Hi all,
yesterday I had that discussion on #wikimedia-en-help where I (= rindolf) tried to help someone (I think he was a guy, but it doesn't matter) with getting his article for review accepted:
<<<<
<Helpmebot> Hi Referenced99, welcome to the help channel for the English Wikipedia! Move the cursor to the input area at the bottom of the window, type your question and press Enter, and a helper should be around shortly to answer your questions. If your question is about a particular page please make sure your question includes the URL or name of the page in question. <Referenced99> I need very detailed instructions about why this page keeps getting rejected because of 'unreliable sources' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bjarnmar/sandbox. Even the wiki page for sterling silver says at the top that some of its sources need to be verified - but it was still allowed to be a page, so? <Hersfold> just because some pages have issues doesn't mean we should allow them to spread <Referenced99> And i have used sources such as Variety, and when they said it was not proven his music really existed i put the acutal link to where it is in different parts of the world and that's still not enough? <Referenced99> But that's just it Hersfold - what are the issues with this page? i have even used some references that were accepted on other pages related to his work but they were rejected in this case? <Hersfold> I'm a bit occupied and don't really have time to look myself, but someone else may be around <Hersfold> !helper <MJ94> ues? <MJ94> yes? <Referenced99> How is Danmarks Radio, the largest TV station in Denmark, an unreliable source when I link to his work and credits on their site? <MJ94> Referenced99: one sec <MJ94> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rs <Referenced99> Sorry to bother you Herford...have a nice Saturday <MJ94> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Imdb#IMDb IMDB is generally not a "reliable" source. <Referenced99> Yes, MJ94 I have seen that page and I still don't understand - and I only use IMDB as an Additional Link but every one of the links above it are genuine lnks to professional pages that have or reference his work? <Referenced99> Politiken is one of the largest newspapers in the country, and I referenced them, Variety is known and used as a reference - I really don't understand the problem? <Referenced99> The British Film Institute site is also used as as reference - so what is wrong? I am really trying to understand <Referenced99> But could someone please look at the page and tell me what is wrong with the references I have now? Then I could better understand, it would be more specific, please? <rindolf> Referenced99: where is the page again? <Referenced99> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bjarnmar/sandbox <rindolf> Referenced99: ah, well, it should be more a biography. <Referenced99> Thank you, rindolf, I would appreciate your help. I have looked at the general guide but I still don't understand what is wrong with my references <rindolf> Referenced99: like other biography of living people. <Referenced99> Just a moment, reading you... <rindolf> Referenced99: reading what? <Referenced99> So what do I do differently i thought that was what I had done (I meant reading your reply) <Referenced99> I never did this before... <Referenced99> I thought this was a biography page... <rindolf> Referenced99: see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall <rindolf> Well, that may not be a good one. <rindolf> Let's see. <rindolf> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hathaway <Referenced99> Ok, i see that page, my page also starts with his name and where he was born and goes on to his accomplishments - what am I missing? <Referenced99> Looking at the hathaway page now... <rindolf> Referenced99: OK. <rindolf> Referenced99: your page reads too much like a resume. <Referenced99> Yes, and except for the absence of a pic can you please tell me spefically what I need to do that I haven't already done? <rindolf> I mean a C.V. <rindolf> Referenced99: structure it more like a biography. <rindolf> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons <Referenced99> well, in the earlier version it was more like the hathaway but it was criticized, so like they said i went to pages of some other composers and they had it more simply prominent works etc like i do now ... <rindolf> Referenced99: ah, this reminds me of http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/62.html <Referenced99> kind of like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_N%C3%B8rg%C3%A5rd where his work is listed... <Referenced99> Anyway, you see the way his works are listed, that is what I was doing but should i go back to the hathaway type? <Referenced99> i have done it so many ways now i am almost dizzy, ha... <rindolf> Referenced99: I think you should. <Referenced99> Ok, I will use the hathaway model...do i have to label it as a biography in any way or just change the way it's set up on the page? do i need a pic from the start? <Referenced99> I really appreciate your help, Rindolf! <Referenced99> Have a great Saturday! <rindolf> Referenced99: thanks. <rindolf> Referenced99: Shabbath is over here in Israel. <rindolf> Referenced99: according to the Hebrew Midrash. <Referenced99> Shabbath, then ;D <Referenced99> I am going to get to work on this now - and yes, it feels a lot like the man the boy and the donkey...depending on which one gets the page to review they all say something different. but I won't pull my hair out just yet, ha <rindolf> Referenced99: :-) <rindolf> Aesop++ <Referenced99> Oh, I see...better, anyway, ha <rindolf> Referenced99: also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality <Referenced99> One said to model it on other composers, another said something else... <rindolf> Referenced99: heh, heh. <rindolf> Yes, it's always a problem with collaborative projects. <Referenced99> yes, it seems like the trivial has the upper hand here...when i mentioned earlier above that not even the wiki page for sterling silver had reliable sources but it was still allowed to be a page - someone said 'that's no reason to let such pages flourish' - !1 <rindolf> Referenced99: I think the Hebrew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah contains many instances of people improving what other people said in the past, with something like a history. <rindolf> Like, this Rabbi said X ; another said X1 ; another said X2 ; another said X[1,2] <Referenced99> But that's just it: they often are not improving, one said there weren't enough music sources, but the one before him said