>>Not a criticism, just curious. Why do you not just improve the article(s)
>>yourself, rather than devising a "plan" to involve many others - which
>>would inevitably take a great deal of time and effort, and not necessarily
>>achieve a much better result?
Do you think it would be worth the time and effort to have a worthwhile
article on one of Britain's greatest philosopher theologians? There are
many errors in the present article, as I have already pointed out, and it is
seriously incomplete. The plan need not be necessarily very complex. I
propose meeting up with someone like Charles Matthews or another trusted and
competent editor (I have the highest regard for the quality of Charles'
editing). I could do the key parts of the research separately - indeed, as
I mentioned, there is much material Jack Zupko and I eliminated from the
current version of the forthcoming book which is not copyrighted, and which
could be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Plus much other material
which has formed part of separate research (reliably sourced, of course, no
original research!).
Then I could provide the material to Charles or someone, he could upload it,
and I could dictate the usual changes connected with linking, wikifying and
so on. I will copy this to Charles in case he is interested. I could also
ask if other specialists in Scotist studies would like to be involved.
It would also be a great piece of PR, showing that Wikipedia and Wikimedia
can 'work with the system' to involve even those who are banned from the
project, but who want to improve it. It would involve 'outreach' if other
medieval
specialists could be involved. Also, I still have contacts in the world of
higher education journalism who would love to publish something about this.
>> So what's the point in having people here, who are banned from WP?
That's very hurtful. Just because I am banned from Wikipedia, for an
incident entirely unrelated to the quality of my editing, does not mean I
cannot usefully contribute to the project. I was working with one of the top
medieval scholars for the Scotus book, and I have contributed many many
articles on medieval philosophy and logic to Wikipedia in the past. I am
probably one of the longest serving editors contributing to this forum
(since July 2003). Just because someone is banned, does not mean they
cannot contribute usefully to the project. That's a horrid form of
discrimination.
Ed
Roger said "The board backed "a man with a plan". It does this frequently
and I believe the offer is open to ladies too." OK here is a plan. Here
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Expert_outreach it says "Wikimedia UK is
working with scientists, scholars, learned societies and funders to help
experts improve Wikipedia and its sister projects, bringing their knowledge
to the widest possible public." I don't know why Wikipedia officially needs
experts, given the proven success of crowdsourcing, but in any case I have
many contacts in the expert world of medieval studies, and could certainly
help with a plan to improve the pages on the medieval intellectual
tradition, which are dire. E.g. the page on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus Scotus, who was one of the most
significant medieval thinkers, and a credit to Scotland (or England,
actually, given that his birthplace may have in England at the time,
although Wikipedia does not mention this).
The current article is in a terrible state. It repeats the legend about
Scotus' premature burial, which has for a long time been conclusively
refuted
http://lyfaber.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/heres-few-weird-quotes-i-ran-across.h… ,
and no modern biography mentions it. It says he is the 'founder of Scotism'
which is bizarre ('Scotism' so-called was a later idea). It says 'he came
out of the Old Franciscan School' which is not mentioned in any modern
discussion of Scotus (I suspect it is a plagiarism from the Catholic
Encyclopedia). Even more bizarrely it says "Duns Scotus is usually
considered the beginning of the formal Scottish tradition of philosophy
which moved through Duns Scotus, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Reid and
John Stuart Mill." There is no such movement, at least no direct
relationship, and the claim is absurd.
The sections on his thought, like all such sections in the Wikipedia
biographies of thinkers, is risibly light. We know very little of the lives
of medieval theologians and philosophers, yet we know much about their
thought, and a good reference work should reflect this, as well as making
the difficulties of their thought intelligible to a general audience. I'm
sure crowdsourcing could achieve this, as Thomas Dalton says, but it hasn't
so far after more than ten years of Wikipedia. Some of those sections I
wrote anyway.
Or compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_logic, which is merely a
list, with the much longer and far more comprehensive article here
http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Summa_Logicae_(Ockham) .
Anyway, enough criticism. I have a plan for working with WMUK to improve
these articles, and if anyone is interested in the details, let me know.
My apologies to Tom and to the members of this list, but please
disregard his previous post.
The date and venue of the next meeting of the conference committee has
yet to be decided. One of us will be sure to report back to this list
when we ahve something to report.
Apologies again.
----
Harry Mitchell, Wikimedia UK conference committee
Phone: 02476 980977
Mobile: 07585 357416
Skype: harry_j_mitchell
Morning all,
I just wanted to remind everyone about the WikiConferences UK planning
meeting that is coming up in June. Due to a clash it has been pushed back a
week to *June 17th*.
Wiki Page: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014/Planning_meeting_2
The meeting will be at the London office (there is limited scope for
participation via skype) & the main focus of the agenda will be London's
Wikimania 2014 bid.
Please do attend if you are interested - as much participation as possible
would be great!
Cheers,
Tom
The first (only?) article created in Monmouth during today's
festivities was a biography of the author A V Denham.
I've just removed a proposed "PROD" deletion template from it, but it
dos need more references, to establish notability. I've searched on
Google and HighBeam, and found nothing suitable,
Can anyone provide suitable references, please?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
I'll have to reserch Hansard for that one...
Brian McNeil
--
Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. Personal: brian.mcneil(a)o2.co.uk
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise
> From: Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
> Date: Tue, May 22, 2012 2:25 pm
> To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Cc: Ashley van Haeften <Fae(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
>
>
> I remember Tam Dayell (I think it was him) had a little comic speech during
> the Thatcher years asking people to imagine Libraries had not been
> invented.
>
> He then pretended he was pitching to the Minister for culture.
>
> It went:
> " I want to build some big new buildings
> Really?
> Yes , and allow anyone to visit them.
> Really? What sort of people?
