> Exactly. I'm surprised this is even an issue. It would beyond silly to
only
> refer to Leningrad as Saint Petersburg in a separate article dealing with
the
> history of the Soviet Union. Likewise it would be very odd to refer to the
> United Kingdom in an article about the Norman Invasion. Gaul/France along
> with Constantinople/Istanbul are other examples (as would be
> Londinium/London, for that matter - Peking/Beijing is a different matter
> dealing with a change in the accepted English transliteration).
Another datum: [[Newfoundland]] refers to the island, and [[Newfoundland and
Labrador]] the province; when I set this up, I went through all the articles
that mentioned Newfoundland, and those that were historic references to the
colony, dominion, or province (under the then-correct name "Newfoundland"),
I changed it to [[Newfoundland and Labrador|Newfoundland]]. That seemed
fairly reasonable.
Matt
Ed Poor wrote:
>Why not have the [[partial-birth abortion]] article be
>about the LEGAL aspects? You know, that bill the US
>Congress passed this month.
Hm. Interesting idea. We could also throw most of the controversy about the
procedure there. Of course in the first paragraph we would need to refer to
the actual medical procedure and link to it.
>The bill creates a legal term for a specific act
>(which will become illegal if the president signs
>the bill). The article will then correctly refer to the
>illegal act.
This makes sense.
>If I get (or stay?) involved with writing that article,
>I can link to [[intact dilation and extraction]] (pro-choice)
>and [[infanticide]] (pro-life or "anti-choice"), too!
Well no article should be 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life', but it does make sense
to separate subjects from each other on a logical basis after the article
gets to a certain length. So [[intact dilation and extraction]] could be
mostly about the medical procedure while [[partial-birth abortion]] can be
mostly about the controversy/legality/morality of using that procedure (both
are separate subjects). Both articles will have to briefly summarize the
other and provide a link.
There certainly is enough material on both topics to justify two articles and
the proprosed scheme seems to be a natural way to disambiguate the subjects
(in any medical context [[intact dilation and extraction]] will be linked to,
while in any political context [[partial-birth abortion]] will be linked to).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Why not have the [[partial-birth abortion]] article be about the LEGAL
aspects? You know, that bill the US Congress passed this month.
The bill creates a legal term for a specific act (which will become
illegal if the president signs the bill). The article will then
correctly refer to the illegal act.
If I get (or stay?) involved with writing that article, I can link to
[[intact dilation and extraction]] (pro-choice) and [[infanticide]]
(pro-life or "anti-choice"), too!
Ed Poor
No one has a legal right to "edit" on the Wikimedia servers.
But *everyone* has a moral AND legal right to edit any article they like
and post it, print it, sell it, etc. -- wherever they want, other than
at Wikimedia -- without any limit. This is called the "right to fork".
It's an essential aspect of the GFDL.
I'm not anal (I mean, IANAL), but I know this much...
Ed Poor
As per a suggestion by Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> I wish to bring this
matter to your attention.
I did try a correction earlier in the 'edit this entry' function but I
believe the edit I am suggesting is a little more than it can handle.
TIA Eileen
RE:
http:/en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intact_dilation_and_extraction
I am unsure of the procedure for making the type of changes that this page
requires in order to make it accurate. This is obviously a subject which has
been subjected to a great deal of controversy and dare I say propaganda and
this has led to a great deal of erroneous information disseminated as fact.
There are a number of major errors in the Wikipedia entry describing the D&X
abortion procedure. The most glaring error is the statement that this sis a
late term abortion. While it might be described as a late abortion,
performed around the middle of the pregnancy, it is certainly almost never performed
"Late Term" which is the last third of the pregnancy or to be technically
correctly after 26.6 weeks. This procedure would usually be impossible to
perform that late in the pregnancy.
I also note the use of "birth canal" to describe the vagina as if a woman
had an exit chute on her baby factory; and the use of "womb" in place of
'uterus'. Both these terms, and the misstatement of the time the procedure is
performed, lead me to believe the article was mainly written by somebody opposed
to abortion who was more interested in getting a subtle message out then
actually providing honest information. Since we are describing a medical
procedure appropriate medical/biological terminology which is well understood by the
general population is the appropriate vocabulary.
May I suggest reading this article before using the term "PBA" as loosely as
it is used in your current entry.
http://womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/499/
I have linked Dr. Haskell's paper on my web site. To the best of my
knowledge since this was presented at a public forum and also was presented into
evidence at a Senate hearing it would be considered "public domain' so there
really is no reason you may not add it to your papers if you so desire.
I have redone your page and would be happy to discuss any corrections you
see needed. You have my full permission to use the page as I have amended it
since much of the work on its creation had already been done by you.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter and I look forward to
hearing from you. I would prefer to retain my anonymity, since I have been
subjected to threats in the past, but would suggest that if you are interested in
confirming the facts as I presented them Dr. Haskell would probably be your
best source,
Eileen E
EileenE(a)GMX.Net
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.
http://www.eileene.cjb.net
________________________________________________________________________
_________Amended Intact dilation and extraction - Wikipedia page_______
________________________________________________________________________
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html lang="en"><head><title>Intact dilation and extraction -
Wikipedia</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="robots" content="index,follow">
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/style/wikistandard.css">
<script type="text/javascript" src="/style/wikibits.js"></script>
<style type='text/css'><!--
a.new, #quickbar a.new { color: #CC2200; }
#quickbar { position: absolute; top: 4px; left: 4px; border-right: 1px solid
gray; }
#article { margin-left: 152px; margin-right: 4px; }
//--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor='#FFFFFF'>
<div id='content'>
<div id='topbar'><table width='98%' border=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td
width='152' rowspan='1'> </td><td class='top' align='left' valign='top'><a
href="/wiki/Main_Page" title="Main Page">Main Page</a> |
<a href="/wiki/Special:Recentchanges" title="Special:Recentchanges">Recent
changes</a> |
<a href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intact_dilation_and_extraction&action=edit"
title="Intact dilation and extraction">Edit this page</a> |
<a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intact_dilation_and_extraction&action=history" title="Intact dilation and extraction">Page history</a><p
class='subtitle'><a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intact_dilation_and_extraction&printable=yes" title="Intact dilation and extraction">Printable version</a></td>
<td class='top' valign='top' align='right' nowrap>Not logged in
<br><a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Userlogin&returnto=Intact_dilation_and_extraction" title="Special:Userlogin">Log in</a> | <a
href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Help" title="Wikipedia:Help">Help</a>
<br><form name='search' class='inline' method=get
action="/w/wiki.phtml"><input type=text name="search" size=19 value="">
<input type=submit name="go" value="Go"> <input type=submit
value="Search"></form></td></tr></table>
</div>
<div id='article'><h1 class='pagetitle'>Intact dilation and
extraction</h1><p class='subtitle'>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<br><small>Find out how you can help <a
href='http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising'
class='internal'>support</a> Wikipedia's phenomenal growth.</small>
<p><a name="top"></a><p><table border="0" id="toc"><tr><td align="center">
<b>Table of contents</b> <script
type='text/javascript'>showTocToggle("show","hide")</script></td></tr><tr id='tocinside'><td align="left">
<div style="margin-bottom:0px;">
<A CLASS="internal" HREF="#Definition">1 Definition</A><BR>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:0px;">
<A CLASS="internal"
HREF="#Circumstances_in_which_the_procedure_is_performed">2 Circumstances in which the procedure is performed</A><BR>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:0px;">
<A CLASS="internal"
HREF="#Legal_and_political_situation_in_the_United_States">3 Legal and political situation in the United States</A><BR>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:2em;">
<A CLASS="internal" HREF="#About_the_terminology">3.1 About the
terminology</A><BR>
<A CLASS="internal" HREF="#Efforts_to_ban_the_procedure">3.2 Efforts to ban
the procedure</A><BR>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:0px;">
<A CLASS="internal"
HREF="#Legal_and_political_situation_in_the_United_Kingdom">4 Legal and political situation in the United Kingdom</A><BR>
</div>
</td></tr></table><P>
<H2><a name="Definition">Definition</a></H2>
<p>
<strong>Intact dilation and extraction</strong> is a mid-term or second
trimester <a href="/wiki/Abortion" title="Abortion">abortion</a> technique in
which the patient's <a href="/wiki/Cervix" title="Womb">cervix</a> which is the
muscle ring that controls entry to the <a href="/wiki/Uterus"><b> uterus
</b></a> is dilated and the <a href="/wiki/Fetus" title="Fetus">fetus</a>
extracted in substantially one piece. The term <em>"dilation and extraction"</em>
or <em>"D&X"</em> was coined in 1992 by Dr. Martin Haskell to describe a
variation on the more common Dilation and Evacuation (D&E - see below). At the
same time roughly Dr. James McMahon, since deceased, developed a similar but
substantially different procedure procedure which could be used later in the
pregnancy and he used the term <em>"intact dilation and evacuation"</em> to
identify it. Dr Haskell's procedure eventually became known by the term
<em>"intact D&X"</em> which was the name he used to describe it when he<a
href=http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Haskell_Desc.html><b> presented a paper
</b></a> on the procedure to his peers in 1992.
<p>
<H2><a
name="Circumstances_in_which_the_procedure_is_performed">Circumstances in which the procedure is performed</a></H2>
<p>
Intact D&X procedures are performed by only a small number of abortion
providers currently and for this reason they are much less common than the D&E
procedure which is the preferred second trimester method in the USA. They are
most frequently used in the second trimester between weeks 18 and 21 of
pregnancy. Only about 0.01% of abortions are performed after this point so this
makes the D&X even more rare after week 21. They may be performed during the
third trimester of <a href="/wiki/Pregnancy" title="Pregnancy">pregnancy</a>
if they are possible and one of the requirements would be that the fetus be
small for gestational age (SGA). This is because the head, the largest part of
the fetus, must be made small enough to permit it to be extracted through the
minimally dilated cervix. After the second trimester the head is normally
too large for such a procedure and further dilation of the cervix might damage
the cervix and compromise future pregnancies for the woman.
This procedure is chosen when the physician performing the abortion has the
skills needed and may be the procedure of choice when:
<ul><li>The fetus is <a href="/wiki/Dead" title="Dead">dead</a>.
</li><li>The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's
life in severe danger.
</li><li>The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage
the woman's health and/or disable her.
</li><li>The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and
will die shortly after birth.
</li><li>The fetus is alive, but the woman wishes to end her pregnancy for
non-medical/psychological reasons.
</li><li>The woman has for reasons of her own requested that her pregnancy
be terminated before the fetus is viable in states where this is legal. Most
states do not legally permit abortions past the point of viability, usually
considered to be 23/24 weeks today.
</li></ul><p>
One of the fetal defects which fall into this category is <a
href="/wiki/Hydrocephalus" title="Hydrocephalus">hydrocephalus</a> which physicians refer to
as a neuralk tube defect. Approximately 1 in 2,000 fetuses develop
hydrocephalus while in the uterus; this is about 5,000 a year in the <a
href="/wiki/United_States" title="United States">United States</a>. The defect is not
usually discovered until late in the second <a href="/wiki/Trimester"
title="Trimester">trimester</a> of pregnancy.
<p>
If a fetus develops hydrocephalus, the <a href="/wiki/Head"
title="Head">head</a> may expand to a size of up to 250% of the radius of a newborn <a
href="/wiki/Skull" title="Skull">skull</a>, making it impossible for it to perform
a removal through the <a href="/wiki/Vagina" title="Vagina">vagina</a>. In
such a case, the <a href="/wiki/Physician" title="Physician">physician</a> may
elect to perform an intact D&X procedure by draining off the fluid from the
<a href="/wiki/Brain" title="Brain">brain</a> area, which permits the fetal
skull to collapse and the bones in the skull to slide over each other, then
withdrawing the dead fetus through the partly dilated cervix. You might think
of this as rtrying to remove an inflated baloon through a small hole in a
paper bag without tearing the bag. Once the baloon is deflated the removal is
easy. A type of caesarian section delivery, called a hysterotomy, may allow the
delivery of a hydrocephalic fetus although such major surgery, with its
inherent dangers, is not always in the best interest of the woman. Furthermore
the hysterotomy may leave a scar that is easily ruptured in future
pregnancies.
<p>
In the 2 to 3 day procedure, the <a href="/wiki/Cervix"
title="Cervix">cervix</a> is dilated. The fetus is delivered feet-first, facing toward the
woman's spine. The <a href="/wiki/Surgeon" title="Surgeon">surgeon</a> inserts a
sharp object into the soft opening at the bottom of the fetal head just above
the neck, and then inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains and its
fluids are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows
the fetus to be more easily removed from the <a href="/wiki/Uterus"
title="Uterus">womb</a>. The fetus can then be removed with less damage to the woman.
The technique was pioneered by Dr. <a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Martin_Haskell&action=edit" class='new' title="Martin Haskell">Martin Haskell</a> in <a
href="/wiki/1992" title="1992">1992</a>.
<p>
Intact D&X procedures are not performed during the first trimester, because
there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow such a
procedure because the fetus' head is quite small at this stage of gestation
and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
<p>
<H2><a name="Legal_and_political_situation_in_the_United_States">Legal and
political situation in the United States</a></H2>
<p>
<H3><a name="About_the_terminology">About the terminology</a></H3>
This procedure is often referred to as "<a
href="/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion" title="Partial-birth abortion">partial-birth abortion</a>" among the media
and among pro-life groups although there has never been a medical
description of this "partial birth abortion" procedure and such descriptions as have
been written into legislation have been continually found unconstitutional
because they can describe a number of different abortion procedures. In the
medical field intact dilation and extraction is sometimes referred to as a <em>D&X
procedure</em> (not to be confused with the much more common variation
<em>D&E procedure</em> (<a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dilation_and_evacuation&action=edit" class='new' title="Dilation and evacuation">dilation and
evacuation</a>.)
<p>
<H3><a name="Efforts_to_ban_the_procedure">Efforts to ban the
procedure</a></H3>
Since <a href="/wiki/1995" title="1995">1995</a>, led by Congressional <a
href="/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party" title="United States Republican
Party">Republicans</a>, the <a
href="/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="United States House of Representatives">U.S. House of
Representatives</a> and <a href="/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States
Senate">U.S. Senate</a> have moved several times to pass measures banning the
procedure. After several long and emotional debates on the issue, such measures
passed twice by wide margins, but <a href="/wiki/United_States_President"
title="United States President">President</a> <a href="/wiki/Bill_Clinton"
title="Bill Clinton">Bill Clinton</a> <a href="/wiki/Veto" title="Veto">vetoed</a>
those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not
include health exceptions. Subsequent Congressional attempts at overriding the
veto were unsuccessful.
<p>
On <a href="/wiki/October_2" title="October 2">October 2</a>, <a
href="/wiki/2003" title="2003">2003</a>, with a vote of 281-142, the <a
href="/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="United States House of
Representatives">House</a> again approved a measure banning the procedure. Through this
legislation, a doctor could face up to two years in prison and face civil
lawsuits for performing such an abortion. A woman who undergoes the procedure
cannot be prosecuted under the measure. On <a href="/wiki/October_21"
title="October 21">October 21</a>, <a href="/wiki/2003" title="2003">2003</a>, the <a
href="/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate">United States
Senate</a> passed the same bill by a vote of 64-34. The measure does not
contain health exemptions, just the same as previous ones considered by the US
Supreme Court. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will also find
the language in the bill (Called S3 in the Senate) too broad to actually
describe an identifiable medical procedure so that physicians who perform
abortions will know exactly what is being banned and what they may and may not do
when performing such surgery. Either or both grounds, health exception and
vague terminology, would permit an appeal to the Supreme Court eventually and if
found valid would render the legislation unconstitutional.
<p>
The <a href="/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union" title="American Civil
Liberties Union">American Civil Liberties Union</a> and the <a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=National_Abortion_Federation&action=edit" class='new'
title="National Abortion Federation">National Abortion Federation</a> planned to file a
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the October 2, S3, bill. Courts
have struck down several similar state statutes.
<p>
<H2><a name="Legal_and_political_situation_in_the_United_Kingdom">Legal and
political situation in the United Kingdom</a></H2>
<p>
Questioned about UK government policy on the issue in <a
href="/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom" title="Parliament of the United
Kingdom">Parliament</a>, ministers of the <a href="/wiki/British_government#Government"
title="British government">British government</a> have stated (for example, on <a
href="/wiki/May_12" title="May 12">May 12</a>, <a href="/wiki/2003"
title="2003">2003</a>) that although this method of abortion would be legal if judged
appropriate, "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth
abortion' being used in Great Britain."
<p>
</div><br clear=all>
<div id='footer'><table width='98%' border=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td
width='152' rowspan='1'> </td><td class='bottom' align='left'
valign='top'><strong><a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intact_dilation_and_extraction&action=edit" title="Intact dilation and extraction">Edit this page</a></strong> |
<a href="/wiki/Talk:Intact_dilation_and_extraction" title="Talk:Intact
dilation and extraction">Discuss this page</a> |
<a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intact_dilation_and_extraction&action=history" title="Intact dilation and extraction">Page history</a> |
<a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Intact_dilation_and_extraction" title="Special:Whatlinkshere">What links here</a> |
<a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Intact_dilation_and_extraction" title="Special:Recentchangeslinked">Related
changes</a><br>
<br><a href="/wiki/Main_Page" title="Main Page">Main Page</a> | <a
href="/wiki/Wikipedia:About" title="Wikipedia:About">About Wikipedia</a> | <a
href="/wiki/Special:Recentchanges" title="Special:Recentchanges">Recent changes</a> |
<form name='search' class='inline' method=get action="/w/wiki.phtml"><input
type=text name="search" size=19 value="">
<input type=submit name="go" value="Go"> <input type=submit
value="Search"></form><br><span id='pagestats'> This page was last modified 01:57, 25
Oct 2003. All text is available under the terms of the <a class=internal
href='/wiki/GNU_FDL'>GNU Free Documentation License</a>.</span></td></tr></table>
</div>
</div>
<div id='quickbar'>
<a href="/wiki/Main+Page"><img border=0 src="/upload/wiki.png" alt="[Main
Page]"></a>
<hr class='sep'><a href="/wiki/Main_Page" title="Main Page">Main Page</a>
<br><a href="/wiki/Special:Recentchanges"
title="Special:Recentchanges">Recent changes</a>
<br><a href="/wiki/Special:Randompage" title="Special:Randompage">Random
page</a>
<br><a href="/wiki/Current_events" title="Current events">Current events</a>
<br><hr class='sep'><strong><a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intact_dilation_and_extraction&action=edit" title="Intact dilation and extraction">Edit this
page</a></strong>
<br><a href="/wiki/Talk:Intact_dilation_and_extraction" title="Talk:Intact
dilation and extraction">Discuss this page</a>
<br><a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intact_dilation_and_extraction&action=history" title="Intact dilation and extraction">Page history</a>
<br><a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Intact_dilation_and_extraction" title="Special:Whatlinkshere">What links here</a>
<br><a
href="/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Intact_dilation_and_extraction" title="Special:Recentchangeslinked">Related
changes</a>
<br><hr class='sep'><a href="/wiki/Special:Specialpages"
title="Special:Specialpages">Special pages</a>
<br><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Bug_reports" title="Wikipedia:Bug reports">Bug
reports</a>
<br><a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising">Donations</a>
<br></div>
</body>
</html>
--
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! +++
From: Brian Corr <BCorr(a)NEAction.org>
>A) Seek Consensus, But Vote: For example, most of the
>organizations have a board of director that votes and
>uses majorities when necessary, but most hesitate to
>accept a vote if it is close, and they prefer to
>achieve something approaching consensus, but will
>accept a decision if there is
>a large majority (this seems similar to Wikipedia).
Nod. Filtered users, older than one month, with more
than 100 major edits are the board.
Perhaps will it be necessary to flag them for easier
management. They could be also those with the right to
"validate" wikipedia for the paper/Cd version.
>C) True Consensus: One organization I work with --
the
>So it might not be too easy with so many Wikipedians
>who like to argue about *everything* ;-)
You noticed ? :-)
Yes, probably not very usable.
btw, is the new deletion policy being submitted to the
2/3 threshold to be adopted, and to consensus ?
Primarily, I think that we need to think about the
concept of voting and how it affects group processes.
Wikipedia is an unusual hybrid of Wiki, NPOV, *and*
altruistic self-interest (i.e., we all get some
satisfaction from what we do here, but we also do it
for the good of the project/community/world). I also
think we need to look at how our decision-making
processes affect how much we are open or closed -- we
can be "open" to everybody, but if only one type of
person can handle being a contributor or editor,
what does that really mean for us.
Very true
As well as the limit where those who do not fit well
in that spirit decide to leave under peer pressure, or
because the rules put them away.
Somehow, I think that when a user does not fit well,
it is quite different that people go to him, and try
to explain, and try to negociate, try to convince him
to change for the better
or just drop a boilerplate on his user page, saying
"this is user does not respect regulations #23.3 bis
and TR-W3 ter - user name blocked".
Of course, second choice is much quicker, and likely,
the person putting the boilerplate feels little
responsability since she is just following a legal
rule. Her action is little controversial. That help
going toward more peace and fluidity.
If the choice is to discuss, it is longer, it is more
controversial, it can generate a lot of heat, perhaps
too much heat.
I was thinking here for example of the issue of
refactoring/removing personal attacks versus not.
If removing is not "legalised", it may be that the
cleaner is attacked himself, reverted, has to insist a
lot to clean the place, to fight for his opinion.
Likely to generate much anger between people
If removing is "legalised", when he does, and someone
complain, he just has to say "look, there is a rule.
If you disagree with my doing so, just change the
rule".
So...perhaps would it be best to have few rules when
the community is strong and can handle disagreement,
and on the contrary strong rules when it is chaotic
and diverse ?
>Anyway, I have been reflecting a little bit about
what >I should focus my energy on -- and it seems like
I >should be writing articles and *not* checking Votes
>for deletion fifteen times each day. But I also feel
>that it is important to pay attention to the
>housekeeping work also, and that often
>takes me back to VfD and to Recent Changes. But I do
>think that we can
>bring something positive to articles and be NPOV --
but >I find it hard to decide the balance between
>*contributing* and *housekeeping*.
:-)
When people start, they write contribute mostly
After a while, they do housekeeping
After, perhaps, they teach others to do the
housekeeping :-)
There are many different task in housekeeping
My laundry is waiting btw
>And here's one more good link to check out:
><http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle>.
I >think we might be somewhere near 17
>(Wiki:DeclineOfCivility -- there are more strangers
>than friends, and AssumeGoodFaith fails as reputation
>is fleeting) and 18 (arrival of the PoliceForces)
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle is a
good link
>Anyway, that what I'm thinking today -- but tomorrow
>it may all change
>;+)>
>Brian
That is what make it worth it :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:31:10 +0800
From: "Andrew Lih" <alih(a)hku.hk>
> On Behalf Of Brian Corr
> A) Seek Consensus, But Vote: For example, most of
the
> organizations have a board of director that votes
and uses majorities
when
> necessary, but most hesitate to accept a vote if it
is close, and
they
> prefer to achieve something approaching consensus,
but will accept a
decision
> if there is a large majority (this seems similar to
Wikipedia).
Yes, this is one of the things we're trying to pin
down with VfD policy
revisions: see [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] and
[[Wikipedia
talk:Deletion policy]] for exact details, but we are
going with
majority
vote, and qualifying voters.
he ! you succeeded to push me to go and read the new
policy Andrew. That is the qualifying voters terms
that motivated me.
I read the new proposed policy, and this were my
feelings
* majority of 2/3 : this is a very low treshold.
Definitly not consensus any more. I was thinking of
all those cases where only three people give their
opinion, two on one side, one against, and those
three being trusted users. And I was wondering if the
fact someone showed expertise or on the contrary never
showed any sign of being knowledgeable in a field
would make a difference. Say, if I create an very
specific article on an agriculture matter, perhaps one
I even work in, and two users that know nothing in
agriculture just say it gets only 100 hits on google,
so just delete it, it will just be deleted even though
these people know nothing of the matter ?
That sounds weird.
*100 major edits and one month old registration.
Whaou, that is huge. I reflected as well on the number
of french editors that stay only about a month, but
provide us 30 very good articles. I see not why they
would not have the right to speak their mind. I
understand quite well the need to avoid vandals
voting, but really, is not the 100 edits a bit high ?
Dunno, a user is allowed to give his opinion on a very
important communication matter such a logo, but is -
by definition, as long as he has not written enough -
not trusted to help cleaning the place ?
Also weird
>One reason why true consensus doesn't really work in
>Wikipedia is that
>voters are not stakeholders, as in your example of
>American Friends
>Service Committee (AFSC). The ease of editing in
>Wikipedia means any
>passing joker can throw a pebble into the gears and
>jam the system.
That is not true. Everything can be reverted. Even
what a sysop do. A passing joker can not *jam* the
system
>So true consensus works only in a membership which is
>filtered in some
>way, or voters are stakeholders in the result.