nothing about that...reading... <rindolf> Referenced99: well, feel free to bring Aesop or the colour of the bike shed argument as a way to tell people to make up their minds or shut up. <Referenced99> Well, Ok, the Torah is one thing, of course that should give rise to interpretations etc...but this is just some facts about one of Denmark's successful artists and it's like he's banned or something ha <rindolf> Referenced99: this is also useful - http://programming-motherfucker.com/ <Referenced99> LOL <rindolf> JFDI - Just fucking do it. <Referenced99> somehow i think that would seal this poor artist's fate... <rindolf> Yes, it's a great page. <rindolf> Referenced99: what will? <Referenced99> if i cursed at them, then they will never allow this page through and quite honestly i have read many of the other danish artists wiki pages - some he has worked with also - and they have some imdb sources and not much else - he has a ton in comparison <Referenced99> but i can only keep trying, ha... <rindolf> Referenced99: someone I know who studies in openu.ac.uk told me they told him not to use wikipedia because everyone can edit it and it's not a reliable source, and now he concluded that he shouldn't read any wikipedia page I link to him. <rindolf> Like a page that someone puts elsewhere on a Web 1.0 web-site is necessarily any better. <Demiurge1000> http://enwp.org/WP:42 is useful <rindolf> Demiurge1000: OK. <Referenced99> well, it would be different if they would just let the page go up, and if someone edits it wrongly i will fix it, or someone else will, but i've been rying to get this page up since May 2012... <Referenced99> Thanks for that link...geneally trusted would be the newspapers and british film institute and tv sites i list as sources...hmmm...but i will try try try again (sigh) <Referenced99> Bye now!! ;D
<Demiurge1000> newspapers are indeed most useful <rindolf> Referenced99: bye. <-- Referenced99 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
Well, here are some more of my thoughts:
Wikimedia projects now have many rules, and different projects have slightly different rules. In wikis rules kinda dictate how we should strive for quality instead of just senselessly adding more and more quantity. However, quantity is also important, because we want to avoid the fate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia which only had very few articles. People come to Wikipedia (and often stay) in order to learn about their favourite music star or actor, or about one book or another, or a common phrase, or a popular game, or whatever, and I don't want to lose it, just because it fell out of the scope of the latest edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. So we should encourage more quantity *and* more quality.
It is very effortless to mark something as "non-notable", "request-for-deletion", "does-not-cite-any-references-and-sources", but it is also something that will make more people more bitter and not as happy. A lot of people parrot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War as an ideal way to confront your enemies, but I prefer learning from the actions and heritage of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin . Despite the fact that the Christian occupation of Palestine at that time after the first two crusades was discriminatory and suppressive, Saladin consciously decided to act in a noble and forgiving way. Some of the stories about him are astonishing: when the horse of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England (Richard the Lion’s Heart) died, Saladin gave him two good war horses. When Richard got sick, Saladin allowed his personal doctor to take care of him (back then Muslim medicine was considered the best in the world ). I also read a wikipedia page about a certain French knight (about whom there was a recent film) who travelled on the third crusade to fight Saladin, was captured, and Saladin made him swear he won't fight him again; then the Pope at the time considered it un-upholdable, because it was an oath given to a non-believer and he returned to fight Saladin again. And Saladin was perfectly acceptable of the knight's decision to believe the pope (!!) and had the knight fight him again.
I think the Art of War aims to make sure your enemies will be devastated as much as possible, while Saladin's philosophy was to make sure that in the long run, your enemy will be less motivated to fight you, will think extremely highly of you, and you will eventually make him look bad, and win. That's true victory.
So what about the wikimedia projects? I think we should try more to be friendly, invest more time in educating (while avoiding quick and effortless trigger happy stuff like removing whole sections or gradually "removing sesame seeds" - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/11.html ), care taking and guidance instead of in dismissing something as bad or immediately removing it due to some problems. A good “crowd-sourcing” collaborative project is often an exercise in doing the same thing again and again, but we have to do that and have patience, compassion and appreciation. We answer the same questions over and over again on such Freenode channels such as #perl or ##programming , but we cannot really expect people to read the F. A. Q. at the topic. We need to avoid short-term “gains” in time, hostility and psychological “tactics” with a much better long term strategy of encouraging people to contribute. Many times people complain that they don't have enough time, but like I note in http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Star-Trek/We-the-Living-Dead/ :
<<< Q2: No. Busy people are unproductive. We are very productive and so we’re never busy.
(If you're a Star Trek fan, you can read the rest of the screenplay, to get more of my philosophy behind it). Many mathematicians will tell you that they also consider Mathematics an art, and that some proofs are beautiful, or that, like good artists, they want to publish everything they discovered or found. Mathematics still requires a lot of creative processes and still cannot really be automated (reaching a proof is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard I think, and the heuristics do not scale well). And if Mathematics is an art, we need to understand that writing (using conceptual thought and written and/or spoken languages), including both fiction, scientific/non-fiction, essays and everything in between is also an art. And that we should treat the people who are trying to help us like human beings, not like machines that emit streams of characters, because they are much more than that.
