WikiEN-l October 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

91 participants
397 discussions

username policy
by Martin Harper 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Jimbo asks: > What's our exact policy on this? I'd be happy to issue a ruling, but > I'd prefer to stick with exact precedent. But I don't remember what > that is. Advice and policy page (edit mercilessly): http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:username Last I checked, Jimbo had delegated the ability to make the final and binding decision to developers, interpreting the will of the broader community. Which I'm sure will be done in due course, if it proves necessary. The most recent precedent was [[user:SH]], where Tim Starling made the final decision, after taking into account everyone's opinion. hth, -Martin "MyRedDice" Harper

1 0

Re: Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!
by Daniel Mayer 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

LDan wrote: >Almost all of Wikipedia is unsourced! Yeah, so? And the great, great majority of that information is easily confirmed. We are talking about the stuff that cannot be easily confirmed /when somebody checks/. >If you have a question about the source, just ask >whoever wrote it. That isn't always so easy. Besides the question has to do with the article, so the best place for that is the talk page. You are operating on the assumption that the person who wrote the material is really the only person who could answer the question - not so. If the material is in fact legit, then any number of people who visit that article's talk page can respond. >That way, they will be a lot quicker to respond. If the removal is more than a smallish paragraph, then it would make sense to also inform the user directly. But, only when this info is easily obtained without having to sort through dozens of diffs. >I almost never watch articles I write, That is your choice. >and if someone took off some of my content because >it's"unsourced", there's little chance I'd go back and >find it and write the source. If you care about that, then hit 'Watch this page' more often. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

2 1

Jeezis needs a name change
by Daniel Mayer 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

LDan wrote: >That sounds completely arbitrary. I think all >usernames should be allowed. How do usernames affect >our development as an encyclopedia? Because it makes a POV statement. Remember that pesky thing called NPOV we have to follow? Having a user name like that doesn't help the process since it states, rather up-front, what a user's POV is. That's not what user names are for. It also looks bad in page histories and on Recent Changes since it appears as if we are composed of a group of POV partisans creating POV text; downstream users will be more weary of any edits made by such a user name. /That/ doesn't bode well for the widespread adoption of our text. --mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!
by Sheldon Rampton 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Ed Poor wrote: >I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their >junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as >scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer. > >We need to start cracking down on contributors who do this. > >I'm talking about the dozens of places in which environmentalist >contributors keep inserting their unattributed claim that there is a >CONSENSUS that supports their POV. I'm talking about PhD scientists like >William Connolley who insert statements like "Singer is wrong" into >articles instead of NAMING the scientists who disagree with Singer and >saying WHY they disagree. It is ironic, to say the least, that Ed Poor equates a scientist like William Connolley (whose actual research field is climate science) with "environmentalists" engaged in "junk science," even though Ed himself is not a scientist. I think anyone who carefully reads the history of the global warming article will see that Connolley has brought a wealth of detailed knowledge to the topic, while Ed on the other hand has thrown in simplistic generalizations and numerous factual errors that others have had to correct. If anyone doubts that this is the case and wants me to prove it, I can list some of those errors here. To give just one example, Ed falsely claimed (on the global warming talk page) that the National Association of Science predicted a looming ice age in 1975. I corrected him, and to his credit he backed off of his error. One again, however, it illustrates his pattern of factual sloppiness mixed with disdain for leading scientific voices and organizations. (The NAS is the most prestigious scientific body in the U.S. and arguably the world). As for the complaint that William Connolley inserted the statement "Singer is wrong," I haven't seen that particular statement. It doesn't appear in the current version of the global warming article. If Connolley did insert it previously, someone else has already removed it, which would suggest that if there was indeed a problem, it self-corrected in the usual wiki way. >I've tried being cordial affable. I've tried patiently explaining NPOV. >Nothing works. These advocates keep injecting their POV back into the >articles, even using smear tactics against scientists who report >findings which disagree with environmentalist POV. I've followed enough of Ed's involvement in the global warming article to conclude that: (1) He hasn't been very "cordial" or "affable." He attacked me personally over the global warming article, for example, at a time when I hadn't even made any contributions to it. In fact, his habitual use of abusive language like "junk science" is itself a "smear tactic." (2) Ed has tried, repeatedly and aggressively, to inject his own point of view into the global warming article. Accusing others of doing this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. (3) In a number of cases, Ed has inserted claims that are clearly false and misleading, such as his statement awhile back that "Environmentalists and atmospheric scientists are at odds over the global warming hypothesis." This statement (which has since been removed in the usual self-correcting wiki way) deceptively suggested that the debate over global warming is between "environmentalists" vs. "scientists," when in fact the debate is between "proponents of the global warming hypothesis" (a group that includes most environmentalists and most atmospheric scientists) vs. "global warming skeptics" (a group that includes mostly non-scientists such as Ed himself). >I can't stop three dozen other contributors from injecting bias into the >scientific articles relating to the environment. Not by myself -- not by >slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and explaining it. I'm >outnumbered and outgunned. Ed seems to think that his lone voice is somehow entitled to outweigh the voice of "three dozen other contributors." On what basis? It certainly isn't on the basis of Ed's possessing superior credentials regarding the topic under discussion. Credential-wise, William Connolley has Ed beat all to hell. I'd like him to explain what he thinks makes him so damn special that he is entitled to "outgun" the overwhelming majority of contributors to that article. >I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that >doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a >temporary ban. > >Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy to see me back. >Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me. I call on Jimbo to make sure that Ed doesn't abuse his powers to inject his own minority point of view into an article about which he clearly feels very passionate while lacking sufficient knowledge or perspective to serve as any kind of arbiter of what constitutes fairness and balance. -- -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception --------------------------------