> Everyone.
> Why?
> Well, I am going to fill them with books.
> Ah - a sort of bookshop!
> No - we will let people take the books without paying for them..."
>
> It went on and on but you get the idea.
>
> Well done the people of Edinburgh and I will cc this to Fae in case he has
> not seen this string as he is so keen to get work in Scotland going.
>
> Jon
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM, <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>
> > Jon,
> >
> > The point is be nice, and respectful, to the library staff. I was having
> > to stop laughing when Fiona was telling me that "they know a good
> > Wikipedia article by the number of cited references". Without any input
> > from us they've figured out how to judge article quality - they are
> > people we want to recruit.
> >
> > I've done 'stubs' on Leith Library[1], Stockbridge Library[2], and
> > McDonald Road Library[3].
> >
> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leith_Library
> > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockbridge_library
> > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_Road_Library
> >
> > The 7th of July is the 125th anniversary of Andrew Carnegie laying the
> > foundation stone for Edinburgh's Central Library. If there's anything we
> > can do to get them main page mentions (DYK?) then we'll have an entire
> > city's ibrary staff onside.
> >
> > Unlike most of the UK, Edinburgh City Council left libraries in the
> > hands of the public. The response to surveys was that £300,000 was put
> > _back_ into the library budget. I think the city deserves recognised for
> > that, and it should be a priority to document their libraries. Once
> > we've done so there is a basis to do outreach to the non-natives (Hindi,
> > Arabic, etc speakers) and get translations. Considering how many kids do
> > homework in libraries we can also 'stomp on' plagiarism and educate a
> > really wide swathe of the public.
> >
> >
> > Brian McNeil
> > --
> > Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. Personal: brian.mcneil(a)o2.co.uk
> > "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."
> >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise
> > > From: Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
> > > Date: Tue, May 22, 2012 1:15 pm
> > > To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope we will be jumping at your offer! Brilliant work,
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM, <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hola! From a non-Wikipedian Wikimedian - in Edinburgh - who is
> > delighted
> > > > with the response from some tentative outreach work.
> > > >
> > > > I spend around an hour this morning touring Edingburgh's Central
> > Library
> > > > with Fiona Myles, took around 150 photos of the interior of the
> > > > building, and _hope_ I've laid the groundwork for us to work far more
> > > > closely in future.
> > > >
> > > > I have, dependent on copyright, a verbal agreement to get high-res
> > scans
> > > > of the plans of the building (A Carnegie Library), a keen interest to
> > > > have librarians briefed on Wikipedia - if not outright encouraged to
> > > > contribute, and the possibility of running recruitment/induction
> > > > sessions in Edinburgh. Which, for the unwashed masses, is a UNESCO City
> > > > of Literature.
> > > >
> > > > Given the piss-poor representation up here in Scotland, I think that's
> > a
> > > > major win. My next job, as interim 'cowboy liasion' between Wikimedia
> > UK
> > > > and Museums Galleries Scotland is to get a few councillors calling for
> > > > all publicly funded publications to be under a CC-BY license.
> > > >
> > > > Any, and all, encouragement welcome. Any Englandshire Wikimedians wh
> > > > plan to visit Edingburgh in the next 6-12 months, please feel free to
> > > > drop me a mail. If I can get you meetings with people, or privileged
> > > > access for photography, I will.
> > > >
> > > > Fun and frivolity aside, with limited Internet access I've come to the
> > > > conclusion that public libraries are the way to recruit. Brief the
> > staff
> > > > of what makes a good Wikipedia article - half of them know already -
> > > > then a simple static display may encourage locals to try their hand.
> > > > Here in Edinburgh I suspect I can, without too many problems, get
> > > > articles put into about a half-dozen languages with keen help from
> > > > library staff.
> > > >
> > > > And this message's title? Purloined from a book on the city's
> > libraries.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Brian McNeil
> > > > --
> > > > Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. Personal: brian.mcneil(a)o2.co.uk
> > > > "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia UK mailing list
> > > > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > > > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. 07976 935 986
> > > tweet @jonatreesdavies
> > >
> > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> > > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
> > > Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
> > > London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
> > > Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
> > > Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
> > > Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
> > > organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
> > > its contents.
> > >
> > > Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and
> > @wikimediauk<hr>_______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia UK mailing list
> > > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
> > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. 07976 935 986
> tweet @jonatreesdavies
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
> Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
> London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
> Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
> Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
> Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
> organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
> its contents.
>
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk<hr>_______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Gordon writes Time to return another "town"..... how about this quaint
little hamlet (started as WikiProject in 2002)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_London
How ironic. I had several London articles deleted or cut short as a result
of the absurd 'community ban' that is still in force. One article, about an
important London landmark and institution, is still deleted, and I am still
waiting for someone to spot the fact and act - that was two years ago. The
article about the London Greyfriars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_London was restored after deletion
by Sandstein, but was only half completed. You can see roughly what the
completed version would be like here
http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Greyfriars,_London (although the section on
the library would not be appropriate for Wikipedia).
Wikipedia has no article on the Carmelite friary in London
http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Carmelite_friary,_London, and the list of
Franciscan friaries in England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Franciscan_monasteries_in_England
seems woefully incomplete (that may just be poor categorisation, I haven't
checked). The Oxford Greyfriars article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_Oxford is also seriously
inadequate. I did much research on that friary as part of my forthcoming
book on Duns Scotus, much of which did not find its way into the book, but
would have been ideal for a Wikipedia article.
There is an enormous amount of London material missing. Look at the article
on Knightsbridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightsbridge. I started the
original article on Chelsea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea,_London
which is not much better than when I originally wrote it. There was no
requirement for citations in those days, and I note the 'citation needed'
template is still there from 2008.
Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the
encyclopedia?
Edward