Sorry that this message was so long. Comments are welcome.
Sincerely yours,
Shlomi Fish
I would probably have begun with creating an article in Danish. We have one red link to [[Bjarne O. Henriksen]], and could probably have two more, and I guess he may border on notability on dawiki for his writing. I never heard of his music, but I won't blame him for that :)
Regards, Ole
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hi all,
yesterday I had that discussion on #wikimedia-en-help where I (= rindolf) tried to help someone (I think he was a guy, but it doesn't matter) with getting his article for review accepted:
<<<<
<Helpmebot> Hi Referenced99, welcome to the help channel for the English Wikipedia! Move the cursor to the input area at the bottom of the window, type your question and press Enter, and a helper should be around shortly to answer your questions. If your question is about a particular page please make sure your question includes the URL or name of the page in question. <Referenced99> I need very detailed instructions about why this page keeps getting rejected because of 'unreliable sources' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bjarnmar/sandbox. Even the wiki page for sterling silver says at the top that some of its sources need to be verified - but it was still allowed to be a page, so? <Hersfold> just because some pages have issues doesn't mean we should allow them to spread <Referenced99> And i have used sources such as Variety, and when they said it was not proven his music really existed i put the acutal link to where it is in different parts of the world and that's still not enough? <Referenced99> But that's just it Hersfold - what are the issues with this page? i have even used some references that were accepted on other pages related to his work but they were rejected in this case? <Hersfold> I'm a bit occupied and don't really have time to look myself, but someone else may be around <Hersfold> !helper <MJ94> ues? <MJ94> yes? <Referenced99> How is Danmarks Radio, the largest TV station in Denmark, an unreliable source when I link to his work and credits on their site? <MJ94> Referenced99: one sec <MJ94> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rs <Referenced99> Sorry to bother you Herford...have a nice Saturday <MJ94> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Imdb#IMDb IMDB is generally not a "reliable" source. <Referenced99> Yes, MJ94 I have seen that page and I still don't understand - and I only use IMDB as an Additional Link but every one of the links above it are genuine lnks to professional pages that have or reference his work? <Referenced99> Politiken is one of the largest newspapers in the country, and I referenced them, Variety is known and used as a reference - I really don't understand the problem? <Referenced99> The British Film Institute site is also used as as reference - so what is wrong? I am really trying to understand <Referenced99> But could someone please look at the page and tell me what is wrong with the references I have now? Then I could better understand, it would be more specific, please? <rindolf> Referenced99: where is the page again? <Referenced99> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bjarnmar/sandbox <rindolf> Referenced99: ah, well, it should be more a biography. <Referenced99> Thank you, rindolf, I would appreciate your help. I have looked at the general guide but I still don't understand what is wrong with my references <rindolf> Referenced99: like other biography of living people. <Referenced99> Just a moment, reading you... <rindolf> Referenced99: reading what? <Referenced99> So what do I do differently i thought that was what I had done (I meant reading your reply) <Referenced99> I never did this before... <Referenced99> I thought this was a biography page... <rindolf> Referenced99: see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall <rindolf> Well, that may not be a good one. <rindolf> Let's see. <rindolf> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hathaway <Referenced99> Ok, i see that page, my page also starts with his name and where he was born and goes on to his accomplishments - what am I missing? <Referenced99> Looking at the hathaway page now... <rindolf> Referenced99: OK. <rindolf> Referenced99: your page reads too much like a resume. <Referenced99> Yes, and except for the absence of a pic can you please tell me spefically what I need to do that I haven't already done? <rindolf> I mean a C.V. <rindolf> Referenced99: structure it more like a biography. <rindolf> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons <Referenced99> well, in the earlier version it was more like the hathaway but it was criticized, so like they said i went to pages of some other composers and they had it more simply prominent works etc like i do now ... <rindolf> Referenced99: ah, this reminds me of http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/62.html <Referenced99> kind of like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_N%C3%B8rg%C3%A5rd where his work is listed... <Referenced99> Anyway, you see the way his works are listed, that is what I was doing but should i go back to the hathaway type? <Referenced99> i have done it so many ways now i am almost dizzy, ha... <rindolf> Referenced99: I think you should. <Referenced99> Ok, I will use the hathaway model...do i have to label it as a biography in any way or just change the way it's set up on the page? do i need a pic from the start? <Referenced99> I really appreciate your help, Rindolf! <Referenced99> Have a great Saturday! <rindolf> Referenced99: thanks. <rindolf> Referenced99: Shabbath is over here in Israel. <rindolf> Referenced99: according to the Hebrew Midrash. <Referenced99> Shabbath, then ;D <Referenced99> I am going to get to work on this now - and yes, it feels a lot like the man the boy and the donkey...depending on which one gets the page to review they all say something different. but I won't pull my hair out just yet, ha <rindolf> Referenced99: :-) <rindolf> Aesop++ <Referenced99> Oh, I see...better, anyway, ha <rindolf> Referenced99: also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality <Referenced99> One said to model it on other composers, another said something else... <rindolf> Referenced99: heh, heh. <rindolf> Yes, it's always a problem with collaborative projects. <Referenced99> yes, it seems like the