Hello,
I'd like to know just what other people's real experiences of Wikipedia are.
Specifically,
*how you go about researching information, and to what lengths you
have gone to do so,
*how you tackle conflicts when they arise, and what types of conflict
you find the most difficult to deal with,
*if you have helped mediate a conflict between other users,
*what you have learned through this process and
*how learning is communicated throughout and between projects, whether
by yourself or by others
This is to feed in to my research for an M.Ed. and also a paper for
Wikimania - you can find out more from my w/en user page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio I'm especially interested
in new users' impressions as much as seasoned Wikipedians', and I'd
also love to hear from a cross-section of languages. If you like, you
can forward this message to individual project mailing lists.
Should you feel like answering some other questions you could see here
if anything takes your fancy :)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research/Wikipedia_as_a_learning_community
You can answer on-wiki, in this thread, or maybe to keep from further
overloading the archives, email me privately. I will keep this
confidential as you wish.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Cormac / User:Cormaggio
Below is from the Sympathy entr
The bold statements appear to be reversed.
Thus it is possible to be:
* Empathetic but not sympathetic, by internally experiencing their
feeling but not being motivated to alleviating action as a result (eg, a lust
killer who is aroused by his victim's fear, or a con artist who knows how his
"mark" feels but uses it to manipulate not support),
and it is also possible to be:
* Sympathetic but not empathetic by realising (perhaps _cognitively_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition) ) someone is upset and wanting to
alleviate that, but not experiencing their sense of upset directly and internally
as an emotional state within themselves (eg, a person at a help desk who
sees another in distress, does not feel distress themselves, but tries to find
what is wrong and help them anyway).
[_edit_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sympathy&action=edit§ion=1) ]
See also
Hello all,
Michael Snow is on holiday for a few weeks, and I was asked to
guest-edit the Signpost in his absence. Any mistakes you encounter in
the interim should be laid at my feet. I could not replace him as
primary author of each issue; thankfully many writers have taken up
the slack (notably Worldtraveller, MacGyverMagic, Wally and
Blankfaze). You can also help maintain its coverage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom
In particular, we could use help covering the pending Wikimedia
elections (see below), new suggestions and discussions from the
mailing lists and the Village Pump each week, updates to
WikiProjects, and new polls and proposed policy changes.
The first article on the upcoming elections is a late update to this
week's Signpost :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Wikime…
-- SJ
Today I dealt with three very questionable templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unencyclopedichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nonnotablehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Vanity
(Template:Vanity was OK in its intention, but it was improperly placed
on article pages.)
The problem with templates is that it is very easy to create them, and
very hard to get rid of them. Virtually all problem templates I've seen
have survived being listed on "Templates for deletion" because, usually,
there are multiple passionate fans -- the people who have been using the
template and who don't want to modify their existing workflows.
This has led to an abundance of pastel colored boxes, as every editor
seems to want a template to call their own.
I believe we have to treat new templates in the same way we treat new
policy proposals. We can keep them around as proposals, but before we
actually *use* them, there has to be a consensus to do so.
That way, we fix the current asymmetry: We make it harder to *adopt*
templates; then it doesn't matter so much that it's hard to *delete* them.
In practice, I suggest putting the
{{Proposed template}}
tag on top of dubious templates which do not yet have community support.
That effectively locks the template from being used until the discussion
page shows that people agree on what to do with it.
Hopefully, this will help to stem the tide of questionable templates.
All best,
Erik
I unsubscribed from your list, any further emails I receive will be reported as unsolicited.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com>
Sent: May 6, 2005 9:00 AM
To: Astrological Consulting <arcturianone(a)earthlink.net>,
English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services
--- Astrological Consulting
<arcturianone(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> If it is not removed I will file a lawsuit for
> damages and MAKE you remove it.
Time to block him now.
RickK
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
(C) 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
Thank you, there are plenty of websites and other forms of abuse against me, they can get the information there and decide for themselves.
It really boils down to the fact that when I started posting in 1996, I didn't realize that some of these harassers make a life career out of doing this to people. I sent complaints and yanked a few accounts, they have not left me alone ever since, it really has little to do with my perspectives.
-----Original Message-----
From: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
Sent: May 5, 2005 1:01 PM
To: David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders(a)btinternet.com>
Cc: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services
Thanks, David. I have removed Edmond's name from this article, as this
appears to be his real name, he says it's affecting his business, and
we're using Usenet as our source, which is not allowed to be used as a
secondary source on Wikipedia. It may be used as primary-source
material for information about itself, but that doesn't cover Edmond.
