At 21:58 17/09/2007, you wrote:
>On 9/17/07, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > The credibility of Velikovsky's ideas have
> > nothing to do with the Pensée series. And
> > Velikovsky never described planetary "billiards".
>
>My grandparents' library had some of his first editions. I'm using
>one of the modern euphamisms, but I'm intimately familiar with his
>work. It has no scientific credibility in the modern sense.
But it does not mean that we are unable to describe it, and do so verifiably.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
>Additionally, it seems clear that too
>many people are too keen to remove content that they feel is somehow
>wrong or unimportant, which has certainly been my experience. Just
>because a topic is specialist, nutcase or Asian doesn't mean it should
>be treated as garbage.
So my argument has been that the policy on removal is not so good
(and I've pointed the finger at "notability"). I have spent more time
involved in arguments about policy and articles, than the articles themselves.
It's something that is fixable, one way or the another, then at least
everyone would know where they stand, and we could put our energies
where they are needed.
Jimbo?
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
At 08:49 18/09/2007, you wrote:
>Deletionism worsens systemic bias. As a young Singaporean who
>contributes to articles pertaining to the Little Red Dot, I was
>dismayed to find out that many articles on notable Singaporean topics
>have been nominated for deletion (or even speedy deleted) by
>Wikipedians who know nothing about Singapore. I could provide many
>examples, but I believe the four below would suffice:
>
>Last year, Nehwyn nominated many articles on Singaporean shopping
>malls for deletion. These included [[Suntec City Mall]] (which holds
>the world's largest fountain).
And we have a List of Shopping Malls by country,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_by_country
But that's up for deletion on the grounds of notabilty! I suspect
that architechs mights disagree, but since when does a list have to
be "notable", or more notable than 1000 pieces of space rock, or a
list of episodes of the Simpsons.
Yet the List of Shopping Malls in the USA,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_in_the_United_States
Is considered OK.
What really gets me is all the unnecessary discussion on notability.
All Jimbo has to do is make a decree so that can dedicate time to
improving articles, not fighting over their demise or survival.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
>Neutral, regarding conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, is to state
>the theory's fundamental statement, note that it is not considered
>part of mainstream science (or insert field), and then go ahead and
>describe the details in a neutral fashion. Once that's done, a
>criticisms section noting how mainstream science (or insert field)
>believes the theory to be wrong.
Indeed, I did say that we describe the mainstream view and criticism.
That is not the same as writing the article from those perspectives.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight
>"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a
>small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views
>that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in
>articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a
>significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might
>be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to
>present competing views in proportion to their representation among
>experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
I agree totally. Note: "tiny minority should not be represented except in
articles devoted to those views".
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
[Please translate this announcement into other languages.]
Wikipedia's roots in the more conservative Nupedia project are reflected by
many in-depth discussions we've had over the years about quality assurance,
filtering, and labeling.
In her "4 wishes for the year 2007" [1], Wikimedia Foundation Chair
Florence Devouard also identified "reliability" as a key goal for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Today we're taking two small steps towards that
goal:
* the launch of http://quality.wikimedia.org/ as a portal targeting
readers and volunteers to summarize key information about current
quality initiatives, combined with
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiquality as a more in-depth
description of our plans,
* the opening of wikiquality-l as a mailing list for related discussions:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Notably, these pages describe our current plans with regard to the
"FlaggedRevs" extension, a MediaWiki extension developed by Aaron
Schulz and Jörg Baach (with financial support from Wikimedia
Deutschland e.V.) which makes it possible to identify revisions of
articles that are known to be of a certain quality, and to change the
default view based on that information.
The public beta of this feature (initially on dummy websites, i.e. not
production environments) will begin as soon as a security review of
the current code has been completed (expected later this month). In
the meantime, please give your feedback on the quality.wikimedia.org
portal, add translations, and subscribe to wikiquality-l to join
future discussions about the specifics of any particular initiative.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/4_wishes_for_year_2007
Sincerely,
Erik Möller
Board member, Wikimedia Foundation
Ian Tresman wrote:
> I believe that the idea of "notability" is being
> abused to remove controversial articles: it is
> impossible to prove that a subject is notable to
> you, and you can ignore whether it may be notable to someone else.
>
> Jimmy is quoted as saying that the criteria for
> inclusion is verifiability, which is why we have
> the following, many of which are not notable in themselves:
>
> * A thousand articles on each of the top 1000 asteroids
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%281-1000%29
>
> * Every single episode of the Simpsons, and many other less notable TV shows.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes
>
> * Articles on different shades of blue
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_blue
>
>
> Examples of abuse?
>
> * We have articles on hundreds of student newspapers
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers
>
> But one in particular is singled out for
> removal on grounds of notability, presumable
> because of its controversial associations:
>
> Pensée, a short-lived student newspaper from the 1970s.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9e_%28Immanuel_Velikovsky_Reconsidere…
>
>
> * We have articles on some of the most bizarre,
> unproven, and pseudoscientific theories, eg. Time
> Cube, Eloptic energy, and Welteislehre.
>
> But the article on the "Electric universe
> (concept)" was removed also on the grounds of notability (and other reasons)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_unive…
> Yet the concept is readily verifiable (my
> comments were removed from the AfD, and placed n the discussion page).
>
>
> *We have articles on all manner of people, from cranks to presidents.
>
> But the article on "Ralph Juergens" was
> removed on the grounds of his non-notability.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_Juergens
> However, he is notable in the "Velikovsky
> affair", has written articles, etc.