trivial has the upper hand here...when i mentioned earlier above that not even the wiki page for sterling silver had reliable sources but it was still allowed to be a page - someone said 'that's no reason to let such pages flourish' - !1 <rindolf> Referenced99: I think the Hebrew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah contains many instances of people improving what other people said in the past, with something like a history. <rindolf> Like, this Rabbi said X ; another said X1 ; another said X2 ; another said X[1,2] <Referenced99> But that's just it: they often are not improving, one said there weren't enough music sources, but the one before him said nothing about that...reading... <rindolf> Referenced99: well, feel free to bring Aesop or the colour of the bike shed argument as a way to tell people to make up their minds or shut up. <Referenced99> Well, Ok, the Torah is one thing, of course that should give rise to interpretations etc...but this is just some facts about one of Denmark's successful artists and it's like he's banned or something ha <rindolf> Referenced99: this is also useful - http://programming-motherfucker.com/ <Referenced99> LOL <rindolf> JFDI - Just fucking do it. <Referenced99> somehow i think that would seal this poor artist's fate... <rindolf> Yes, it's a great page. <rindolf> Referenced99: what will? <Referenced99> if i cursed at them, then they will never allow this page through and quite honestly i have read many of the other danish artists wiki pages - some he has worked with also - and they have some imdb sources and not much else - he has a ton in comparison <Referenced99> but i can only keep trying, ha... <rindolf> Referenced99: someone I know who studies in openu.ac.uktold me they told him not to use wikipedia because everyone can edit it and it's not a reliable source, and now he concluded that he shouldn't read any wikipedia page I link to him. <rindolf> Like a page that someone puts elsewhere on a Web 1.0 web-site is necessarily any better. <Demiurge1000> http://enwp.org/WP:42 is useful <rindolf> Demiurge1000: OK. <Referenced99> well, it would be different if they would just let the page go up, and if someone edits it wrongly i will fix it, or someone else will, but i've been rying to get this page up since May 2012... <Referenced99> Thanks for that link...geneally trusted would be the newspapers and british film institute and tv sites i list as sources...hmmm...but i will try try try again (sigh) <Referenced99> Bye now!! ;D
<Demiurge1000> newspapers are indeed most useful <rindolf> Referenced99: bye. <-- Referenced99 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
Well, here are some more of my thoughts:
Wikimedia projects now have many rules, and different projects have slightly different rules. In wikis rules kinda dictate how we should strive for quality instead of just senselessly adding more and more quantity. However, quantity is also important, because we want to avoid the fate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia which only had very few articles. People come to Wikipedia (and often stay) in order to learn about their favourite music star or actor, or about one book or another, or a common phrase, or a popular game, or whatever, and I don't want to lose it, just because it fell out of the scope of the latest edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. So we should encourage more quantity *and* more quality.
It is very effortless to mark something as "non-notable", "request-for-deletion", "does-not-cite-any-references-and-sources", but it is also something that will make more people more bitter and not as happy. A lot of people parrot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War as an ideal way to confront your enemies, but I prefer learning from the actions and heritage of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin . Despite the fact that the Christian occupation of Palestine at that time after the first two crusades was discriminatory and suppressive, Saladin consciously decided to act in a noble and forgiving way. Some of the stories about him are astonishing: when the horse of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England (Richard the Lion’s Heart) died, Saladin gave him two good war horses. When Richard got sick, Saladin allowed his personal doctor to take care of him (back then Muslim medicine was considered the best in the world ). I also read a wikipedia page about a certain French knight (about whom there was a recent film) who travelled on the third crusade to fight Saladin, was captured, and Saladin made him swear he won't fight him again; then the Pope at the time considered it un-upholdable, because it was an oath given to a non-believer and he returned to fight Saladin again. And Saladin was perfectly acceptable of the knight's decision to believe the pope (!!) and had the knight fight him again.
I think the Art of War aims to make sure your enemies will be devastated as much as possible, while Saladin's philosophy was to make sure that in the long run, your enemy will be less motivated to fight you, will think extremely highly of you, and you will eventually make him look bad, and win. That's true victory.
So what about the wikimedia projects? I think we should try more to be friendly, invest more time in educating (while avoiding quick and effortless trigger happy stuff like removing whole sections or gradually "removing sesame seeds" - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/11.html ), care taking and guidance instead of in dismissing something as bad or immediately removing it due to some problems. A good “crowd-sourcing” collaborative project is often an exercise in doing the same thing again and again, but we have to do that and have patience, compassion and appreciation. We answer the same questions over and over again on such Freenode channels such as #perl or ##programming , but we cannot really expect people to read the F. A. Q. at the topic. We need to avoid short-term “gains” in time, hostility and psychological “tactics” with a much better long term strategy of encouraging people to contribute. Many times people complain that they don't have enough time, but like I note in http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Star-Trek/We-the-Living-Dead/ :
<<< Q2: No. Busy people are unproductive. We are very productive and so we’re never busy.