I'll leave an explanation on WP:AN/I for the admin who protected the
page.
Sarah
On 5/5/05, David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> I'm assuming:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.usenet.kooks
>
> Clearly mentions him.
>
> "Subscribers to the group regularly hand out awards in various categories,
> most notably the "Kook of the Month Award", by regularized voting processes.
> Notable past winners include Archimedes Plutonium, Sollog and Edmond Heinz
> Wollmann (who was "honored" as the "Kook of the Millennium")."
>
> Is currently protected from vandalism.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Astrological Consulting" <arcturianone(a)earthlink.net>; "English
> Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services
>
> Edmond, which article is this in?
>
> Sarah
>
> On 5/5/05, Astrological Consulting <arcturianone(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I would like to respectfully ask that you remove my name from all
> references to "kooks" and other abusive and defamatory maligning propaganda
> posted to your website specifically to damage my business and profession of
> 30 years+.
> >
> > I wrote an explanation of why the usenet abusers harass me and ask that
> you read it and my academically published works and decide for yourselves if
> I am what these abusers say I am.
> > The people who supply you "kopok" information do so on anonymous basis,
> while I openly discuss my points of view on usenet and have done so for 9
> years.
> >
> > I am a published author and have my own consulting business and publishing
> company here in San Diego, and will take all legal action necessary to stop
> you and your company from using your service as a way to defame others.
> >
> > Post about being stalked for 9 years:
> >
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.astrology/msg/3c1c63f3e35ee818?hl=en
> >
> > Links to my academic articles:
> >
> > http://astroconsulting.com/FAQÂs/fate_vs_free_will.htm
> > http://astroconsulting.com/FAQÂs/did_the_greeks_invent_astrolÂogy.htm
> > http://astroconsulting.com/FAQÂs/arguments_against_the_astrolÂogers.htm
> > http://astroconsulting.com/FAQÂs/art_evolution_in_greece_and_Ârome.htm
> > http://astroconsulting.com/FAQÂs/arabic.htm
> >
> > Thank you for your attention.
> >
> > Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> > (C) 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> > Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
> > Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
(C) 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
> I wouldn't lose sleep over critics "having a field day" on
> any particular weak article. Sad to say, if people really
> want to find problematic material in Wikipedia, then they
> won't have to look very hard, regardless of the quality of
> any individual article like [[Opus Dei]]. Wikipedia is,
> effectively, permanently "under construction" -- although the
> increasingly large set of core articles is becoming pretty
> solid, it's always going to be easy to find an
> embarrasingly-naff entry somewhere.
This is like the people who test "machine translation" by tossing odd
phrases it at, until they find some idiom that trips it up:
* "blood, sweat and tears" into Russian (and back) produces something
like "bleeding, bile and body water"
Then, like the vultures they are, they pounce: "See? It's inaccurate?"
Remember, these are the same journalists who play gotcha with presidents
they don't like (see [[Bushisms]]). If you look hard enough, you can
always find some embarassing phrase or incident, to help you make your
target look bad (so you can discredit him).
This is the sort of thing that drove away Larry Sanger (in part): lack
of respect for accomplishment, diligence and solid scholarship. You try
to find some small thing to pick on, and then (illegitimately) imply
that it's representative of the whole. (I started to write an article on
[[damaging quotation]]s one time.)
To make Wikipedia really solid, SOMEBODY has to start verifying and
endorsing Article Versions. I still credit Larry Sanger as the
originator of the "sifter project", and I eagerly wait integration of
Magnus's software updates.
We need to be able to identify stable versions of articles - especially
important articles. I want to see tags such as:
* copy-edited by Vicki R.
* vandalism-patrolled by maveric149
* NPOV-checked by Anthere
Sure, multiple people can add their endorsements. I don't want to see a
"tag war" start, where one person adds the NPOV-dispute tag, and another
removes it. If someone *I* respect says the article passes or fails the
NPOV test, then that's all I care about. If someone *you* respect tags
it a certain way, that's all *you* care about.
Uncle Ed
[[WP:VFD]] is now a page of links to individual day pages. The reason for
this is (a) unmanageability and consequent insularity, but more importantly
(b) this page is a noticeable and undesirable server load ALL BY ITSELF:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-May/029193.html
For those who can't live without the long form week-to-a-view version, it's
at [[WP:VFDL]]. But at least that's not the default any more.
I await with some trepidation what AllyUnion's VFDbot will do at midnight,
though, if he hasn't checked his talk page before then ...
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion for
discussion of the hows and whys.
(Longer-term solution: make templates in templates stop working.)
- d.