>* http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
*>*
*>* He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
*>* Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
*
Just to be clear, I didn't say anything in the post about experts having a
moral obligation to contribute. The "moral" part of this conversation came
in the form of a comment from a person who dugg the blog post.
Kevin
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
(I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little
ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they
don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.)
- d.
But who is heard when people read a Wikipedia article? *An expert* is not
heard, that is, no particular expert is heard, because we have no
attribution. Cited sources are heard, where sources are cited, for a particular
sentence. But even then we get citation creep when those sentences are not
enquoted. That is, people will modify or hitch a ride on a sentence with
additional quips not found in the underlying source.
So in our Marilyn Monroe article we *had* cited a source claiming that her
father's country of origin was cited as Norway on her birth certificate.
Which is a claim with no evidence. And the source cited, did not state
this either. Someone had hitched that "Norway" onto a sentence which had
simply read that her father's name was Mortenson on her birth cert. A casual
reader cannot disentangle these overlying changes, but may assume this is
the voice of the cited expert. I fail to see how when reading any of our
articles, a person is actually reading the words of any particular expert.
In a *relatively few* articles sources are cited and the actual extracted
sentence is enquoted. Those I find the most useful, as you can be fairly
sure the source actually states what the quoted sentence states, without
repeating the look-up.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/2/2009 9:24:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
lunasantin(a)gmail.com writes:
I don't think I'd ever go chiding someone over it, but he brings up a solid
point: if you hope to be heard, you need to speak in such a way that people
will listen -- this may sometimes include speaking *where* people will
listen.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
=JulystepsfooterNO115)
As a Randian I would have to say that no, I have no moral obligation to
give up my effort for any compensation other than that compensation which I
declare as my due.
This is not to say that Ayn Rand would not contribute, only that the
compensation of such contribution must be that which she would request, not that
which the community would offer. When these two are the same, than an
expert would have no problem with contributing.
You are not required to sacrifice your work for the greater good. The
greater good is better served when you achieve a heroic effort within your own
desired framework. Not that framework imposed by others. Brilliance is
never achieved by committee.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
=JulystepsfooterNO115)
A few years ago, I had asked that IRC have a searchable archive of
discussions. I was told that there were daily logs and I could get one if I
asked. I asked, and was denied. Until IRC commits itself to openness, it
should have little to no impact on any facet of our project. Without searchable
archives, IRC is not open in the modern sense, regardless of who or how
you can join it, or view it. The archives of this mailing list are
searchable.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 7/30/2009 8:21:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sean(a)silentflame.com writes:
Greetings,
The IRC Group Contacts decided last year to hold a surgery every three
months where general IRC matters could be brought up for discussion in
an environment in which IRC people able to put those into action
(which includes all the contacts themselves) were present and
involved. Regrettably it took just over a year for the second meeting
to be organised, but this pattern will not be repeated!
Therefore we invite you to visit
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Group_Contacts/Meetings/August_2009>
and sign up for the meeting if you are someone interested in how IRC
runs and especially if you are responsible for one or more channels.
That page will shortly contain procedural information on how we intend
to structure the meeting to get the most out of it. For convenience, I
shall note that the meeting is at 1900Z on 3rd August 2009 in
#wikimedia-irc-meetings on freenode.
Yours,
Sean Whitton (seanw on IRC)
For the IRC Group Contacts
I have posted this message to the main public mailing lists to which I
subscribe and would appreciate circulation of the meeting's existence
to as many other languages/projects as possible as this is open to all
- but please note that the meeting will be held in English.
--
Sean Whitton / <sean(a)silentflame.com>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7
_______________________________________________
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
**************Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for Back to
School
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223105306x1201716871/aol?redir=htt…)
"Harm" is gray, not black and white. Almost anything we publish could
*cause harm* in some way.
However the Rorschach images are not BLPs. I'm sure publishing details to
day about President Wilson's adultery might "cause harm" to his descendents
if any, but it's already been published in a dozen books so we should not
be the instrument for suppressing it, or for insinuating the desire (by our
action or inaction) for other media to suppress it.
Published details of World War II might cause harm, that doesn't mean we
should not do it. I don't think there is any community consensus for
extending that particular policy language to the entire project.
Psychologists, like any other scientists, should make allowances for the
subject-knowledge problem, that the subject knows the expected answers and
knows how to manipulate the results. Taking account for that possibility is
just a part of being a scientist.
Protest alone is not sufficient to justify censorship.
In a message dated 8/1/2009 8:40:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > I think that AGF requires that we take the psychologists at their word
> > when they claim that they want the pictures removed because they cause
harm,
> > rather than to help their income.
> Methinks that posting was a smiley facey wanting. I sincerely
> hope you weren't in dead earnest.
What makes you think I wasn't in dead earnest? Because it's obviously
silly
that someone would accuse psychologists of that? It's nowhere near as
silly
as lots of other things people say with all seriousness over the Internet.
(And for all I know, I could have been talking to a Scientologist, and
that's exactly how they think of psychologists.)
_______________________________________________
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
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
=JulystepsfooterNO115)
This is about 15 hours from now.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Bergsma <mark(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 2009/7/30
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Downtime due to network maintenance, Friday July
31st 12:00 UTC
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hello,
Due to a problem in one of our core routers in our Tampa cluster we need
to perform some network maintenance tomorrow, Friday July 31st around
12:00 UTC. We will be performing a software upgrade and reboot of the
router. This should not take more than a few minutes if everything goes
well. Unfortunately this means that practically all sites and services
will be down during that time.
For those interested: one of the line cards in the router failed earlier
this week. A replacement has arrived, but does not boot up correctly
after hot plugging. Because we want to upgrade the firmware anyway, we
will reboot the entire box.
Cheers,
--
Mark Bergsma <mark(a)wikimedia.org>
System & Network Administrator, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l