7 8

Please change the embarrassing donations message
by Daniel Mayer 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

--- James Duffy <jtdire(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >... >Please re-read what I wrote and stop > mis-interpreting it. I read it again. And yep, it still annoyingly uses the word "Wiki" as if it were the proper name of Wikipedia. I know you don't intend it this way, but that is insulting to the other wikis in the Wikimedia family, not to mention all the other wikis on the Internet. I did not believe for a moment that your exact wording or length of your message would be used, and in fact agree with your overall message and have helped address your concerns. The improper use of the "Wiki", however, is just a major pet peeve of mine (hence my statement about bad chalk on a blackboard - it is oftentimes painful to read your messages because of this). -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

Not hopping, but still mightily annoyed
by Poor, Edmund W 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Sheldon claimed: << Ed on the other hand has thrown in simplistic generalizations and numerous factual errors that others have had to correct. If anyone doubts that this is the case and wants me to prove it, I can list some of those errors here. To give just one example, Ed falsely claimed (on the global warming talk page) that the National Association of Science predicted a looming ice age in 1975. I corrected him, and to his credit he backed off of his error. One again, however, it illustrates his pattern of factual sloppiness mixed with disdain for leading scientific voices and organizations. (The NAS is the most prestigious scientific body in the U.S. and arguably the world). >> Sorry about my "false claim", Sheldon. Perhaps I was wrong to believe Lowell Ponte, who attributed the "ice age" prediction to the NAS: > In "The Cooling: Has the next ice age already begun? Can we > survive it?", published in 1975 by Prentice--Hall, its author > Lowell Ponte captures the then prevailing mood: "The NAS report > was shocking, for it represented a warning from some of the > world's most conservative scientists that an Ice Age beginning in > the near future . . . was not impossible." Contending that we may > be "on the brink of a [10,000 year] period of colder climate," the > NAS urged an immediate near- quadrupling of funds for research. > "We simply cannot afford to be unprepared for either a natural or > man-made climatic catastrophe [of global cooling]." => Quoted at http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/sciaddheat.html Or maybe I was wrong to believe that S. Fred Singer was quoting Ponte correctly. Or maybe I just misunderstood the quote. You're an expert on disinformation, and you probably have Ponte's book on your shelf. On the other hand, if Singer correctly quoted Ponte, and if he in turn correctly characterized the views of the NAS, then maybe my mistake lay in knuckling under to pressure from a biased, axe-grinding environmentalist. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't fit, stop beating me over the head with it! Ed Poor

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!
by Vicki Rosenzweig 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

At 05:09 PM 10/7/03 -0400, Ed Poor wrote: >I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their >junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as >scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer. I'm awfully tired of watching you inject your junk science POV into articles, and palming it off as scientific fact. *Most* scientists working in the field agree that global warming is a fact: the disagreements are about causes, and about how much warming is likely in the next century and what effect that is going to have on human and other life on Earth. >I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that >doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a >temporary ban. What gives you more right than anyone else to issue "official warnings"? I haven't been following this list closely in the last few days--I'd rather work on an encyclopedia--so someone please let me know if there is *any* reason/rule in the current structure of the Wikipedia by which Ed can make such threats *on a subject he has been actively editing on*, and if so, whether that same rule would allow some other sysop to ban Ed instead. -- Vicki Rosenzweig vr(a)redbird.org http://www.redbird.org

2 1

Re : anti-scientific biais
by Anthere 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

From: Delirium <delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com> tarquin wrote: > Sheldon Rampton wrote: > >> (3) In a number of cases, Ed has inserted claims that are clearly >> false and misleading, such as his statement awhile back that >> "Environmentalists and atmospheric scientists are at odds over the >> global warming hypothesis." This statement (which has since been >> removed in the usual self-correcting wiki way) deceptively suggested >> that the debate over global warming is between "environmentalists" >> vs. "scientists," when in fact the debate is between "proponents of >> the global warming hypothesis" (a group that includes most >> environmentalists and most atmospheric scientists) vs. "global >> warming skeptics" (a group that includes mostly non-scientists such >> as Ed himself). > Tarquin >> it seems to me that most global warming skeptics are from the US. >> For example, all the major political parties in the UK support Kyoto. Delirium >This is getting off-topic, but one should be careful >not to automatically link treaties like the Kyoto >protocol and the scientific debate over global >warming. The consensus that global warming occurs is >fairly strong, but the consensus that the Kyoto >protocol is the right thing to do about it is >significantly less strong--that is, there are people >who think global warming exists who nonetheless think >that the Kyoto protocol is not the right way to fix >it. This is, notably, the official US position on the >issue ("we need to do something about global warming, >but this isn't that something"), mostly due to >concerns that Kyoto gives developing countries a free >ride, and so just encourages moving polluting >factories out of 1st-world countries, resulting in no >net benefit to the global ecosystem. >(Note that I'm ambivalent on the issue myself, just >noting that this distinction does exist. Perhaps Bush >is a bad example to pick since you may or may not >believe the sincerity of his views on this issue, but >there are more legitimate scientists who hold similar >viewpoints.) Yes ? Is it an affirmation or is it an assumption you are making ? Do you have names of legitimate scientists who hold the viewpoint that Kyoto is not a good solution to provide ? In particular, do you have names of non-american "legitimate" scientists who hold that point of view ? Then, if there are many (?) american scientifics who hold that point of view, but none non-american, how do you define "consensus" ? Compared to say, many indian scientifics who hold while no american do ? The above argument you provide against Kyoto is political. Where are the scientific arguments When you write "The consensus that global warming occurs is fairly strong, but the consensus that the Kyoto protocol is the right thing to do about it is significantly less strong", are you talking about a poorly significant consensus among politicians, or are you talking of a poorly significant consensus among scientists ? "that is, there are people who think global warming exists who nonetheless think that the Kyoto protocol is not the right way to fix it." Yup. There are people... people... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: WikiEN-l Anti-scientific bias
by Anthere 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> Rick wrote: >> I VOCIFEROUSLY object to Ed Poor's taking these POV >matters into his >> own hands. Banning people is a last resort, not >something to do >> because he disagrees with their edits. If he tries >to ban them, I >> will immediately unban them unless he can prove that >they deserve to >> be banned. Do we really want to start a banning war? >It's hard to imagine that Ed would not have forseen >the can of worms >that he was opening with his comments. :-( And why did he opened it ? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jeezis needs a name change
by Andrew 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Daniel Mayer wrote: >SV wrote: >>Jesus is Lord! needs a name change-- the WP:NOU >>policy was designed for User:THROBBING MONSTER.. >>and really should be renamed as something like no >>controversial usernames, or no inflammatory usernames. >> >>The use of Jesus in a name is designed to be >>inflammatory. >I agree. User names are not supposed to express any sort of religious or >political message. "Jesus is Lord!" is offensive to non-Christinans and >atheists. >-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) I'm not particularly offended.. but I dunno. ehh.

2 1

← Newer
1
...
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
...
40
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l October 2003