On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com> wrote:

Hello,

Yes indeed, a good division of the question, Aaron,

Kind regards
Ziko

2010/10/25 Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com>:

> Simply describing what took place in that conversation would limit the value
> it provides to a reader. I feel strongly that using examples to support
> analysis is a good way to inform and convince your readers, but I agree that
> de-anonymizing editors (whether posting in a public space or not) could be
> troublesome. I'd like to break this question down into a few parts.
>
> Are Wikipedia's publicly accessible pages anything other than public spaces?
> Does bringing wide attention to editor actions cause them unnecessary harm?
> Should/do editors assume that wide attention will not be brought to their
> editing actions?
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You can still describe [your] point of conversation without quoting
>> them, while leaving the conversation inside of the extended materials
>> of your work, available on demand. If it matters, of course.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 16:33, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I may not have make clear what I mean. In the humanities, you often
>> > have to quote conversations. But when I do, I reveal automatically
>> > reveal who said what, even if it is not important for me what was said
>> > exactly by whom. Wikipedians tend to dislike these quote, because they
>> > can be used to name and shame, and bringing up old disputes, and maybe
>> > reveal the real identity when done at a large scale.
>> >
>> > For example, I copied a piece of conversation here, and replaced the
>> > user names. Still, it is easy to retrieve the original conversation
>> > with the Search.
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> > Ziko
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Surely this is just self promotion? I have seen othger articles about
>> > websites be delted as they are regarded as self-promotion. —UserA
>> >
>> > The article tries to be balanced and neutral, and provide facts
>> > about the project and a summary of criticism directed at it without
>> > prejudice. How well it achieves this is of course open to
>> > interpretation – UserB
>> >
>> > I'm very surprised that anyone would think Wikipedia should
>> > not have an article on itself. Imagine that someone wants to read a
>> > summary of this project. How would they do it? They would have to go
>> > through thousands of help pages, which is impossible. So they can come
>> > to this article and have the project explained in one place. The
>> > article has to be unbiassed of course and point out the flaws of the
>> > project as well as the strengths. As someone said elsewhere, you would
>> > surely expect to find the word "dictionary" in a dictionary so I would
>> > expect to find Wikipedia in Wikipedia! -UserC
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2010/10/25 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
>> >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 21:30, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> There is one problem that I met several times with relation to Wiki
>> >>> research. On the one hand, it is importand to reference to one's
>> >>> "primary sources", e.g. link to a sentence in a WP discussion we are
>> >>> talking about. On the other hand, we want to preserve the privacy of
>> >>> our users.
>> >>>
>> >>> For example, in Leipzig a lecturer talked about a certain discussion,
>> >>> and he tried to keep it anonimously because it was about the
>> >>> discussion itself, not to embarass the persons. But, the anonimity was
>> >>> soon destroyed by curious listeners, anyway.
>> >>>
>> >>> Did you already encounter that problem yourself?
>> >>
>> >> The best way for keeping anonymity is to present derivative work, not
>> >> source itself. It is regular part of scientific work in social
>> >> sciences. And you guarantee for the validity by your scientific
>> >> integrity, as well as by sources which you are keeping for yourself
>> >> for possible check by other scientist who would keep the sources
>> >> confidential, too.
>> >>
>> >> For example, I remember one sociolinguistic research, where scientists
>> >> taped speech of one Irish community. They gathered all private data
>> >> and connected them with records. Then, they renamed subjects with
>> >> letters: A, B, etc. At the end, they made a digest record which they
>> >> are willing to show to other interested scientists just on demand, as
>> >> well if I remember well, with a kind of confidentiality agreement with
>> >> them. I think that the research is from 1970s.
>> >>
>> >> So, you should combine all of the tools which you can have: derivative
>> >> works, digesting, stating that the sources are confidential, finding
>> >> other [trusting] scientist who would check your sources and guarantee
>> >> for them, too.
>> >>
>> >> And, yes, sources should be handled carefully. There are just a couple
>> >> of thousands core Wikimedians and it is relatively easy to understand
>> >> who is the person from the source.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> RCom-l mailing list
>> >> RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ziko van Dijk
>> > Niederlande
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > RCom-l mailing list
>> > RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RCom-l mailing list
>> RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RCom-l mailing list
> RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande

_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l