Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother
Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from
the english list to the general list, where it is
could we just swap mailing list names since
discussions relevant on english matter are on the
general list, while discussions relevant to the whole
community are on the english list ?
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
The etiquette lessons are a good idea. For starters, if RKs coming back,
there ought to be a gentlemens agreement that the Nazi comparisons be
tossed aside. This pertains to RK in particular.
It is entirely ridiculous for either side to equate the other to Nazism.
Nazism was a product of the contradictions of German society, within the
context of Germanys political culture, German traditions, the peculiarities
of the various actors, and the capacity of Germanys material development.
It was not the product of a mutual, mass-based conflict between Jews and
gentiles in Germany, whereas the Israeli-Palestinian matter is an us versus
them conflict, which escalated in such a way that bred hatred. If one were
provide similes, the suicide bombings and targeted assassinations would be
analogous to a couple of old, bitter enemies finally having enough, and
lashing out violently against each other. The final solution, on the other
hand, would be analogous to a serial killer, such as John Wayne Gacy, Ted
Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, acting out his frustrations and arbitrarily
picking out certain types of people in a killing spree.
At this point, we can still set some informal agreements to avoid having
peoples feelings hurt. We could firmly set limits on the more outlandish
hyperbole, such as the historically groundless use of the Nazi tag as a
means of rhetoric.
Now, let me address the issue of mass-based conflicts (not the Holocaust
which was no mutual conflict, but sheep being led to the slaughter house)
played out on Wikipedia flame wars. In general, among the parties involved
in an escalated conflict, the conceptions of reality (vis-à-vis the other
party) start taking on ideas that have little basis in reality. Conflict is
never primordial, but when they take on a mass-based element, and escalate
ideologically to a certain level, easy settlements (e.g., carrot and stick,
incorporation, concessions, separation, or coalition) become extremely
difficult. Attrition, more conflict, or total defeat of one group, are the
only realistic outcomes.
Thus, its no coincidence although other factors are certainly involved
that the total wars of the past century coincided with the modern age of
mass culture, nationalism, and mass society. While cleavages breeding mass
hatreds certainly predate modern times, the capacity for mass hatred between
peoples was certainly facilitated by advancements in communication and
transportation, the rise of the nation-state, and new social contradictions.
As an aside, Israels leaders were not skillful enough to handle the
Palestinian matter before generations were born and reared in refugee camps.
For good or for ill, a free online medium like Wikipedia will inevitably
become a form for anyone with internet access who has found the site to play
out these strong tensions. And any attempts to avoid this, so long as we can
stop anyone from SUCCESSFULLY using the site to promote an agenda, will be
futile. Anyone can log in; and if we start banning people in droves, and
developing committees to keep the RK-types and proxy wars out, then we no
longer have a free encyclopedia. Furthermore, with Wikipedia more popular
than Britannica, oversight committees and planning becomes impossible.
Let me use another analogy. Rationalized planning worked well in the Soviet
Union until a point: achieving the fastest rate of industrial development
ever, fastest rate of social mobility ever, and incredible advancements in
living standards (between the period in which the Soviets started reaping
the benefits of industrialization and the onset of stagnation in the 1970s),
but it eventually exhausted its capacity. Eventually, it was the victim of
its own success, creating complexity (e.g., technological development, an
intricate division of labor, so much diversification, such a high degree of
occupational specialization) that the planners couldnt handle. It worked
when for the Soviets when they had a lot of peasants and a lot of
hard-to-extract resources (not a humane combination ) in the beginning; and
regulating things to avoid partisan flame wars on Wikipedia might work for
us in the beginning. But this site is growing so fast that ability for all
these conflicts to be managed by a tight community will be exhausted. Its
time to accept that were going to have to deal with a more de-centralized
approach. RKs rivals will do a better job managing him than committees,
mailing lists, and developers.
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy
patented spam protection and more. Sign up now!
>There's a war going on as to what to call the Elizabeth Smart article.
>It can't be just [[Elizabeth Smart]], because that's a disambiguation page.
>It can't be [[Elizabeth Anne Smart]] because she isn't known by her middle
>name. It was at [[Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim)]] yesterday, but is now
>at [[Elizabeth Smart (2000s media sensation)]] , which, IMHO, is not only
>offensive to her, but a ridiculous name.
