--- slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
> On 5/7/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm
> <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > At least newspaper editors can be tracked and held
> accountable for
> > what they wrote. As for the trustworthiness.
> They're at least as
> > trustworthy as the attached newspaper (as far as
> they are), not being
> > published in the original sense has nothing to do
> with it. That last
> > line was my point with regard to being used a
> source.
>
> That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their
> websites) have a
> fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter
> writes a story, it's
> checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a
> copy editor, again
> by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all
> of whom are looking
> for obvious legal and factual problems as well as
> style issues.
> Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might
> also be checked by a
> fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be
> looked at by the
> managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher,
> the lawyers, and
> even the owners.
>
> We don't have the resources to do any of this, which
> is why we rely on
> sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
>
> Sarah
Sarah, I'm still at a loss to understand your
argument, and I'm not saying that to be difficult, I
honestly don't understand your objections. In this
particular case, we are discussing a Usenet newsgroup.
This newsgroup "awarded" this guy with their "Kook of
the Millenium" award. Would this newsgroup not be the
best source for information on to whom they they gave
the award?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Michael P. Hopcroft wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Michael P. Hopcroft wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, the man is an ASTROLOGER. That doesn't bode well for
>>> his logical capacities in the first place unless he's an outright
>>> fraud. "Serious discusssion of astrology" is no more possible than
>>> serious discussion of the belief that every object in the Universe
>>> is a uniform shade of purple.
>>
>> That's a shamefully ignorant comment of the kind that can be expected
>> from those who believe more in scientism than science.
>
> I have no idea what 'scientism" is, but I do know that the idea that
> randomly placed thermonuclear reactors dozens, hundreds and thousands
> of light-years away have a direct influence on what happens to human
> beings on Earth is illogical to the point of delusion. Even if they
> were capable of thought, which is insanity in itself, how could they
> possibly care?
According to Oxford scientism is the "excessive belief in the power of
scientific knowledge and techniques." In many instances it takes on the
characteristics of a religion.
You began by making a wild comment about astrology and astrologers, and
now you want to compound the issue with your creationist premise that
someone has been going around placing thermonuclear reactors just so
that you can set up some kind of straw man argument.
> Some hypotheses are too utterly absurd to be worth exploring. And I'm
> going to drop the subject at this point because we are getting
> woefully off-topic.
Absurdity is a Point of View, but since the only hypothesis that has
been raised is yours about the placement of thermonuclear reactors, I
must agree with you.
Since you were the one that raised the issue of astrology and chose to
say nothing about it, and furthermore want to drop your subject I must
agree with that and accept your apology.
Ec
--- slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
> we're not supposed to use Usenet as a source
> except for material
> about itself.
That is EXACTLY what we're doing. We are reporting
that THIS PARTICULAR Usenet newsgroup called this guy
"Kook of the Millenium".
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 5/7/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> slimvirgin(a)gmail.com (slimvirgin(a)gmail.com) [050508 09:45]:
> > On 5/7/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> > > That's why we rely on this thing called "case by case editorial judgement"
> > > to say whether to use them, and readers use a thing called "a clue" to
> > > judge the value of a given source. Your calls for an instant Arbitration
> > > Committee decision in mid-argument on the matter are, frankly,
> > > mind-boggling.
>
> > Where did I call for an Arbitration Committee decision??
>
> Ah, you're right, you didn't - instead, you asked for my opinion as a
> member of the arbcom:
>
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023258.html
>
> - to which the answer would almost certainly be "you're all adults, work
> this out on a case by case editorial basis rather than by rules-lawyering."
>
David, I also wasn't asking for your opinion qua member of the arbcom,
and if I gave that impression I apologize. I meant only that, insofar
as you're a member, your opinion about the meaning of policy pages is
important. What I asked was whether you (as an editor) could show me
which Wikipedia policy pages state or imply (or in any way give the
impression) that Usenet is an acceptable source, because my
understanding of all the relevant pages is the opposite, namely that
it would never be an acceptable secondary source. Although now that I
read your post again, you're perhaps agreeing that Usenet isn't
acceptable, but saying that certain Usenet posts might be okay as
source material once posted elsewhere on the Web.
Sarah
For those of you who don't subscribe to U.S. Newspapers, Wikipedia
was mentioned in the most important part of this medium -- the
Funny Pages. See http://www.ucomics.com/foxtrot/2005/05/06/ .
(Bill Amend has shown a surprisingly acute grasp on Geek trends
in his portrayal of Jason.)
And yes, it did cause a flurry of edits to [[Warthog]], although
not to [[Rabies]].
I now return you to your ongoing arguments in progress.
Geoff
--- slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
> On 5/5/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > Actually famous Usenet crank. More coherent than
> Sollog. Lots of material
> > on skeptictank.com .
> >
> I think the point here is that WP policy states that
> we must used only
> reputable or credible published sources as secondary
> sources, and
> Usenet doesn't count as that. It can be used as
> primary-source
> material for information about itself, but it can't
> be used as a
> secondary source of information about someone else,
> especially not
> when we're using a person's real name (unlike the
> case of Sollog).
>
> Sarah
WE are not reporting that he is Kook of the Millenium.
We are reporting that the Usenet group so labeled
him. This reporting is accurate and factual, and we
shouldn't be removing the information.
RickK
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Sarah (slimvirgin(a)gmail.com) wrote:
>Now I'm wondering whether it would make any difference if I upgraded to Tiger.
I wasn't planning to upgrade right away, but we bought a new laptop
for the office this Thursday, and I've been running it on Tiger and
generally liking the experience. it seems quicker than Panther.
However, I haven't had the problems with Safari in Panther that
you've described.
--Sheldon Rampton
On 5/7/05, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon(a)prwatch.org> wrote:
> I see that someone has already written a Wikipedia widget for the
> dashboard on the new OS X 10.4 ("Tiger") release for the Macintosh:
>
> http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/dashboard/wikipedia.html
Sheldon, interesting that you should mention Mac and Wikipedia. I've
had some trouble with Wikipedia/Safari compatibility. I was running
Jaguar until a few months ago, which meant I was restricted to Safari
1.2. Whenever I edited or even previewed a WP page with accents,
Safari changed them all, so I had to stop using it. Then someone on
this list said this was a problem only with 1.2 but 1.3 had fixed it.
I liked Safari so much as a browser that I upgraded to Panther so that
I could use Safari 1.3. and it did fix the accent problem, but is so
slow to get into WP that I've had to abandon it again. All the other
browers I use (Netscape, Opera, Firefox) get into WP considerably
faster than Safari 1.3 (which sometimes just hangs and never makes it,
and when it does, I get lots of spinning pizzas if I try to open
multiple windows), whereas Safari 1.2 seemed as fast as the others.
Now I'm wondering whether it would make any difference if I upgraded to Tiger.
Sarah
I see that someone has already written a Wikipedia widget for the
dashboard on the new OS X 10.4 ("Tiger") release for the Macintosh:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/dashboard/wikipedia.html
In a related development, someone else has written "WikityWidget," a
widget that lets Mac users create their own personal wiki that runs
locally on their computer:
http://inkspotting.com/wikity/
Unfortunately, the WikityWidget only supports the CamelCase link
style, and I think Wikipedia's syntax is much more powerful and
flexible.
It would be great if someone could develop a WikityWidget-like tool
that supports the Wikipedia syntax. I've been using a local
installation of MediaWiki on my laptop to keep various notes for my
personal use, but it would be easier to have the same functionality
available on my dashboard. Also, it would help to further popularize
the Wikipedia syntax, which I'd like to see become the basis for a
standard wiki syntax even outside of MediaWiki.
--Sheldon Rampton