(If you're a Star Trek fan, you can read the rest of the screenplay, to get more of my philosophy behind it). Many mathematicians will tell you that they also consider Mathematics an art, and that some proofs are beautiful, or that, like good artists, they want to publish everything they discovered or found. Mathematics still requires a lot of creative processes and still cannot really be automated (reaching a proof is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard I think, and the heuristics do not scale well). And if Mathematics is an art, we need to understand that writing (using conceptual thought and written and/or spoken languages), including both fiction, scientific/non-fiction, essays and everything in between is also an art. And that we should treat the people who are trying to help us like human beings, not like machines that emit streams of characters, because they are much more than that.
Sorry that this message was so long. Comments are welcome.
Sincerely yours,
Shlomi Fish--
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Why I Love Perl - http://shlom.in/joy-of-perl
If Botticelli were alive today, he’d be working for Vogue. — http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Peter_Ustinov
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Ole,
thanks for your useful and constructive advice. I'll reply below, but note that I was speaking from the general/philosophical/strategical Point-of-view.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:22:49 +0100 Ole Palnatoke Andersen ole@palnatoke.org wrote:
I would probably have begun with creating an article in Danish. We have one red link to [[Bjarne O. Henriksen]], and could probably have two more, and I guess he may border on notability on dawiki for his writing. I never heard of his music, but I won't blame him for that :)
Well, I have never heard of many popular Israeli composers and other musicians either (and there's been an inflation of them lately due to reality T.V., the Internet (YouTube/etc.) and other stuff), so I forgive you.
Anyway, starting with the Danish wikipedia is good advice and I'll put it on Referenced99's user page. That put aside, I should note that some non-native speakers of English (like me) feel that they are “men-of-the-world” and will reach a wider audience if they wrote in English instead of in their native tongue, even if their English is not perfect. There are not too many speakers (native or non-native) of Modern Hebrew nowadays, and most of the Hebrew speakers that I care about (i.e: those enlightened and knowledgeable enough to learn and understand English well) will have no technical problem or attitude problem for reading my English, and I can reach a much wider audience of both native speakers (.us-ers, .uk-ers, .au-ers, .nz-ers, etc.) and non-native speakers, including those from countries or backgrounds who traditionally felt some hostility towards Israel/Jews/etc.
The same is equally true of Danish speakers, Dutch speakers, Swedish speakers, Norwegian speakers, Zulu speakers, speakers of various Asian Indian languages (Marathi, Hindi, Punjabi, Malayalam, Tamil, etc.), and probably most people around, and is (for better or for worse) becoming more and more true for speakers of languages which have 10s of millions or even hundreds of millions of speakers.
As a result, I decided to write http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker%27s_Dozen_%28solitaire%29 (about the Solitaire game nicknamed “Baker’s Dozen”) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_%28solitaire%29 (ditto for “Black Hole”) in the English wikipedia and do not really see the point of putting it on the Hebrew wikipedia, which often feels like incomplete and lacking attention (though I was told it is generally in better shape than the (Literary) Arabic wikipedia). I guess that was also Referenced99’s motivation, though in this case, it was a subject of less general interest to most of the English wikipedia's readers (but still notable of coverage).
I would still like to reach more people with everything I said in the general case (about Aesop, the colour of the bike shed, Saladin, etc.), so if anyone can give me a bigger soapbox (on one of Wikimedia’s blogs or whereever) I'll appreciate it. Naturally, it will require a lot more work of organisation, cleanup and finding good links and references.
Also related is:
* http://unarmed.shlomifish.org/909.html (“Dealing with Internet Trolls [= more like flamers or people passing criticism] - the Cognitive Thearpy Approach”).