Using a person's middle name or initial is a natural way to disambiguate and
therefore acceptable ([[George W. Bush]]/[[George H. W. Bush]]). [[Elizabeth
Smart (kidnap victim)]] would be my second choice. The 'media sensation' one
has got to go, though.
I see the article is at [[Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim)]] right now, so I'm
happy with that.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> > For the 45% of Americans who are Creationists
> Off topic, but is it really this high? I'd heard lower.
I guess like all surveys and statistics, it depends how you
ask the question and how you work the data ...
Hm. Reminds me of the journalist who lived on New York's
Upper West Side. She said, "No one I know voted for Reagan."
Boy, was /she/ surprised when he beat Carter by a landslide
Uncle Ed "There are 3 kinds of statisticians, those who can
count and those who can't."
"Stan Shebs" <shebs(a)apple.com> schrieb:
> Heh, that's why I haven't wrote it up on a [[Wikipedia:]] page. But speaking
> to your examples, I would refine "affects" to mean that which people are
> conscious of; the recipients of mail are not really aware of the postal
> carrier, and the maintenance person who fixes a phone switch and thereby
> enables a million people to make phone calls is still anonymous. Leif
> people via his story, which is taught to millions of students; thus his
> notability derives from being written about, just as it does for victims
> of sensational crimes - and voila, things are brought full circle. :-)
I would not use the word 'affect' for something like that. It's more like
a measure of how "famous" a person is.
"Stan Shebs" <shebs(a)apple.com> schrieb:
> Beware of genealogical publications though. My mother's side of the
> family is
> Mormon, and they have lots and lots of confirmable people and dates.
I also have at least two books that have been written of certain parts of my descent. I even
used one of them as my source for a (Dutch) Wikipedia article (although for someone who
had a more important claim to fame than just having been born and died and gotten
a family in between).
> So I think you do need some notion of importance. One of the ideas I've
> out is to count the people to whom the article subject matters in some
> way; London
> is in because it affects billions of people, the cat in the tree is out
> it only affects the people on the street and the writer for the newspaper,
> 100 people tops.
> I've been testing this mentally on various topics, and a number somewhere
> between 500 and 5,000 seems plausible. I don't think it would make sense to
> try and pick a number and impose it as a rule, but it makes a good sniff
> for things that seem obscure. For instance, most consuls of ancient
> Rome are
> very obscure today, but once upon a time they ruled millions, and are
> for that
> reason encyclopedia-worthy.
I find this kind of rule little convincing. 'Affected' is much too
ill-defined. My mailman delivered post to hundreds of addresses today.
Leif Ericsson made a colony of a few dozen people in North America, and
fought with what may have been not more than a similar number of natives
there. So does this mean that my postman should be in, but Leif Ericson
should be out? Don't think so...
The current entry in Wikipedia under the heading "Intact dilation and
extraction" does not treat the subject as a medical abortion procedure - which it
is - but rather as something open to multiple interpretations and with moral
implications, which is not a part of any clinical medical procedure. While
almost any medical/surgical procedure can be said to have a moral component,
the actual procedure is in fact somewhat mechanical and devoid of morality.
The issue of the ethics of abortion use, or any other medical procedure for
that matter, in other words the issue of whether a particular medical
protocol should be a part of the approved regimen for public practice of medicine,
is an issue for the medical ethics boards and society as a whole to decide.
When these two components - medical ethics, and the mechanics of a medical
procedure - are attempted to be intermixed, you wind up with an article that is
neither fish nor fowel and is too imprecise from either viewpoint to be of
Let me refer you to a couple of politically loaded statements in the current
It suggests that the name of the procedure may be replaced by Late Term
Abortion - which is a synonym - when in fact D&X (ID&X) is *clearly a mid
trimester proceudre*, which under very very rare circumstances might be possible to
use late term. To present LTA as a synonym for this procedure therefore is
just plain incorrect.
In associating the term D&X with the unequivocally undefined political term
"Partial Birth Abortion" once more the implication, clearly, is that the
procedure is performed close to a normal birth, or perhaps even during a birth,
when in fact it can be stated without any equivocation that the majority of
such fetuses, if the pregnancy were not deliberately terminated by an induced
abortion at the point D&Xs are performed, but by a medical mishap which caused
the woman's body to prematurely expel them in a spontaneous abortion, would
be considered miscarriages.
