Would this be a good time to mention that, this week, both [[Evolution]]
and [[Big bang]] became featured articles? [...I claim some credit for the former :) ]
--Mark
Raul654/Featured Article Director
I'd just like to take a moment to "defend" my actions in blocking Slrubenstein and Jalnet2. I have no problem with Slr, with whom I've had a very pleasant and civil discourse on the subject (and who, incidentally, I do not think was "whining" about the 3RR, he has some very valid points). My attention is focused towards some individuals who I shall not name (*cough* Ec *cough*) who seemed to be implying that I was somehow "lying in wait" for any excuse to block someone over the 3RR and that I have "as much social grace as an enraged gorilla". Please allow me to respectfully disagree.
I responded to a DIRECT request that Slrubenstein be blocked for violating the 3RR. Note that this direct request was posted not only on the Admin noticeboard, but on my Talk page. Now, in my opinion (as someone who reads the 3RR to mean what it SAYS, "three reverts to the same ARTICLE in 24 hours") was that Slr had obviously violated the rule. That he had pretty clearly been baited was irrelevant. How would it have looked if we ignored a straightforward violation by a longtime contributor and told the "new guy" that he had "done it too" and that that somehow made it OK?
I can't believe I'm getting grief for enforcing policy as I'm SUPPOSED to do as an Admin. Shouldn't we project an appearance of propriety? Shouldn't we block our "friends" as well as our "enemies"?
Anyway, I'd also like to point out that I'm not certain that the ArbCom (which is currently reviewing the 3RR) has the authority and jurisdiction to do so unless the question is raised in a case which they are hearing. I suggest that Slrubenstein either request Arbitration against the rule itself (if that seems feasible within the bounds of our system) or else against me for blocking him (which is probably the best bet, and to which I don't object) so that the ArbCom can officially look into the matter.
-Dante
The Main Page on en: was vandalized yesterday, when a penis image
remained on the page for many minutes. It was vandalized again today
-- a goatse image remained there for almost /20 minutes/.
Today it happened during a particularly slow time of the morning,
around 14:35 UTC, perhaps in combination with other use of the site
that slowed it down. It was noticed quickly, but it took a good 17
minutes for it to be successfully deleted once the problem had been
announced on IRC, by the seemingly-omniscient Jimmy Wales.
While everyone was fretting over the site's slowness, a few problems
presented themselves:
* There was no one-click way to remove or delete an image
* There was no packaged way to shut down all access to the site in an emergency
* There was no packaged way to quickly redirect all visitors (to en:,
say) to another site or page
* There was no way to bring the site[s] to (or restart the site in) an
'emergency mode' that only allowed limited access (say, by logged-in
users)
** Even had there been such a way, there were few (only 1-2) people
with shell access who would have been able to run shell scripts, and
it took an extra minute or two to get someone's attention.
* There were a limited number of ways to reach the collection of devs
to let them know there was an emergency.
This was not the worst emergency in the world, so the last point in
particular was not as big a deal as it might have been.
===========
Possible solutions:
1) Documentation: write down a standard way to quickly block all
incoming requests / take down a site in an emergency / put up in its
place a try-back-soon message or redirection to a static snapshot (see
3)
2) Code: add an 'emergency mode' that redirects all visitors to a
static read-only snapshot of the site taken once a day
2.1) Code: add a text-only mode that only produces text
2.2) Code: add a one-click (js widget?) option [maybe 2 clicks with
some kind of pop-up confirmation that doesn't require rendering
another whole WP-page] so that even when the site is very slow, evil
images can be deleted in under 15 minutes
2.3) More Code: add a different 'emergency mode' that only allows a
limited set of users [logged-in users? users on a specific list?] to
use the site.
3) Code + Image Policy: add an IMAGE REVIEW step that imposes a time
delay (or requires user approval) before an image can be displayed
live on a page [until then the image could still be linked to via an
html link]
4) Offer pagers <s>and implantable homing devices</s> to devs who are
going to be in the vicinity of computers anyway and are willing to be
on-call for certain parts of the day; something more reliable than the
blinking of an IRC window.
============
1), 2), and 3) seem important to me. 2) also has useful
implications for periods of deep sloth, and for taking things down to
make changes. 3) addresses many problems we are having, not just on
the main page.
Please comment or suggest implementations.
--
+sj+
Thanks Jimbo -- you understand my view perfectly. I fully support the 3
revert rule in principle, what I question is only its mechanical, automatic
application. I know that Dante was being fair when he blocked both me and
Jalnet2. I guess that what I should have said is, it would have been just
as fair not to have blocked either of us.