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Regards, Ole
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hi all,
yesterday I had that discussion on #wikimedia-en-help where I (= rindolf) tried to help someone (I think he was a guy, but it doesn't matter) with getting his article for review accepted:
<<<<
<Helpmebot> Hi Referenced99, welcome to the help channel for the English Wikipedia! Move the cursor to the input area at the bottom of the window, type your question and press Enter, and a helper should be around shortly to answer your questions. If your question is about a particular page please make sure your question includes the URL or name of the page in question. <Referenced99> I need very detailed instructions about why this page keeps getting rejected because of 'unreliable sources' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bjarnmar/sandbox. Even the wiki page for sterling silver says at the top that some of its sources need to be verified - but it was still allowed to be a page, so? <Hersfold> just because some pages have issues doesn't mean we should allow them to spread <Referenced99> And i have used sources such as Variety, and when they said it was not proven his music really existed i put the acutal link to where it is in different parts of the world and that's still not enough? <Referenced99> But that's just it Hersfold - what are the issues with this page? i have even used some references that were accepted on other pages related to his work but they were rejected in this case? <Hersfold> I'm a bit occupied and don't really have time to look myself, but someone else may be around <Hersfold> !helper <MJ94> ues? <MJ94> yes? <Referenced99> How is Danmarks Radio, the largest TV station in Denmark, an unreliable source when I link to his work and credits on their site? <MJ94> Referenced99: one sec <MJ94> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rs <Referenced99> Sorry to bother you Herford...have a nice Saturday <MJ94> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Imdb#IMDb IMDB is generally not a "reliable" source. <Referenced99> Yes, MJ94 I have seen that page and I still don't understand - and I only use IMDB as an Additional Link but every one of the links above it are genuine lnks to professional pages that have or reference his work? <Referenced99> Politiken is one of the largest newspapers in the country, and I referenced them, Variety is known and used as a reference - I really don't understand the problem? <Referenced99> The British Film Institute site is also used as as reference - so what is wrong? I am really trying to understand <Referenced99> But could someone please look at the page and tell me what is wrong with the references I have now? Then I could better understand, it would be more specific, please? <rindolf> Referenced99: where is the page again? <Referenced99> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bjarnmar/sandbox <rindolf> Referenced99: ah, well, it should be more a biography. <Referenced99> Thank you, rindolf, I would appreciate your help. I have looked at the general guide but I still don't understand what is wrong with my references <rindolf> Referenced99: like other biography of living people. <Referenced99> Just a moment, reading you... <rindolf> Referenced99: reading what? <Referenced99> So what do I do differently i thought that was what I had done (I meant reading your reply) <Referenced99> I never did this before... <Referenced99> I thought this was a biography page... <rindolf> Referenced99: see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall <rindolf> Well, that may not be a good one. <rindolf> Let's see. <rindolf> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hathaway <Referenced99> Ok, i see that page, my page also starts with his name and where he was born and goes on to his accomplishments - what am I missing? <Referenced99> Looking at the hathaway page now... <rindolf> Referenced99: OK. <rindolf> Referenced99: your page reads too much like a resume. <Referenced99> Yes, and except for the absence of a pic can you please tell me spefically what I need to do that I haven't already done? <rindolf> I mean a C.V. <rindolf> Referenced99: structure it more like a biography. <rindolf> Referenced99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons <Referenced99> well, in the earlier version it was more like the hathaway but it was criticized, so like they said i went to pages of some other composers and they had it more simply prominent works etc like i do now ... <rindolf> Referenced99: ah, this reminds me of http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/62.html <Referenced99> kind of like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_N%C3%B8rg%C3%A5rd where his work is listed... <Referenced99> Anyway, you see the way his works are listed, that is what I was doing but should i go back to the hathaway type? <Referenced99> i have done it so many ways now i am almost dizzy, ha... <rindolf> Referenced99: I think you should. <Referenced99> Ok, I will use the hathaway model...do i have to label it as a biography in any way or just change the way it's set up on the page? do i need a pic from the start? <Referenced99> I really appreciate your help, Rindolf! <Referenced99> Have a great Saturday! <rindolf> Referenced99: thanks. <rindolf> Referenced99: Shabbath is over here in Israel. <rindolf> Referenced99: according to the Hebrew Midrash. <Referenced99> Shabbath, then ;D <Referenced99> I am going to get to work on this now - and yes, it feels a lot like the man the boy and the donkey...depending on which one gets the page to review they all say something different. but I won't pull my hair out just yet, ha <rindolf> Referenced99: :-) <rindolf> Aesop++ <Referenced99> Oh, I see...better, anyway, ha <rindolf> Referenced99: also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality <Referenced99> One said to model it on other composers, another said something else... <rindolf> Referenced99: heh, heh. <rindolf> Yes, it's always a problem with collaborative projects. <Referenced99> yes, it seems like the trivial has the upper hand here...when i mentioned earlier above that not even the wiki page for sterling silver had reliable sources but it was still allowed to be a page - someone said 'that's no reason to let such pages flourish' - !1 <rindolf> Referenced99: I think the Hebrew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah contains many instances of people improving what other people said in the past, with something like a history. <rindolf> Like, this Rabbi said X ; another said X1 ; another said X2 ; another said X[1,2] <Referenced99> But that's just it: they often are not improving, one said there weren't enough music sources, but the one before him said nothing about that...reading... <rindolf> Referenced99: well, feel free to bring Aesop or the colour of the bike shed argument as a way to tell people to make up their minds or shut up. <Referenced99> Well, Ok, the Torah is one thing, of course that should give rise to interpretations etc...but this is just some facts about one of Denmark's successful artists and it's like he's banned or something ha <rindolf> Referenced99: this is also useful - http://programming-motherfucker.com/ <Referenced99> LOL <rindolf> JFDI - Just fucking do it. <Referenced99> somehow i think that would seal this poor artist's fate... <rindolf> Yes, it's a great page. <rindolf> Referenced99: what will? <Referenced99> if i cursed at them, then they will never allow this page through and quite honestly i have read many of the other danish artists wiki pages - some he has worked with also - and they have some imdb sources and not much else - he has a ton in comparison <Referenced99> but i can only keep trying, ha... <rindolf> Referenced99: someone I know who studies in openu.ac.uktold me they told him not to use wikipedia because everyone can edit it and it's not a reliable source, and now he concluded that he shouldn't read any wikipedia page I link to him. <rindolf> Like a page that someone puts elsewhere on a Web 1.0 web-site is necessarily any better. <Demiurge1000> http://enwp.org/WP:42 is useful <rindolf> Demiurge1000: OK. <Referenced99> well, it would be different if they would just let the page go up, and if someone edits it wrongly i will fix it, or someone else will, but i've been rying to get this page up since May 2012... <Referenced99> Thanks for that link...geneally trusted would be the newspapers and british film institute and tv sites i list as sources...hmmm...but i will try try try again (sigh) <Referenced99> Bye now!! ;D
<Demiurge1000> newspapers are indeed most useful <rindolf> Referenced99: bye. <-- Referenced99 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
Well, here are some more of my thoughts:
Wikimedia projects now have many rules, and different projects have slightly different rules. In wikis rules kinda dictate how we should strive for quality instead of just senselessly adding more and more quantity. However, quantity is also important, because we want to avoid the fate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia which only had very few articles. People come to Wikipedia (and often stay) in order to learn about their favourite music star or actor, or about one book or another, or a common phrase, or a popular game, or whatever, and I don't want to lose it, just because it fell out of the scope of the latest edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. So we should encourage more quantity *and* more quality.