>
>
> By point is not to specifically argue for the
> inclusion of these articles, but that to suggest,
> for example, that "Pensée" is less notable than
> asteroid #812, shows that notability is a
> subjective criteria influenced by popularity, and is being abused as such.
>
> Wikipedia is supposed to be the "sum of all human
> knowledge", described from a neutral point of
> view, whose criteria for inclusion is
> verifiability. Minority views can receive
> (detailed) attention on pages specifically devoted to them.
>
> The examples I gave are all well-noted
> (verifiable). I agree that you might not
> necessarily find them notable (popular), but is
> that a reason to exclude them from readers who
> are unable to judge for themselves?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian Tresman
> www.plasma-universe.com
Actually, a "pensée" is very notable and very verifiable by my standards...
ant
FYI - just posted this to my blog ... so don't be astonished to see some
repetitive message on user pages
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Many of you eventually know that I am dealing with the Fundraiser 2007
of the Wikimedia Foundation ... well ... there is one thing I feel a bit
strange about: it seems as if general messages in village pumps and
mailing lists where we ask for help simply don't go through ... or
people simply don't read ... now there is a last attempt to be made and
this is contact people one by one ... that is going through the projects
and ask active people for help. In some way it makes me feel like
spamming around and I don't feel actually comfortable with that, but on
the other hand it seems to be the only chance we have ... uhmmm ... will
go and do that now ... don't know if this translation of a saying is
correct in English: when the prophet does not come to the mountain, take
the mountain to the prophet ... have a great Sunday!
p.s. and yes, I already added a fundraiser button to my blog ;-)
--
Posted By Sabine Cretella to words & more
<http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2007/09/fundraiser-2007-responsiveness-o…>
at 9/16/2007 03:26:00 PM
At 01:16 17/09/2007, you wrote:
>The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is questioning that. The
>article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky
>Reconsidered)", a "special series of ten issues of the magazine
>Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
>
>I said at the AfD that the series was not notable in its own right,
>and amounted to an attempt to milk the issue for as many articles as
>possible. I also think it would lead to excessive fragmentation for
>special issues of magazines to be notable as a matter of course, or
>for that matter most individual books in a controversy.
>
>That it was listed here as a matter of discrimination against a
>particular magazine shows only the POV of the poster.
I could find next to no verifiable material on
the original Pensée magazine, but I'm pleased
that you consider it notable nevertheless.
However, there appears to be much verifiable
material on the dedicated special issues, making
it more notable in its own right, than the
original magazine. And that's the point.
If any of the other hundreds of student magazines
listed on Wikipedia lasted only ten issues, then
I'm sure that notability would not be an issue.
It's shame that you had to have a dig about my
"POV". Encyclopedias are full of POVs, but was is
important is that they are described neutrally and with reliable sources.
By the way, you appear to have voted twice in the AfD.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
On 16/09/2007, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I believe that the idea of "notability" is being
> abused to remove controversial articles: it is
> impossible to prove that a subject is notable to
> you, and you can ignore whether it may be notable to someone else.
>
> Jimmy is quoted as saying that the criteria for
> inclusion is verifiability, which is why we have
> the following, many of which are not notable in themselves:
>
> * A thousand articles on each of the top 1000 asteroids
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%281-1000%29
>
> * Every single episode of the Simpsons, and many other less notable TV
> shows.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes
>
> * Articles on different shades of blue
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_blue
>
>
> Examples of abuse?
>
> * We have articles on hundreds of student newspapers
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers
>
> But one in particular is singled out for
> removal on grounds of notability, presumable
> because of its controversial associations:
>
> Pensée, a short-lived student newspaper from the 1970s.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9e_%28Immanuel_Velikovsky_Reconsidere…
>
>
> * We have articles on some of the most bizarre,
> unproven, and pseudoscientific theories, eg. Time
> Cube, Eloptic energy, and Welteislehre.
>
> But the article on the "Electric universe
> (concept)" was removed also on the grounds of notability (and other
> reasons)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_unive…
> Yet the concept is readily verifiable (my
> comments were removed from the AfD, and placed n the discussion page).
>
>
> *We have articles on all manner of people, from cranks to presidents.
>
> But the article on "Ralph Juergens" was
> removed on the grounds of his non-notability.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_Juergens
> However, he is notable in the "Velikovsky
> affair", has written articles, etc.
>
>
> By point is not to specifically argue for the
> inclusion of these articles, but that to suggest,
> for example, that "Pensée" is less notable than
> asteroid #812, shows that notability is a
> subjective criteria influenced by popularity, and is being abused as such.
>
> Wikipedia is supposed to be the "sum of all human
> knowledge", described from a neutral point of
> view, whose criteria for inclusion is
> verifiability. Minority views can receive
> (detailed) attention on pages specifically devoted to them.
>
> The examples I gave are all well-noted
> (verifiable). I agree that you might not
> necessarily find them notable (popular), but is
> that a reason to exclude them from readers who
> are unable to judge for themselves?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian Tresman
> www.plasma-universe.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
Never take anyone who starts going on about 'notability' seriously. Really..
people like that take the project far too seriously ("But we're an
encyclopedia!", as if that means anything at all). There is 0 point in
deleting verifiable, useful content that someone might expect Wikipedia to
have an article on (say, if they heard it mentioned in a conversation or
similar). And now there will be floods of, "Should be include phone
directory listings too then?" but it's hardly as if anyone would expect to
find that on Wikipedia...
Ian Tresman wrote:
>I believe that the idea of "notability" is being
>abused to remove controversial articles: it is
>impossible to prove that a subject is notable to
>you, and you can ignore whether it may be notable to someone else.
>
>
>
This is not the English Wikipedia mailing list.
Cruccone