I am, however, sorry that Tony Sidaway so capably manages to combine
ignorance with arrogance. I say this in good faith: Tony, before putting
in your two cents (not adjusted for inflation), please check out the
history of the conflict. I have been working on the Race article for some
time, and I can tell the difference between someone who knows what they are
doing and someone who does not. Jalnet has for the past two weeks been
pushing an agenda which, basically, involves highlighting the views of two
psychologists in the introduction of the article. Why did I revert the
word "some?" Because keeping it rendered the article inaccurate. I
explained to Jalnet why it renders the sentence inaccurate. I also asked
Jalnet to provide any counter-examples, and he couldn't, or wouldn't
provide any.
I know that at this point someone like Cheese Dreams will point to this as
evidence that I am arrogant. But my insistence on deleting the word "some"
is not based on any high opinion I have of myself. It is based on the fact
that I have gone to the library and read a number of articles recently
published in major peer-reviewed journals, and I have read books on the
topic. When Jalnet2 insists on making uninformed claims, he is not
insulting me -- he is insulting the hard work of scores of evolutionary
scientists, and dishonoring the integrity of Wikipedia, which depends on
editors doing some research.
You also mention my deleting the Rische article reference. You neglect to
mention three salient points. First, Jalnet2 put information from this
study into a section on populations and clines. It simply did not fit into
that section. There are other sections where this information would
fit. By the way, Jalnet2's style of editing, although shared by many
people at Wikipedia, is very bad style and I think we should all discourage
it. His style is, whenever he sees a claim made he doesn't like, he puts
in a counter-argument immediately following the claim. If everyone
practiced this, we would not have articles, we would have Talmudic
debate. Now, I love the Talmud, but I do not think it is a good model for
an encyclopedia article. Yes, we must represent all views -- but not in
the format of a "Crossfire" debate. The Race article has different
sections for each major view. Jalnet2 is not interested in putting forward
useful information; he is instead interested in disrupting the presentation
of views he does not like.
Second, Jalnet2 was using a press release as his source, which is not a
very good source of information on something as complex as population genetics.
Third, Rikurzhn had already put this information into the article, in the
appropriate section, with a citation to the 2005 article from the American
Journal of Human Genetics!!
If Jalnet put the Risch citation back into the article, in the same place
he put it yesterday, would I delete it again? You bet I would!
I have a long enough record of compromising with many editors. But maybe
my idea of compromise is different from yours. When I make a claim like
"Everyone says ..." and another editor claims "No one says ..." my idea of
a compromise is not to just change it to "Some say ..." and leave it at
that. This notion of compromise is not going to help us produce quality
encyclopedia articles. My idea of compromise is more like this: if an
editor makes a different claim than I do, I provide my source and ask him
or her to do the same. We discuss the nature of the two sources, and make
sure that we are each interpreting them properly. Then we discuss how best
to represent these views, however diverse, in the article.
Now, I know a good deal of the literature on race, human evolution, and
population genetics. And there are people working on the race article who
know more than I do (like Rikurzhen). Rikurzhen and I have argued, but we
have always been able to reach compromises that improve the article.
When someone comes along and asserts claims that to my knowledge have no
support whatsoever, and then refuses to provide adequate sources, and I am
fairly confident about my research, I will delete what they have
written. Tony, you can call me an edit-warrior all you like. But let me
tell you: your success at Wikipedia depends largely on your understanding
of our policies, your willingness to follow discussions on talk pages in
order to get some context for your understanding of how the article came to
reach its present state -- and, most important of all, your willingness to
do some research and assert claims only when you know what you are talking
about. Tough, but that's how it is.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
In a message dated 02/02/2005 21:43:38 Eastern Standard Time,
minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com writes:
4. I take a dim view of editors abusing their editing privileges and then
whining about the consequences. I will pour verbal ashes on their heads.
In my opinion this is as nothing to the problems they themselves cause.
Well, I dont think Srubenstein was whining. He actually accepted the block in
a very respectful and decent manner. I do think, however, that continually
attacking him hardly helps to alleviate this situation and can only serve to
exacerbate a situation which otherwise seems to be resolving itself nicely.
Please stop.
Danny
Dante Alighieri blocked Jalnet 2 and me for a day, because we both violated
the 3 revert rule. There is nothing I can do about it, but I do want to
point out (and for now, this is the only available venue) that I think this
is an example of a frivolous application of the rule. I know that the rule
involves 3 reverts to a person, but in this case the multiple reverts were
over several different edits (in other words, we were not just rallying
between keeping or deleting the same text). Furthermore, both Jalnet2 and
I were communicating our reasons for the various edits.