It is very effortless to mark something as "non-notable", "request-for-deletion", "does-not-cite-any-references-and-sources", but it is also something that will make more people more bitter and not as happy. A lot of people parrot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War as an ideal way to confront your enemies, but I prefer learning from the actions and heritage of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin . Despite the fact that the Christian occupation of Palestine at that time after the first two crusades was discriminatory and suppressive, Saladin consciously decided to act in a noble and forgiving way. Some of the stories about him are astonishing: when the horse of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England (Richard the Lion’s Heart) died, Saladin gave him two good war horses. When Richard got sick, Saladin allowed his personal doctor to take care of him (back then Muslim medicine was considered the best in the world ). I also read a wikipedia page about a certain French knight (about whom there was a recent film) who travelled on the third crusade to fight Saladin, was captured, and Saladin made him swear he won't fight him again; then the Pope at the time considered it un-upholdable, because it was an oath given to a non-believer and he returned to fight Saladin again. And Saladin was perfectly acceptable of the knight's decision to believe the pope (!!) and had the knight fight him again.
I think the Art of War aims to make sure your enemies will be devastated as much as possible, while Saladin's philosophy was to make sure that in the long run, your enemy will be less motivated to fight you, will think extremely highly of you, and you will eventually make him look bad, and win. That's true victory.
So what about the wikimedia projects? I think we should try more to be friendly, invest more time in educating (while avoiding quick and effortless trigger happy stuff like removing whole sections or gradually "removing sesame seeds" - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/11.html ), care taking and guidance instead of in dismissing something as bad or immediately removing it due to some problems. A good “crowd-sourcing” collaborative project is often an exercise in doing the same thing again and again, but we have to do that and have patience, compassion and appreciation. We answer the same questions over and over again on such Freenode channels such as #perl or ##programming , but we cannot really expect people to read the F. A. Q. at the topic. We need to avoid short-term “gains” in time, hostility and psychological “tactics” with a much better long term strategy of encouraging people to contribute. Many times people complain that they don't have enough time, but like I note in http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Star-Trek/We-the-Living-Dead/ :
<<< Q2: No. Busy people are unproductive. We are very productive and so we’re never busy.
(If you're a Star Trek fan, you can read the rest of the screenplay, to get more of my philosophy behind it). Many mathematicians will tell you that they also consider Mathematics an art, and that some proofs are beautiful, or that, like good artists, they want to publish everything they discovered or found. Mathematics still requires a lot of creative processes and still cannot really be automated (reaching a proof is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard I think, and the heuristics do not scale well). And if Mathematics is an art, we need to understand that writing (using conceptual thought and written and/or spoken languages), including both fiction, scientific/non-fiction, essays and everything in between is also an art. And that we should treat the people who are trying to help us like human beings, not like machines that emit streams of characters, because they are much more than that.
Sorry that this message was so long. Comments are welcome.
Sincerely yours,
Shlomi Fish--
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Why I Love Perl - http://shlom.in/joy-of-perl
If Botticelli were alive today, he’d be working for Vogue. — http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Peter_Ustinov
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
hi shlomi,
what you are doing here might be perceived as having a conflict of interest and/or doing self promotion.
you wrote a solver for black hole solitaire. then you create a wikipedia article about black hole solitaire, mentioning your name and your software in it, as well linking to your software. then you fill an unrelated mailing list with this topic and link to it. your first mail in this thread btw, the 30 page long mail, included links to your website(s) as well.
rupert.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hi Ole,
thanks for your useful and constructive advice. I'll reply below, but note that I was speaking from the general/philosophical/strategical Point-of-view.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:22:49 +0100 Ole Palnatoke Andersen ole@palnatoke.org wrote:
...
non-native speakers of English (like me) feel that they are “men-of-the-world” and will reach a wider audience if they wrote in English instead of in their
...
As a result, I decided to write
...
Solitaire game nicknamed “Baker’s Dozen”) and ... (ditto for “Black Hole”) in the English wikipedia and do not really see the point of putting it on the Hebrew wikipedia
...
