching this list for a few days, but at least I have a
few months of seeing Wikipedia operate. And I'm sorry to come out
swinging, but the time being spent on setting up a perfect system before
anyone can do anything about an alleged problem editor seems to me
excessive.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:23:26 UTC, Anthere
<anthere8-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
> The first provision we can offer is about the confidentiality of
> everything that might be said during the mediation. It is very important
> to stress out that point. Nothing that will be said should left the
> small circles of mediators (unless the disputants agree to do so); and
> if one mediator talks in details to another about the case, it should be
> said clearly to the disputants.
>
> Mostly, what is said must not be used afterwards against the person; ie
> it must not be revealed to the arbitration commitee; nor used against
> the disputant in case of later conflicts.
We do understand, of course, that if mediation doesn't succeed, and
someone takes the same case to arbitration, a person who is not of good
will is certain to complain that he's being put on trial twice and having to
defend himself against the very same things that came up in mediation. He
may even make false claims about what went on in mediation; hence, the
full legalistic set of rules will have to include some kind of waiver of this
confidentiality.
It amazes and distresses me that it is suddenly impossible to deal with a
couple of destructive bozos (no, please don't offer me a position mediating
or arbitrating these two cases) without weeks of major effort by some of
the best people on Wikipedia to find a perfect system.
Ray S has said,
"If by our actions we only succeed in convincing the accused that the
process is unfair, then we have undermined the mediation system, and his
refusal to co-operate with it begins to seem more logical."
It's undermined only to the extent that anyone else agrees that the process
is unfair.
What I don't get is the need for a long and difficult process to make sure
that no one can find the mediation process unfair. Mediators have no power.
If you don't expect the mediation to be fair, you can reject it. Then, if
someone still cares, there will be a request for arbitration, which _does_
have power to act. That's where to concentrate on fairness and the
assurance of fairness.
MNH having declined mediation, he and the mediation process are now
irrelevant to each other. Anyone who holds that something ought to be
done about him needs to forget the mediation process and concentrate on
getting arbitration working.
> (note that, de facto, it is
> best for the mediator never to get into conflict with that editor
> afterwards, temptation could be high :-)).
>
> If one of the disputant fear he might be participating in a fair system,
> perhaps would it be for him to choose a silent overseer ?
I'm not sure what this means -- someone on his side who will watch the
proceedings and form an opinion (for whose benefit?) on their propriety?
Fine, if the parties want it. But again, since mediators have no power --
presumably not even power to send the case to arbitration -- what does it
matter?
--
Dan Drake
dd(a)dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
If I knew then what I know now, I would have said,
'I don't recall.'
--Frank Doyle, FBI agent, testifying under oath
about his previous deposition under oath.