Jalnet2 demanded that I be blocked and Dante complied and, in fairness that
I do not mean to belittle, blocked Jalnet2 as well. Anyone who goes over
the edit history will see that this is not a symmetrical conflict in that
no one who is working on the page has supported Jalnet's edits. Be that as
it may, I want to emphasize that neither I nor anyone else criticized
Jalnet2 for violating the 3 revert rule, and neither I nor anyone else
asked that he be blocked. This is a case where I don't think blocking
serves any purpose.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
This should really have gone to the wikien-l list
----- Forwarded message from harry <harrypasternak(a)sympatico.ca> -----
From: harry <harrypasternak(a)sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:21:57 -0500
To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Subject: HIV+AIDS+Wikipedia
Without Prejudice
a) I am baffled about what's being posted about HIV and AIDS on
Wikipedia. Despite the number of pages given to HIV and AIDS - the two
critical piece of information are missing. First of all, there is not
one reference on Wikipedia to a study published in a scientific
scholarly journal with peer review that shows that "HIV is the probable
cause of AIDS". Secondly, there is not one electron microscopic picture
of the HIV.
You all know that there is a disease called Polio. You also understand
that not only are there electron microscopic pictures of the Polio
virus - there is also a vaccine which prevents Polio.
Why is the "study published in a scientific scholarly journal with peer
review that shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS" " required?
Because that is the accepted test/standard all over the world. The peer
review examines the validity of the process, data and analysis used in
the study - included is a review whether study results have been
replicated by others. Just because 3 people at Wikipedia says something
is true - doesn't make it "true"!
b) At first I posted an alternative viewpoint by Nobel Laureate in
Chemistry Dr. Kary Mullis - it was then followed by a comment that
stated that Dr. Mullis viewpoint was in the minority. Yet no reference
was made to prove that is the case. Nor did the person who posted the
comment - then post a reference to a study published in a scientific
scholarly journal with peer review that shows that "HIV is the probable
cause of AIDS"
When I attempted to add some background to why many
professors/researchers are more than happy to say that (HIV=AIDS)
(because they get $300,000 grants from the NIH) - my entire post was
removed! So the pro-advocates of HIV=AIDS can post whatever they want;
but, are required to prove that HIV=AIDS (because everyone knows that's
true??!!) - while at the same time an alternative viewpoint is
dismissed (censored).
I assume that Wikipedia is after the truth. I am interesting in
sponsoring a live audio debate (in aacPlus codec) on the WWW - with Dr.
Kary Mullis and anyone one of Wikipedia "censors" or so-called
"experts" on HIV=AIDS, I am sure that we would have thousands of
listeners (from readers of Wikipedia and other news sources) - what
date and time would "you" prefer for this debate so that I can finalize
arrangements with Dr. Mullis. (Any takers here??) Below is in essence
what I attempted to post:
Dr. Kary Mullis, is a biochemist who was awarded the Nobel Prize For
Chemistry - he invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a central
technique in molecular biology which allows the amplification of
specified DNA sequences. I wonder how many inventions or Nobel Prizes
the Wilkipedia censor(s) have?
Dr. Kary Mullis states that there is not one scientific study published
in a scholarly journal with peer review the shows that "HIV is the
probable cause of AIDS" (notice PROBABLE). In Mullis book 'Dancing
Naked In The Mind Field" - Mullis states:
"I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I
got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and
asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly
problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple of years, I was getting
pretty upset when no one could site the reference. I didn't like the
ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign
against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth- century Black
Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall.
That defied both scientific and common sense.
"Finally I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and
AIDS research, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he
gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to
ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier
would know the answer. So I asked him.
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't
you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?"
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV
is the probable cause of AIDS does it?"
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He
looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they
were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?"
the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, Dr. Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those
monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just
published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original
paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS."
This time, Dr. Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet
an acquaintance across the room. "
My second post about HIV=AIDS
As you may or may not "know" - over 60 billion dollars over a 25 year
period in the USA was spent primarily by the USA government tax dollars
trying to find a virus that causes cancer (see Mullis). There is no
vaccine to prevent breast cancer - why? - because not one virus was
found that causes cancer in humans! (If you don't believe me - then
name one virus that causes cancer in humans!) Well, Dr. Kary Mullis,
the Nobel Prizewinner in Chemistry, states in his book "Dancing Naked
In The Mind Field" that the same people who were working on "VIRUSES
Causes Cancer" then switched to HIV=AIDS when the funding dried up for
"VIRUS Causes Cancer" (because no viruses were found to cause cancer).
You know that people in general have participated in unethical, immoral
behaviour when money comes into the picture - and when it comes to
so-called medical research we are reminded on a daily basis about the
misinformation/withheld information that the drug industry puts out on
prescription drugs - e.g. VIOX apparently has killed 56,000 people.
