> I partially agree, and partially disagree. "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux"
> is perfectly fine, as people who have been beatified are often referred
> to as such, both by those who recognize the sainthood and those who do
> not (there are plenty of atheists who debate the viewpoints of Saint
> Peter, for example). I do think "Blessed ..." is inappropriate though,
> and frankly a little ridiculous.
I don't see why. "Blessed" is analogous to "Saint." "Saint" is the title of
a person who has been canonized; "Blessed" is the title of a person who has
been beatified.
Matt
I just noticed that I used .com instead of .org in the
subject of previous e-mail. I hope whoever answers
does
it using the .org subject.
AstroNomer
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
There are two different manners to read the Wikimedia list;
- As an ordinary e-mail discussion list
- As a newsgroup
To read the lists like a usenet newsgroup...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup
...you need a "newsreader".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsreader
You /can/ use Outlook Express for this.
All posting are also send to gmane.org, a mail-to-usenet gateway.
To use it;
You must specify the NNTP-server news.gmane.org at your newsreader.
Sarch for the "wikipedia" and "wikimedia" groups.
See;
http://news.gmane.org/?match=wikipediahttp://news.gmane.org/?match=wikimedia
All Wikipedia/Media lists are listed (so far I know)
New lists!
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawikinntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.legalnntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki.bugs
For posting to a newsgroup you must be a list member of that list. The
first time you post to the newsgroup you will receive an email for
verification of your email address, which is normal.
If you work by means of the newsgroup you probably no longer wants to
receive the messages by email. To disable email delivery go to "Edit
Options" of the mailing list.
htt://mail.wikipedia.org
Now whit the new Mailman version you can disabel delivery for all
subribed Wikimedia lists.
Gmane options;
- A email address that is posted on gmane will be "encrypted".
It looks like this
wikipedia-l=T31ubCBy5U6GglJvpFV4uA @ public.gmane.org
This is a anti-spam function. When you send a email to a encrypted email
address you will recieve a auto request for confirmation the first time
you use that address befor delivery of the email.
- Gmane respects the X-No-Archive, Archive and X-Archive headers. These
headers allow users to say how long Gmane should store messages. A
expired message will still exist in the normal list archive. This works
only when you include those headers in the posting.
- cancel; if you post a message to a list by use of gmane you can
"cancel" it like on usenet. This is not a good idea to do this. When
canceled it is gone from the gmane newsserver and archive but you *can
not* un-send a email. All normal list users will have recieved you posting.
Please do not email gmane to ask to remove your posting from there
archive, the do not like it (i noticed, Ed, it is removed)
Notice to the list admins; please put a notice about gmane on your list
infopage and/or the "welcome email"
Walter
It is really so difficult to make sure that
en.Wikipedia stuff like article disputes and
allegations of abuse of power goes to WikiEN-L while
discussion about controversial new features goes to
Wikipedia-L?
--mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
>From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: MT and pro-Catholic bias
>Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:39:08 -0600
>
> >~S~
> >How would Internet-Encyclopedia handle this
> >controversy?
>
>The main article would be postive point of view, but note that there are
>criticisms and set them forth briefly. Criticisms, if set forth in detail,
>would be in an article entitled Mother Teresa:A critical view. That article
>would be required to note her beatification and probable sainthood and the
>basis therefore
>
>Fred
>
What I tried to achieve was a biographical article on MT that covered both
her positive and negative image and reputations, with the massive detail
added in by Eloquence put in a separate page called [[Criticisms of Mother
Teresa]], it being replaced by a short summary in the main article, with a
link to the other article. That would allow a balanced, fair article on MT
and a detailed linked article that could be linked to other pages also.
Eloquence simply deleted and reverted. Instead of a balanced readable
article, he insisted on captioning photos with long long text lines to
repeat claims already covered in the main article. For example,
/Mother Teresa with Charles Keating, convicted of fraud in the Savings and
Loan scandal and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Mother Teresa received
over a million dollars in donations from him, which she did not return after
the conviction. She did, however, send a plea for clemency to Keating's
trial judge/
All this was already covered, but was repeated in a 5 line caption that
could have been summarised in 10 words, any attempt to make standard short
captions was met with revertions and cries of censorship.
The scale of accuracy in the article on occasions was reflected by the
statement:
Her (MT's) view that abortion is immoral even in cases of rape and incest is
rigid even by Catholic standards
As anyone who knows anything about the teachings of various religions on
abortion, or who has followed the abortion debates for longer than 5 minutes
knows, the above view is the /standard/ RC view, not a right wing fringe
view.
The article needs major work in terms of
- structure
- layout
- editing
- factual accuracy
- NPOV
- encyclopædic standards.
