Today is apparently spelling day, it appears that a number of users are running bots to fix spelling errors. I believe this practice should be stopped; first off, it is a waste of time to correct spelling on articles which are far from finished. But more importantly, the bots are going to write over words which are supposed to be spelled a certain way, I know that there are quotes with deliberately misspelled words in them. Spelling day is a bad idea.
--- On Fri 11/21, < kosebamse(a)gmx.net > wrote:
> It is not particularly easy to analyse Wik's contributions,
It is very easy if you realize that his minor edits are for the
purpose of making sure that his contribution is *the* top contribution
in that particular thread of discussion (allow me to use the word
discussion since Wikipedia is like a discussion board where the
latest poster's contributions are on top and many of the users
are not knowledgeable.)
-libertarian
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com
Here is my opinion on the issue. If others use contents from
Wikipedia, let them do so.
Suing them or intimidating them by threatening to appeal to
authority to use force on the users of information will make
those here no different from the corporate mafias which claim
to own informataion and hence others' brains.
It will be a violation of intellectual liberty to claim ownership
over something that is published. Once you publish it, it should
be for public. Don't give me legalese and try explaining what GPL
means. I know what it means. The whole idea of it originated as
something antithetical to the so called intellectual property
"rights" and there were causes to protect those using GPL from
being preyed upon by these predators.
Just because someone states on their page that they have the
copyright doesn't mean they have the copyright to the specific
arrangement of words. Let us not be mean-spirited. If you really
believe in freedom, you should believe in freedom to claim anything
silly too.
-libertarian
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com
I would like to clarify (as it may not be obvious from my last post), that I
agree that Wik probably acts in good faith. The problem with him is that he
refuses to cooperate with others, and very stubbornly so.
In response to Geoff Burling, it is indeed my impression that Wik does not
seem to understand the whole concept of Wikipedia (consensus writing etc.),
although it has been discussed extensively with him. There is much more in his
talk page (and subpages linked therefrom) so it needs not be repeated here.
I have no idea what should be done about all this. It would be most
unfortunate to ban a user who probably acts in good faith (however there seems to be
a precedent case (H.J.) who was eventually banned because of proven
inability to work with others), but somehow it must be made clear to Wik that this is
no humbug.
Kosebamse
--
NEU F�R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f�r Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru�, GMX FotoService
Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More! +++
It isn't just that Wik is allowed to have his way.
Several days back, Brian Corr and Ed Poor agreed to mediate on
an article containing fiction and propaganda.
I sincerely provided lots of information and asked that we go
over it point by point. They promised to do so and led me to believe
that they were sincere in their efforts.
I suddenly faced silence and I haven't heard from them for some
time. At least they could have been honest with me.
libertarian
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com
>Ed Poor wrote
>James,
>
>Try saying, "How's that again?"
Hi Ed, here's some examples of Reddi's comments, which left everyone on the
talk page utterly confused about what he was taking about.
:: [snip 'avoid points of the discussion and attack me personally']
:: ''suicide bombing'' means the deliberate MURDER of people, carried out by
a person who kills THEMSELVES as part of the process? THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S
DEFINED AS!!! [http://www.wordspy.com/words/suicidebomber.asp]
[http://www.wordspy.com/words/homicidebombing.asp]
:: Its meaning could not be clearer? hmmm ok ... sure it does ...
:: ''Homocide bombing'' is a politically manufactured term created to
obscure the methodology of the murder? to yours [and others] POV ... YMMV on
that ...
:: As such it is POV and not in any way wiki-suitable.
:: [snip attack on me personally again and disreguard the points]
:: I'm not misrepresent anything ... my "''agenda''" is to be correct in the
statements of facts ... apearantly it's nice to avofd the facts, they get in
the way of the truth. (see the links @ the top of the page and refer to the
misapplication of the terms hacker and cracker )which is very similiar to
this discussion))
:: Wiki can go on an be incorrect (if everyone want it to be) ...
:: Wiki policy is to use clearly understood, internationally recognised NPOV
terminology? better start using "Martyrdom operation" because BOTH "Homicide
bombing" and "Suicide bombing" is not NPOV internationally (BTW, as a side
note, each term of the three is a "spin" ... you just spin it one way that
you prefer (incorrectly from the definitions, also)).
: ''does not belong''? YMMV on that ... ''getting annoying''? [chuckles]
: Just a note: particular cartoon -> star wars cartoon; not a US cartoon
network [can we say "distortion"?], it was/is an ''international'' network;
... YMMV on how interesting / topical entertainment news is ... it does
introduce topics for wikipedia. Just an opinion ... "''[[User:Reddi|Not an
irish drunk]]''"
:: call it what ''MANY'' say it is AND what it is in it's nature ...
:: That is NPOV, not POV ...