The NIH (National Institute Of Health) gives out $300,000 research
grants (for each and every grant) to people "studying" HIV=AIDS.
$100,000 goes directly to the person getting the grant - a further
$200,000 is available for hiring and paying TA's (teaching assistants)
who are in graduate programs at universities. The pressure on
professors to bring grant research money into a university is enormous
- to the point that teaching students is secondary compared to the need
to bring money into a university department. Without this grant money
many universities would not be able to function - because the hired
Teaching Assistants who carry out a very large proportion of what a
professor is supposed to do in class. How to verify this? If you want
I'll arrange a meeting with a professor at Cornell University - who
after two years of teaching at Cornell, could not get one research
grant and was going to resign because the pressure was just to great.
- Harry Pasternak
----- End forwarded message -----
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
On February 2 Frank v Waveren wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:00:15AM -0500, steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> > topic. When Jalnet2 insists on making uninformed claims, he is not
> > insulting me -- he is insulting the hard work of scores of evolutionary
> > scientists, and dishonoring the integrity of Wikipedia, which depends on
> > editors doing some research.
>I'd advise you not to see edits you disagree with as insults, no
>matter how stupid you find them; Whether you considerd them insults to
>you or things you hold dear doesn't matter, in the end no good can
>come of it. Think of them as mistakes or disagreements, it gives a
>much more pleasant atmosphere.
Frank, you are absolutely right, and I thank you for making this point. To
be clear, though, my intention in the passage you quote is that I do not
take Jalnet2's reversions personally -- I do not think he is insulting me.
The issue in this particular case was that over the course of Jalnet2 was
making a variety of edits almost all of which were variations on the same
point, since November 11, and I am one of eight editors who has reverted
this point. His point being that most evolutionary scientists or most
social scientists accept an essentialist notion of race, and if he has any
evidence of this he has never presented it. In the countless reverts since
he first inserted this point on 11/11, various people have provided
explanations in the talk section; he has never given a substantive
response. (by way of contrast, I think he is the only one who has reverted
any of my work on this page -- at least since 11/11/04. There are, of
course, many who have edited my contributions; sometimes I see their point
immediately, other times we discuss it in the talk pages, all I can say for
myself is that I have always been satisfied that whatever the outcome of
these edits and discussions has been, it has led to the improvement of the
article).
So I do see in Jalnet2's edits a real disregard for our process and for the
principles of verification and quality of edits. On the other hand, his
edits have been limited to this one point, so he has not done any of the
kind of damage to an article that would lead me to RfC or mediation. I
have to add that I am not sure how that would help. My complaint about
Jalnet2 is not that he often reverts my edits, and I really do not care
about how he has treated me. My complaint is that he keeps asserting
something that is wrong, and one would have to know a fair amount about
population genetics and human evolution to see that. In short, his
behavior does irritate me, but not enough that I feel justified making a
formal complaint. It is the content that concerns me, and my sense is that
our process for resolving conflicts focusses on behavior rather than
content. I just do not see this as useful here. So what if Jalnet2 limits
himself to two reverts a day? As long as the content of his edits are
wrong, they just have to be deleted.
I want to be crystal clear about what I think is the main point here: in
the two-plus months that Jalnet2 has been making edits, there has been no
evolution or change in his view. His basic point remains the same. It is
one thing if you make 100 mistakes but they are all different mistakes. It
is another if you make the same mistake 100 times. There has been enough
discussion on the talk page over the past two and a half months to show
that Jalnet2 is the only editor currently making this mistake; none of the
others active on the article have agreed with him, and many have explained
why on the talk page. As long as Jalnet2 persists in putting misleading
information into the article, someone is going to have to revert it.
Someone claimed that I was moaning about the three-revert rule. I really
do stand by it -- it is clear that we need it, and even if I think Dante's
action yesterday was unnecessary, I am more than willing to live with it as
the consequence of a needed policy.
However, I think the real need for the 3-revert rule is to put a brake on
serious behavioral problems. The problem with the 3-revert rule is that it
is utterly neutral to content. I think when there are repeated problems
with content, we may need other mechanisms.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein said:
> I am, however, sorry that Tony Sidaway so capably manages to combine
> ignorance with arrogance. I say this in good faith: Tony, before
> putting in your two cents (not adjusted for inflation), please check
> out the history of the conflict. I have been working on the Race
> article for some time, and I can tell the difference between someone
> who knows what they are doing and someone who does not.
The article history doesn't matter. It won't actually be a disaster for the
article to have something stupid in it for ten minutes.
As [[WP:3RR]] points out: "If the edit really needs reverting that much,
somebody else will probably do it". If you've used up three reverts, then
either someone else will do the next lot or *maybe it doesn't matter that
much*.
- d.