Yet attempts to do so have been met by Eloquence by reversions and by
demands now that I be banned, all for trying to turn an embarrassing POV
mess (the criticism section of the article covers 70% of the text, 90% of
the headlines, most of the pictures and most of the reading list!) into a
standard encyclopædic article that covers the positive and negative
perspectives on MT, that avoids POV language (from the pro-MT 'revered' to
the anti-MT editorialising about one of the book Eric based his 20K text on
- "probably the most comprehensive critical analysis of Mother Teresa's life
and work to date") and produces a standard encyclopædia article. The result
has been Eric attacks on some people on the reading list, on Dante when he
tried to act as mediator and on me for an imagined 'pro-catholic bias'. The
irony was I only went to the page in the first place to add /in/ criticism
of MT, because I presumed the article would be a one sided glorification of
her.
JT
PS: Thank you, everyone, for the emails. I appreciate them.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
"James Duffy" <jtdire(a)hotmail.com> writes:
> When someone is beatified, wikipedia articles start with the
> beatification name, eg, 'Blessed John XXIII'.
This must be changed. Wikipedia is not a catholic encyclopedia. First
of all, these are human beings and later on other human beings said
they are blessed. Within the article, don't use "St" as a predicate;
instead write "saint" (if necessary at all).
Starting an article as follows: "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux" will offend
many a lot human beings who are not members of the Roman church.
--
| ,__o
| _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)
Ececticology wrote:
>The proposal to watch who's watching which page is the kind of thing
>that's worthy of an aspiring KGB or CIA agent. The potential for
>mischief is too high. I want to be on the record as absolutely against it.
Not at all! Secret agents are useful only for information
that is /not/ publicly available. If watchlists were public,
then all of the CIA agents presently employed in ferreting them out
would lose their jobs.
For a real-life example, the USA PATRIOT Act
allows the FBI to look at US library records --
but it does /not/ make those records public to everybody!
John Ashcroft wouldn't like that hypothetical situation at all;
because if terrorists/dissidents knew what was available,
then they would take care to make sure that it was harmless.
-- Toby
It depends on the goal of the feature
* More information on an article :
It could at any time provide the number of editors
"watching" the page. It could be just a number at the
bottom of the page, and would likely help to measure
the interest there is in the article (for editors,
especially since we can now easily remove items from
our watchlist)
This feature would be at the same level than the
previous "hit counter". For those of you newer on
Wikipedia (Jesus, do I sound old saying this !), the
hit counter was a number displayed at the bottom of
each page, and incrementing each time the page was
displayed. It gave information about the global
interest for the article (for editors and readers).
That feature was disabled several months ago to help
the struggling server. I think it was the first of a
very lengthy list of features to be removed. I suppose
that if we think of providing a counter for the
"watch", we could also get back the hit counter, which
was also very informative. The two counters would
nicely complete each other.
* More information on an editor :
This is not a technical feature to help editing, this
is a protection feature to help against vandal, or a
feature to help against antagonistic editors. There
should be no confusion. This will be seen as invasion
of privacy. The drawbacks will be to madden quite a
number of people, a reduction of liberty rights, will
perhaps lead some to create false accounts to create a
second watch list. I also see a possible slipery
slope, where only those "trusted" will be offered that
feature, further setting classes among editors.
I hope people who agree with this feature, will also
understand WELL what they agree for, and support it in
all knowledge. Do you support a technical feature or a
security feature ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ALERT: Idea for new feature:
"Who's watching
this page?"
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<20031022003441.71538.qmail(a)web14005.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>> The proposal to watch who's watching which page is
>the kind of
>> thing
>> that's worthy of an aspiring KGB or CIA agent. The
>potential for
>> mischief is too high. I want to be on the record
as >absolutely
>> against it.
>I likewise agree it's bad idea.
>The concept of wikipedia is such that people should
>wathc ove each
>other's shoulders, because that's how articles get
>better over time.
I wholeheartedly agree with that comment Chris. I am
also opposed to that watch list feature.
J'ajouterais que le concept de Wikipedia est egalement
que plusieurs langues cohabitent pour le meilleur et
pour le pire, et qu'elles partagent le m�me logiciel.
Ce qui pourrait constituer une raison valable pour
d�sormais discuter des �volutions du logiciel tous
ensemble et non dans le cercle (certes majoritaire)
anglosaxon seulement; Merci :-)))
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- James Duffy <jtdire(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mother Teresa with [Charles Keating]]
> later convicted of fraud in the United States."
> That is all the caption needs to say. The full story
> is a couple of inches
> away in the text.
Ok. Agreed. I also dont like the fact that there are
three huge photos showing her in a negative context.
They are not there --well out of proportion with the
positive aspects --in the spirit of NPOV.
> When someone is beatified, wikipedia articles start
> with the beatification
> name, eg, 'Blessed John XXIII'. The same policy is
> applied to those
> possessing honorifics, Sir/Dame, etc. But the
> article title does not use
> them. As MT is now 'Blessed Teresa', that is how she
Yes, but the beatification title is a
religion-specific title. Im not sure its NPOV to use
such a title -- would you suggest that the "Blessed
.... " be used for the article title? I wonder.
Do we say His Grace or The Venerable ...or what have
you?
~S~
What do you call a "saint" who's not exactly saintly?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com