geni wrote:
> On 11/9/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't
>> around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>
> Agressive use of singular they generaly solves that proble,
Come now, that's silly, and I'm not sure what "problem" you're talking
about. I have no issues with singular "they" when talking about a person
whose gender is unknown or abstract ("a contributor should preview their
edits"). I've used it myself on many occasions. But I'm not going to
write something like, "Angela Beesley resigned their seat on the Board
of Trustees. They endorsed Erik Möller as their replacement." Wilful
ignorance is just stupid.
I wrote to encourage more members of an under-represented group to run
in an election. I did not suggest that we should have quotas or set
aside any positions for that group, or that voters should prefer any
individual candidate on the basis of group membership. Despite that,
considering some of the reaction to my message, it would be very natural
for people in the group to sense an unfriendly attitude toward them, and
thus to withdraw and make the under-representation even worse. Is it any
wonder that some people think we have problems with groupthink and
systemic bias?
--Michael Snow
Jimmy Wales wrote
> In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and
> in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources. And any
> movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the
> view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
The further layer of distaste comes from the feeling that proper 'verification' is probably a matter of taking hype as gospel. Rock stars are advised not to take their press releases seriously, as a sanity check. The same for us, I hope.
What is the 'wiki way', here, though? It is certainly not a question of sudden moves. We have always had a way of 'bearing down' on bad material. Probably we do need to look closely, at the specific issue: what is a _reliable source_ here? It has become axiomatic that no reliable sources means no coverage.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Hi all,
Some of you may be aware of the excellent US trivia magazine and blog
"mental_floss" (www.mentalfloss.com). I was recently contacted by them
regarding the idea of a "Fixipedia Day". The idea is for their readers to
edit a Wikipedia article and correct a mistake/omission/whatever and
document it. I see this as similar to External Peer Reviews conducted by
magazines such as Nature but with the emphasis on actually contributing
rather than critiquing.
I have volunteered to help out with an on-wiki project page for this and
have offered my advice on the situation. I believe that this could be an
interesting idea that could attract some excellent contributors to the
project as well as publicise the goals of Wikipedia. They are currently
discussing the idea and thinking of how best to implement, announce, and
publicise the day.
So what are peoples opinions of this? Any suggestions? Is it a good idea
even?
Regards,
~~~~ Violet/Riga
I have a question regarding Wikipedia's official dispute resolution
process: Flcelloguy made a statement in an Arbcom case, "I will be
more than happy to detail the mediation more clearly or to clarify any
questions that Arbitrators may have regarding this mediation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio…
Flcelloguy further stated, "The mediation is on Wikipedia and is
available at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01 and
its corresponding subpages."
When a party to the ArbCom case attempted to place the Summary of
Dispute in evidence, he was rebuffed by the Chairman, "Material from
the mediation is confidential."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbit…
Now which is it? Is Mediation material (a) available for Arbitrators
to review (b) confidential and not allowable in evidence (c) another
example of who you and your friends are in getting a fair hearing?
nobs01
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 7:38 AM, Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
>
>> I recently, on a whim, picked up a copy of a magazine called "Filmfax
>> Plus: The Magazine of Unusual Film, Television, and Retro Pop
>> Culture." I was quite struck by the depth, detail, and maturity of
>> writing in this rather schlocky-looking periodical....
>> This underlines my belief that there are plenty of good, verifiable
>> sources for popular culture material.
>>
>> This cuts both ways, of course. On the one hand, I believe it is
>> _quite possible_ to write good, well-sourced, encyclopedic articles
>> on popular culture. On the other hand, I believe that such articles
>> should be held to exactly the same standards as any other Wikipedia
>> article, including deletion of material that cannot be sourced after
>> sources have been requested and the requests have been outstanding
>> for a reasonable length of time.
>
> If we wait for the Oxford book of Popular Culture, it will be a
> very long wait indeed.
Perhaps, but we can read "The Oxford Book of English Detective
Stories" (ISBN 0192803751), "The Young Oxford Book of Nasty
Endings" (ISBN 0192781588), and "The Oxford Book of Science Fiction
Stories" (ISBN 0192803816) while we're waiting.
> The vast majority of these topics I think would be better suited for a
> merge. As for Ms. Mateo, for example, I don't see why it wouldn't be
> more appropriate to say whatever there is to say about her in the
> Phillipine Idol article.
Because, for instance, if I'm searching for Mateo, I'm not looking for
information on Phillippine Idol. I'm looking for information on her.
> Merging *improves* these articles for that reason, but people seem to
> be offended by the suggestion that their pet topic doesn't deserve an
> independent article.
Is it worth improving one article by ruining 8?
> I believe in splitting off articles only when you
> have to, when it wouldn't make sense not to, rather than independent
> articles as the default. Encouraging new writers to add to existing
> articles rather than start new ones may help.
>
Well, we both have very different feelings on this. I think more
topics should be split off, not less. We have the ability to be
specific, we should be using it, instead of creating a redirect on an
article that is 95% irrelevant to the actual subject it's being
redirected from. The Emmalina -> YouTube situation that's been
crerated is an excellent example of this.
-Jeff
--
If you can see this, I'm not at home.
That doesn't prove that there are plenty of sources for popular culture
material. That proves that there is a source for some specific popular
culture material.
To go from the existence of this magazine to a claim that popular culture is
so well-covered by magazines of this type that no other sources are needed is
an incredible leap.
I recently, on a whim, picked up a copy of a magazine called "Filmfax
Plus: The Magazine of Unusual Film, Television, and Retro Pop
Culture." I was quite struck by the depth, detail, and maturity of
writing in this rather schlocky-looking periodical.
This particular periodical is at issue number 111. There are stories
in it about Chesley Bonestell, the artist who almost single-handedly
created the visual experience of space travel in dozens of science-
fiction magazines, SF movies, and a museum diorama or two; on Kirk
Alyn, an early film portrayer of Superman; on the making of Walt
Disney's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea;" on John Belushi; and a host
of others. The articles in it are highly detailed, factual,
apparently nonpromotional, and generally written at an intelligent
adult level. (Their greatest weakness is that it is not clear what
the writers' credentials are or what sources they used for the
article; in the case of the Belushi article, it was an interview with
Belushi's widow).
This underlines my belief that there are plenty of good, verifiable
sources for popular culture material.
This cuts both ways, of course. On the one hand, I believe it is
_quite possible_ to write good, well-sourced, encyclopedic articles
on popular culture. On the other hand, I believe that such articles
should be held to exactly the same standards as any other Wikipedia
article, including deletion of material that cannot be sourced after
sources have been requested and the requests have been outstanding
for a reasonable length of time.
niht-hræfn wrote
>... but would being female change one's
> chances of being elected?
Might well do. Much of the ArbCom work involves judgement calls. Having a variety of approaches on the AC beats having a uniform view.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Jossi Fresco wrote
>> charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > While this is all kind of dull, WP:COI is being cited in a current
> > ArbCom case, and a high profile deletion debate.
>
> Could you please provide the links for the ArbCom case and the AfD? I
> would like to take a look. Thanks
I was thinking of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Weiss]]
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information