Re: Delerium/Mark's suggestion concerning the use of "Partial dilation and
extraction". It is a term I am totally unfamiliar with and believe me, if it
were a part of the usual, and possibly even unusual, abortion nomenclature I
would be familiar with it.
With respect to the Wikipedia project:
This was a new phenomenon to me but I was indirectly introduced to it
through a reference in an essay I was asked to evaluate. Naturally I am suspicious
of any appeal to authority, which after all is what a dictionary or
encyclopedia reference is, and thought to check the reliability of the source. I was
totally amazed at the lack of real scholarship displayed in that particular
I was further dismayed to discover that your attempt at a democratic,
co-operative project lends itself to a tyranny of the loudest voice; or the fastest
editorial pen; or the most persistent objecter. Also disappointing is the
fact that under the guise of a neutral viewpoint political jargon is being
passed of as reliable and accurate information.
When an essay/paper uses a dictionary or encyclopedia as an information
reference source I recognize the danger in this but expect at least some form of
editorial responsibility will ameliorate the gross distortions found in some
less notable journalistic outlets. Your "free for all" approach does not
appear to lend itself to editorial responsibility and overview, however. There
has to be a point where the buck ends and somebody (or perhaps group) takes
responsibility for obviously false content by refusing to permit it to be
printed. This will, of course, require a good deal of intestinal fortitude on the
part of such a person but without such responsibility to readers the result
is an unreliable and unpalatable goulash.
I entered this fray because I thought the Wikipedia concept had merit.
However without a responsible editor or editorial board which will make clear
what will NOT be accepted there is no chance of producing the reliable source of
accurate information I would like to see used.
It has been implied here that I have a "hidden agenda". I make no secret,
both in my web page and with the tag on my letters, that I am an abortion
choice supporter (I prefer the neutral terms "choice supporter" and "abortion
opponent" BTW). However my objective here was to achieve some form of accurate
entry(ies) in this subject area. Under the heading 'Abortion' for instance is
the information "Very late abortions can be brought about by the
controversial intact dilation and extraction (D & X)... " Refer to my statement above
for the inaccuracy of this statement. The same article refers in the
information concerning 'depression and abortion' to a study by David Reardon, a
nototrious anti abortion zealot from the Elliott Institute, who, along with the
co-author of the paper Cougle, preface their paper making unwarranted claims they
attribute to an article by Major et al. The article they reference, in fact,
makes conclusions directly opposite to their own - in fact Major et al
clearly conclude that women experiencing negative psychological responses or
regret after abortion are those with prior episodes of depression. Furthermore the
claim of "Post Abortion Stress", claimed by the likes of Reardon et al, has
never been demonstrated to exist by the American Psychological Association.
None of the APA information is referenced here.
Unfortunately it does not appear that the presentation and preservation of
accurate innformation would be possible under your present editorial policies.
Thank you for indulging me,
Cada niño un niño querido.
Chaque enfant un enfant voulu.
Jedes Kind ein gewünschtes Kind.
Cada criança uma criança querida
Ogni bambino un bambino desiderato.
Every child a wanted child.
NEU FÜR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - für Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gruß, GMX FotoService
Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++
It might be advisable to move the donation message somewhere else, since
it is included in the Google summaries, leaving only very little room
for lines from the article that are relevant to the search term.
The Google result for "Otto Rank" for instance looks like this:
Otto Rank - Wikipedia
Otto Rank. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Find out how you can help
support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth. ... External link. Otto Rank.com. ...
Not all Google results show the donation message, possibly because they
haven't been indexed recently.
The whole repetition of "Otto Rank. From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia." is redundant. Maybe it is possible to add "the free
encyclopedia" to the HTML title of the page, and then reorder the
contents so that Google will pick up directly at the first sentence of
the article (which will typically contain the search term).
I think it would be sensible to create a new mailing list: WikiEN-A -- which is primarily for the purposes of discussing articles which, for whatever reason, have become unwieldy to discuss via the talk page. Frankly, its time that a message board was created; and, time more people started using the mIRC chatroom.
Thank you, Jimbo. These are good guidelines. I'll follow them.
Sorry about BOTH being a jerk and antagonizing jerks. One time recently,
you had to write me privately to get me shut up.
Sorry about extending the, um, controversial medical procedure
It's going to be a lot harder to curb the one-lines, though. I used to
think I was quite a wit until someone pointed out I was only half-right.
;-) Ed Poor :=> Get, it? "Half-witted!"