Also related is:
- (“Dealing with Internet Trolls
...
Hi Rupert,
thanks for trimming the E-mail (which some people previously failed to do - I really hate top-posting), and for your thoughtful criticism. Allow me to address it below.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 14:52:40 +0100 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
hi shlomi,
what you are doing here might be perceived as having a conflict of interest and/or doing self promotion.
I agree that it may be perceived as such. At the moment I'm in a state, where I exhibit some Narcissism , a bit more self-centeredness (while still being in a “do-stuff for other people” mood), and maybe even a bit of ego-mania . It's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypomania . I can still handle it and it's ultimately up to me to get out, but I can appear a bit too self-promoting in my Internet communications, so I apologise for that, and should have some more self-control and maintain a lower profile.
I'll address the other issues you note in a separate message, which I'd like to write tomorrow, but now I'm tired, hungry, and have some other priorities to tend to. I will say that it is quite a bit more innocent than you think and not really some kind of my Evil™ plan to take over the world by mentioning my name on Wikimedia-related resources.
Thanks again.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
you wrote a solver for black hole solitaire. then you create a wikipedia article about black hole solitaire, mentioning your name and your software in it, as well linking to your software. then you fill an unrelated mailing list with this topic and link to it. your first mail in this thread btw, the 30 page long mail, included links to your website(s) as well.
rupert.
Hi Rupert,
as promised here is the other reply.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 14:52:40 +0100 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
hi shlomi,
what you are doing here might be perceived as having a conflict of interest and/or doing self promotion.
you wrote a solver for black hole solitaire. then you create a wikipedia article about black hole solitaire, mentioning your name and your software in it, as well linking to your software.
OK, I realise it seems bad and it might, however - here is the longer story from what I recall. I recall knowing of a Solitaire variant called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_%28solitaire%29 , which was featured in some places as similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell and which due to its technical features, I had some reservations about adding support for it to Freecell Solver (can I give a link? oh well). Anyway, I read on its wikipedia page that it was created by a certain creator of games, and that he also created Black Hole Solitaire.
This interested me to check it out on and play it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PySol , and play it and I noticed that I could also create a solver for it relatively easily, which I did (I preferred not to use Freecell Solver for that, because there was a much more compact way to represent the states). Then after I had the solver, I decided to determine which percentage of the deals was solvable, and with the help of “Amadiro” (someone I know) who deployed my solver on the University of Oslo’s high-performance cluster, I was able to solve a large number of deals.
And then and only then, I decided to write a page for that on Wikipedia, so people may find it interesting. I realise there's http://cards.wikia.com/ , but not too many people edit it or visit it, and there's otherwise also extensive coverage of card games of all sorts on Wikipedia, despite some heat and resistance from trigger-happy deletionists. I don't mind that someone improves upon this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_%28solitaire%29 - and make it a little better (like the old “making soup out of stone” story), and I noticed people making pages a little better in the past, or that I reverted some temporary deletionism that I didn't like, into a better incarnation. But removing it completely is cruel, and sort of like expecting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond to remove all traces of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetchmail off his servers, because people think it is: poorly written/has too many bugs/too much hyped and talked about/not very functional/whatever. All of these may be true, but Mr. Raymond (or ESR) eventually decided that he has better things to do with his time, and could not allocate the time to maintain it, so he passed the baton to some other people who had more time, and possible were even more capable software developers than he is.
Likewise, if someone wants to take the Black Hole Solitaire page and improve it, then I say “Go for it!” (or “Drive safely, the keys are inside” like we say in Israel based on a skit of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HaGashash_HaHiver ). But do and let do, instead of "do, undo, redo, undo, redo, etc.".
(Sorry for the long post).
then you fill an unrelated mailing list with this topic and link to it. your first mail in this thread btw, the 30 page long mail, included links to your website(s) as well.
I think what I said there about Aesop’s The Grandfather, The Boy and the Donkey, Saladin, etc. were on topic here and could be useful food for thought and to implement - it's just that I used associations from my own experience. This is because I didn't think too straight now and because I have some emotional attachment to what I did and experience and care about.
I apologise if I sounded too narcissistic (and I may have) but hopefully you can forgive me and get past that and try to deal with my advice.
My primary intention in posting the message was to create a more positive wikipedia-editing experience for everyone in the long run, based on psychology, compassion, being “a bigger man”, and less about territoriality, doing things “quick” in order to save time, and being an inconsiderate and short-term thinking bastard (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick ).
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
rupert.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hi Ole,
thanks for your useful and constructive advice. I'll reply below, but note that I was speaking from the general/philosophical/strategical Point-of-view.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:22:49 +0100 Ole Palnatoke Andersen ole@palnatoke.org wrote:
...
non-native speakers of English (like me) feel that they are “men-of-the-world” and will reach a wider audience if they wrote in English instead of in their
...
As a result, I decided to write
...
Solitaire game nicknamed “Baker’s Dozen”) and ... (ditto for “Black Hole”) in the English wikipedia and do not really see the point of putting it on the Hebrew wikipedia
...
Also related is:
- (“Dealing with Internet Trolls
...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap