----- Original Message -----
From: <wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 4, Issue 49
> I tend to take a broad interpretation of the word "variant". For me it
> is not limited to derivatives of FIDE chess, but includes games with a
> parallel development in other parts of the world. They may very well be
> polyphyletic, rather than descended from some single "proto-chess"
So, as one person suggested, why not start the "Chess" article by
mentioning that there are several different types of Chess, played all
throughout the world, that they have certain similarities, and that
there's no agreement as to whether there may or may not be a single
proto-chess; and then make the main "Chess" article a jumping off point
with links to Chess (Western) (or whatever its name is) and the other
types of Chess, so each type has its own article?
> 70,000 hits + multiple appearances in print authorities should get a
mention
> in the article ("commonly seen as Adolph, although technically
incorrect").
??? This seems like a problem of transliteration. Is it spelled Adolf in
German? Then why not make "Adolf Hitler" the article, with a automatic
redirect from "Adolph Hitler"? I know I'd be annoyed if I went to all the
trouble of suspending democracy, starting war, killing 20 million people
and wrecking Europe, and some German Encyclopedia 60 years later went and
bolluxed my name up as "Hans". :-)
> Well, clearly the NPOV is regarded by its creator and some of its
> supporters as a model of clarity which shines a beacon of hope and
> harmony over this dark and contentious world - while others regard it
> with much less awe, e.g., "a horrific, self-contradictory mess".
I've only just stumbled into the Wikipedia world, so maybe I'm ignorant of
everything - but shouldn't simple reporting of recorded historical fact
fix most of the battles going on? Propagandizing does seem to be a problem
on your website (e.g. the Danzig and Silesia messes), but isn't it easier
to avoid by simply leaving out all value-judgments and strictly reporting
things that really exist?
This Wikipedia thing is starting to look like it has the same problems as
rec.org.mensa. I hope it's just a few people who would rather hear the
sound of their own voice than try and agree on anything.
Please tell me how I can get my emails to post properly in the mailing list. It appears that they are not using wordwrap.
----
Could somebody explain Wik's reversions to me, he continues to refuse to explain his edits in any manner which makes sense to me. I am trying to avoid edit wars; but, the flipside is that the community needs to become more active. I personally believe he is reverting things solely because I entered them, and I would like this to be addressed. Even if he does think of a reason to revert, I think he is coming up with the reason after reverting -- his primary motive, imo, is to revert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Moon&diff=0&oldid=1736025http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Impressionism&diff=1724861&oldid…
While my edits are not perfect, and they should be edited, I don't feel such edits should be reverted. I believe that both the above are excellent examples of what I do here on the wiki -- the vast majority of my edits are of this caliber -- so please, either criticize me or Wik; somebody is in the wrong here.
Cunctator,
I hope you are not referring to "NPOV" as a "poorly defined term of
art", because Jimbo and Larry have defined it with precision and
clarity. And I just gave a short and "excellent" summary of it earlier
this week :-)
Ed Poor
Well, clearly the NPOV is regarded by its creator and some of its
supporters as a model of clarity which shines a beacon of hope and
harmony over this dark and contentious world - while others regard it
with much less awe, e.g., "a horrific, self-contradictory mess".
Forgive me for using NPOV to defend NPOV :-)
Ed Poor
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
>> I don't think we need to record misspellings, otherwise we can get
>> stuck up with every variant typo, incl. Jospeh Goebbels.
> If a misspelling gets 70,000 hits on Google it deserves a brief mention.
No, if a mis-spelling gets 70,000 hits it deserves a *redirect*. A name
variant only deserves a mention in the article if it's one that people
actually consciously use (e.g. Rameses/Ramesses).
Noel
"Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com> schrieb:
> Voting on the content of articles is not something that I think is
> generally helpful, since it tends to lead to a lot of carping about
> what the result of the vote actually means.
>
> Rather than voting one way or the other, a better approach is for all
> sides to work towards creatively accomodating the other people working
> on the article.
Which is a method that also doesn't work. People just talk and talk and talk until one side decides they're tired of the whole thing and gives up.
> In general, let's say the vote goes 80%/20% on some specific content
> issue? To me, that says that the 20% side has conclusively
> demonstrated that the article is _not_ NPOV. NPOV requires (near)
> unanimity.
I think that's a ridiculous assumption. There can easily be near-infinitely many versions that are _all_ NPOV. And some prefer one, others the other. There's more differences in opinion than just NPOV.
> I wish, too, that people would generally refrain from reverting,
> except in cases of actual simple vandalism. Reverting doesn't say "I
> don't fully agree with your changes, but I'm willing to work with you
> to try to improve the article." Reverting says "I refuse to
> co-operate with you by pretending that what you're doing is in any way
> worthwhile."
So what would YOU advise those that are of the opinion that mentioning a misspelling is not a good idea to do? Just give up because there are some that think differently?
> Hey, sometimes the second is actually true, and we actually should
> refuse to co-operate. If someone puts in utter and complete nonsense,
> a very good thing to do is just clean it up, revert it, quickly and
> with as little effort as possible.
>
> But in this case, Adolph/Adolf, I don't see how it's appropriate to
> just revert.
Which basically means that you DO choose side in this debate. Because one side can do nothing but revert, while the other can choose a different wording every time.
Andre Engels
Charles said:
> It is being argued that xiangqi (Chinese chess)
> is appropriately labelled 'chess variant', when
> it predates chess and can't be a variant of it.
> So it's like saying soccer is a 'gridiron variant'.
We had a big dust-up over our Football article last year, which I helped
mediate. It was finally agreed that "football" refers equally to
American-rules football and to "soccer". In the US, 'football' nearly
always means the American-rules game (pointy-ended ball, forward passes,
lots of tackling) while "soccer" involves kicking a round ball into a
net. Outside the US, where by the way most English-speaking people live,
the word "football" almost always refers to round-ball game (also called
affectionately "footie").
It took us several weeks to finally get this straight, but it was done
with goodwill, intercultural sensitivity and a healthy dose of humor.
I hope we can try a similar approach to the issues you are raising.
Ed Poor
Culturally Sensitive American
Charles,
I think you might be confusing two ideas:
1. We want to present information in a way that's easy for the reader to
find and understand.
2. We want to tell the truth in all articles, as much as possible.
Now, Chinese Chess and Korean Chess (both played on a 9 x 10 grid of
dots) certainly LOOK LIKE the game known in the West as "chess" (played
on an 8 x 8 grid of squares). You win, if your opponent can't stop you
from capturing his king. You have some soldiers who only go forward;
there's a 'horse' and a 'castle'. (I helped write the Korean Chess
article, by the way.)
To satisfy idea #1, the easiest and quickest thing to do is to call
these 'chess variants'. This is using "variation" in the sense of
"something similar, something that does the same thing but in a
different way".
To satisfy idea #2, we MUST DISCUSS the issue of how old the various
types of chess games are. Now last I heard, their origins were lost in
antiquity, and no one individual is credited as inventing any of these
games in a particular year. It's not even clear how Europe got its 8 x 8
board (from India, I guess).
But please don't misunderstand: calling the Chinese and Korean chess
games "variants" says NOTHING about which came first, nor does it make a
claim that one came first and gave rise to the other. It's just a quick
way of saying, "If you like Western Chess, try these games, too!" :-)
Ed Poor
Master of the Neutral Point of View
I receive the Sitepoint newsletter, along with several thousand other
people. One of their featured articles is this:
<http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1241>What is a Wiki?
By Nathan Matias
If this is a question you've asked yourself, you're not alone! Nate clears
up the confusion with this in-depth look at the wiki. Starting at the very
beginning, he explores wiki history, functionality, software, and more.
It includes several links to the English Wikipedia (including one to
JTDirl's contribution list!).
--Catherine