Probably true.
But then, on votes for deletion, there is now a
proposed procedure to filter the people who have the
right to speak up, still true consensus is not the
choice. 2/3 for filtered, trusted people is very low.
>So in the revised voting procedures for VfD, we try
to >filter or distinguish stakeholders from ballot
>stuffers -- valid voters must have existed for a
while >(days to weeks) and have made 100 article
edits.
yup, but no true consensus afterwards nonetheless
>This seems to be a reasonable enough of a requirement
>to make sure
>voters are stakeholders in Wikipedia's coherence.
>This isn't the first
>time, the Logo vote (gasp!) also stipulated voters
>have at least 10
>edits to their name.
I disagree with 100 major edits being reasonable
requirement.
I hope that this does not progress with only filtered
people over 100 major edits having the right to vote
for NPOV :-)
Seriously
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Delirium wrote:
>This seems a little inconsistent with [[Mumbai]] though --
>by far [[Bombay]] is the most common English name for
>the city (and someone used to Bombay could hardly
>recognize the much-differently-pronounced Mumbai),
Maybe when you and I went to school, but that is not the case anymore.
Searching only English-language websites on Google actually returns a quarter
million more hits for Mumbai than Bombay. And over a third of the Bombay hits
have Mumbai in them.
So this is an example of English usage in transition (like Beijing/Peking was
about 15 years ago). I would expect, however, that outside of India "Bombay"
is still the clear dominant usage, but we cannot forget the tens of millions
of English speaking Indians (many of which speak much gooder than average
yanks and brits).
So in cases where usage is more or less similar between two terms, then using
an "official" name to break the tie seems to make sense to me. Also if there
is a coup or other major change of government and a nation officially changes
its name and the names of its cities, then we should follow that as well
(thinking of Zaire/Democratic Republic of the Congo).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Delirium wrote:
>Transliterations can be tricky issues too. Should we
>always accept the current preferred transliteration,
>or use historic ones when commonly used?
Use the most commonly used form as per our 'common name' naming convention.
However, "official" transiterations sometimes filter into common usage given
enough time. Peking was once the most common name in English for the Chinese
city. But a couple decades of the PRC insisting that the transliteration
should be Beijing changed that.
For now at least, "Makedonia" is a non-starter since very few interested
English speakers will know that that is "Macedonia" (in American English at
least, the "c" in "Macedonia" is pronounced as an "s", but a "k" is never
pronounced as an "s" in English AFAIK). Given enough time English usage of
that term may change or it may not change. It is not our job to hasten that
change - our job is to choose the term most likely to be searched for or
linked to by interested English speakers in the context of an encyclopedia.
Of course we should still mention in the article the name controversy and
what the Greek Ministry of Antiquities thinks the name should be.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Response sent to WikiEN-l instead of Wikipedia-l since this is an en.wikipedia
matter.
Jimbo wrote:
>For example, when referring to a place at a time
>in the past, prefer the name of that time while
>parenthetically pointing out the current name if
>the clarification will be helpful to the reader.
>When referring to a place at a time in the present,
>prefer the present name while parenthetically
>pointing out the past name, blah blah blah.
Exactly. I'm surprised this is even an issue. It would beyond silly to only
refer to Leningrad as Saint Petersburg in a separate article dealing with the
history of the Soviet Union. Likewise it would be very odd to refer to the
United Kingdom in an article about the Norman Invasion. Gaul/France along
with Constantinople/Istanbul are other examples (as would be
Londinium/London, for that matter - Peking/Beijing is a different matter
dealing with a change in the accepted English transliteration).
In the future we will have so much info about the city now known as Gdansk,
that the article can logically be broken-up by having all pre-1945 history at
[[Danzig]] and all the post-1945 history at [[Gdansk]] (with appropriate
brief lead-in summaries to each respective sister article -
[[Constantinople]] and [[Istanbul]] are divided in a similar way). In the
meantime [[Danzig]] can redirect to [[Gdansk]] and any pre-1945 reference to
the city should be in the form of "[[Danzig]]" or the more informative
"Danzig (renamed [[Gdansk]] in 1945)."
People cannot be divided this way, however. So any ref to Muhammad Ali before
he changed his name would have to be something like "Cassius Clay (who later
took the name [[Muhammad Ali]])".
Just my 2.5 cents.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)