No mention about our Reference Desk? Back when the likes of Clio the Muse roamed the place, it was probably the best place to ask any history question.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Tue, 12/23/08, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] The WSJ likes us!
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 4:41 PM
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Rather than comparing a convenient online copy of Wikipedia to a paper
copy of Britannica ->0 of their readers have access to, or a
deliberately-annoying Britannica website (see
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-December/048231.html
and thread), they compared it to the other answers sites on the net,
most of which are collaborative.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122981801892624313.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In a message dated 12/22/2008 6:11:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com writes:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia",
and that means "Wikipedia provides the summary of all knowledge in
accordance with good scholarly practices". The English language may be
changing, but I think that the word "encyclopedia" still has this
meaning and association.>>
------------------------------
Our project is constrained only by the bounds we put on it.
We decided not to bind ourselves to "decent" images (whatever that means).
If you think this violates the sense of being an "encyclopedia" I would
suggest that is because you think this image is "indecent" (meaning obscene) and
I have no idea why you can't just say that.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
Hello all,
As you probably know, the United Kingdom's Internet Watch Foundation
(IWF) recently blocked (and subsequently unblocked) several Wikipedia
articles on the basis that they contained what what was allegedly an
indecent picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl (a cover of the Virgin
Killer album). While the IWF's ban on these pages was badly
implemented and perhaps in itself inappropriate, there is a serious
issue at stake here—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and, since it is
reached by thousands if not millions of school students on a daily
basis, should it be carrying these kinds of pictures?
I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin
Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots
on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is
official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not
censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has
not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be
included in Wikipedia.
The argument from the standpoint that Wikipedia is not censored seems
to be easily refuted, at least to me. Wikipedia claims to be, first
and foremost, an _encyclopedia_; thus, some types of material are
appropriate for inclusion, and other types are not—high standards of
scholarship should be maintained throughout the project. The "not
censored" clause in Wikipedia policy, though, seems to be commonly
(mis?)understood to allow unregulated free expression and unrestricted
content on Wikipedia; it is my understanding, at least, that this is
not, or was not originally, the case. The clause that Wikipedia is not
censored appears to me to be a kind of disclaimer for readers:
"Wikipedia doesn't have any paid staff to check that content contained
in the encyclopedia is appropriate for younger readers; therefore, you
should know that you can find material that you may find objectionable
here." I believe that the clause was originally written with the
intent of giving readers fair warning about what they might run into,
not for justifying the inclusion of all types of material. Wikipedia
claims to be an encyclopedia; well, according to established standards
of traditional scholarship, this picture would not be displayed in any
"true" encyclopedia—at least, I don't see Encyclopædia Britannica
including it anytime soon, and Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has
already stated that the image won't be appearing on Citizendium (see
http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/11/citizendium-safe-for-virgins/).
The argument from the standpoint that the picture has not yet been
declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in
Wikipedia, seems even weaker than the previous one. It hinges on a
critical point—the assumption that if content is legal, Wikipedia can
and _should_ include it. This is incorrect, as I have stated and
justified above: Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and according
to this standard it should only include certain types of content.
Legality, therefore, can only define material that must be _excluded_;
it does not dictate what should be _included_.
Some users have expressed worry over the precedent that might be set
if the picture was deleted or removed from the articles it appears
in—"Next," they say, "it'll be images of Muhammed." Well, I'm not
going to argue here for the inclusion or exclusion of images of
Muhammed; but I will say that, unlike images of Muhammed, the Virgin
Killer album cover image and other pictures like it are considered
indecent, obscene, taboo, and/or distasteful by _general people_ (as
opposed to radical religious fundamentalists, free speech advocates,
commercial stakeholders, et cetera) in practically all human cultures.
Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have
to be shown in all of their gory detail—personally, I have not viewed
the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, yet I have learnt
of its general content through what has been said about it. Should
Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of
people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be
distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban?
I hope that we can engage in polite, reasoned intellectual debate
rather than hinging on ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT bigotry.
Cheers and best regards,
—Thomas Larsen
I don't see the point in suppressing the image of a naked pre-pubescent girl.
Are you claiming that such an image is obscene or something?
Wouldn't a conclusion like that be best left up to the courts to decide?
I would have no problem suppressing images that a court has actually decided
are obscene.
But suppressing in-advance sure smells like censorship to me.
And a type of censorship that no Western government is actually practicing.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/22/2008 6:27:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com writes:
I think we disagree over whether or not including indecent images in
an encyclopedia constitutes good scholarship. (Yes, I do think the
image is obscene, but that is irrelevant.)>>
--------------------------------------
I have to say that you thinking the image is "obscene" is quite possibly the
sole relevant point.
You start from this basis, and proceed forward with it. We all start from
some point-of-view.
If our article on "vagina" shows a "vagina" would that be obscene? or
educational?
I personally find it highly commendable that WP has taken the high road on
this issue.
Hopefully the age of book-burning is far behind us, and we can define
"obscene" the same way the (US) Supreme Court does, i.e. based on the community.
Our community has said that this image is not obscene.
Personally I see nothing obscene in it.
Why do you?
WIll Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/22/2008 5:59:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com writes:
What's relevant is
whether or not such an image is appropriate for an encyclopedia such
as Wikipedia claims to be, and whether or not including it is in
accordance with established standards of content scholarship.>>
----------------------------------------------
A) Yes it's appropriate, because we claim to be not censored. We already do
tons of things that Brittanica doesn't do, so it's not fair to try to
compare us to any other encyclopedia. We are a new item.
B) Yes it's in accordance with the standards we have established.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/22/2008 6:14:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com writes:
given its nature which is offensive
to many, many people?>>
---------------------
{{fact}}
I don't find it offensive.
Not any more than I'd find an image of the statue David, or Venus offensive,
even though also naked.
I also, surprise, don't find fountains with statutes of little boys peeing
offensive.
In fact, they are on sale, at my local hardware store, so I'm surprised by
you stating that so many people find them offensive.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey
This is either measurable progress or a complete train wreck, I'm not
sure which.
There are a number of divergent views:
*That semi-protecting a vast sub-set of articles would be less drastic
than using stable versions on them (wtf, over)
*That stable versions on BLPs would be a good test case for using it everywhere
*That stable versions on BLPs would be a good thing, but should still
be opposed as a slippery slope toward using it on all pages (more of a
slippery climb actually)
*That stable versions should be opposed at any level, with arguments
like "disaster waiting to happen" and "I do not have sufficient
obscenities in my vocabulary to express..."
I see an emerging consensus that I should go jump in the lake, as my
own views should ***hopefully*** be clear enough. I take full credit
for hijacking it and I agree entirely with Greg's points. A conscious
effort to apply the same standards everywhere would be the best
long-term approach, even if it seems a 180° reversal at the moment.
But maybe the flaggedrevs must be presented as a BLP tool in order for
the community to accept it. Maybe there's no other chance in hell.
Boggling as it is I'm willing to accept this.
So alright, sure, start with the BLPs, cook the perishable food first,
but don't stop there. I don't want to see people going apeshit when it
is used for the actual intended purposes.
I should apologize for alienating everyone from Long Beach to
Shaftesbury trying to get my point across. Probably a pipe dream
anyway.
No one knows what it's like to be a dustbin.
—C.W.
<<In a message dated 12/21/2008 1:39:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Your problem would be getting a big enough group to make it
worthwhile. Fairly few wikipedians are going to be interested in any
given journal and searching them effectively is quite a trick.>>
I wouldn't advise subscription to *a* journal, but rather to a collation
service, that provides access to multiple sources.
The ones I mentioned, Ancestry, Genealogy, and NewspaperArchive are all
collation services, not journals.
Each has hundreds to thousands of individuals sources within them.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
>>In a message dated 12/20/2008 8:06:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
I personally would even be willing to donate to cover WMF's costs
against my access in this regard, provided they can negotiate
reasonable block purchase pricing. Individual subscriptions are
unfortunately rather priced out of the market.>>
-------------------------------------------------
For researching biographies of dead people, esp. historical people, one of
the best paid subscriptions had got to be Ancestry, with Genealogy.com a close
second.
For researching biographies of living people, or the recently dead, one of
the best paid subscriptions is NewspaperArchive.com
As Todd mentions, some of us already subscribe to various online services.
*IF* the WMF could negotiate a group rate, that could be a win-win situation.
I would also come down on the side of "established editors" versus
"Admins". We are trying to ease the situation for our productive editors and so that
would make more sense to provide a service like this to those who are
actually doing the editing.
Someone asked where is the list of the top editors by edit-count. On my
talk-page here
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wjhonson_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wjhonson)
I link to the statistics page that provides the list of the top editors by
edit-count which is here
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_ed…
_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edi…)
and was last update Nov 20
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)