:: LOL@99% ... (lie, lies, and staticstics ... really it's only 98 let's not
quibble on math BECAUSE it's irrelevant; see below)
:: Alot of nations helped promote Cuba's propagada? ... ok
:: I expressed america'a view of the situation (which is the ''main view''
... the poiint of which is conviently ignored and not expressed [''see
bilateral dispute''])
:: I didn't "'add''" in any preferred loaded terms ... it is what it is ...
and the view of many american officals (which didn't participate in the
propaganda forum) ...
:: not the first time i've POV'ed [[Current events]]? sure, ''whatever, that
is IYO ...
:: LOL@ÉIREANN n Breaks '''every'''... which guideline on wikipedia? mabey
the "ignore all rules" guideline? mabey not ...
:: The fact it's a bilateral dispute and it's not a matter of the UN (among
the others i mentioned previously) ... that show that it is propaganda piece
driven by mainly 3rd worlders and European (both o' which are biased; mainly
from thier already biased press) ...
:: Other nations's views are irrelevant to this ... and their input is a use
of propaganda (pretty plain to see, sorry you can't see it (though I don't
expect you to ÉIREANN (nor '''some''' other ''individuals'' on wiki) to see
it)) ...
:: This is not the first time you've made allegations of POV [[Current
events]] @ me and attacked me (ala. clumsy, opinionated) ... but that does
nothing for you points (and detracts from them)
:: NPOV involves careful use of language? why don't you look up propaganda
in a dictionary and take out your POV and "try" to see (though I doubt you
will, nor can) ....
:: Attribution of comments and POVs? It was ''facts'' from the article ...
:: Adding in "loaded" language? IYO ...
:: "shoddily written, agenda-driven bit of tabloid-ese"? again IYO ...
:: So ANY editorial lines to the [[Current events]] should be removed? I'll
then make sure I to remove the editorial lines of europeans and 3rd world
nations ....
:: [snip rest o' ÉIREANN's POV / personal attack]
:: I really don't care and it's largely irrelevant though, because ppl can
see it for what it is ... a non-binding and non-enforceable piece of
propaganda ...
:: Sincerely, [[User:Reddi|reddi]]
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Although there is a seemingly constant debate about [[User:Wik]]'s conduct,
people do not seem to care too much about the consequences of tolerating his
behavior. I would like to raise some concerns.
It is not particularly easy to analyse Wik's contributions, as he rarely
comments his edits and does a great number of minor changes. It is however
obvious that he has a tendency to get involved in reversion wars, is generally
unwilling to discuss his views, frequently uses words like "vandals" and
"trolls", and refuses to talk to people whom he has declared as such. I had a long
conversation with him over a few days (see [[User talk:Wik]], where all the
following quotations are taken from) and would like to report my impressions,
because I believe that some of the more distressing points about Wik are not
too obvious but should be discussed.
Wik: "There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV". When we discussed this, he
has made it clear that he sees it as his right to decide what "the NPOV
version" of an article is, and to engage in reversion wars to "defend" it. Wik:
"As far as I know NPOV is the community norm, and I am its staunchest
defender. And this inevitably (and regrettably) involves getting into edit wars. What
is the alternative, just leaving the POV version there?" He refuses to
accept that reversion wars create unstable articles, while NPOV measures create
stable articles. He refuses to enter conversation with his adversaries and has
stated his goal of continuing reversion wars to victory. Wik: "Edit wars
aren't endless, at some point one side gives up." Behind this attitude is
apparently his conviction that respecting other's views is somehow "POV relativism",
as he likes to call it. He also seems to believe that a gradual improvement
of an article should not be pursued once he has unilaterally declared what
"the NPOV version" is.
Wik has a list of users he doesn't like and with whom he refuses to discuss
anything and whom he calls "vandals and trolls" rather frequently. He does
not accept the hard-and-fast policy of "no personal attacks" and insists that
his use of such vocabulary is purely descriptive. Wik: "I'm always talking,
except with those people where it would be wasted time. I'm using the terms
vandals and trolls exactly where appropriate."
When some articles where he had been engaged in reversion wars were
protected, and others started discussing them, bridging their differences and working
on a compromise, Wik outright refused to ever participate in this approach
but stated his freedom of reverting any result of their work. Despite clear
evidence to the contrary, he wrote: "It is a fundamental misconception to think
that edit wars can be solved by protecting the page and telling the people
to discuss." This seems to be related to his condescending view of people who
disagree with him, as he maintains that once having declared his opinions,
further talk would be useless, even while others were now actively debating
points that had been the subject of his reversions before.
Wik's attitude towards his fellow Wikipedians is often rather reckless, and
he demonstrates disrespect of many of Wikipedia's very foundations (NPOV,
cooperation, policies, respect for others, Wikiquette). He has often been told
(by Jimbo Wales, Stan Shebs, and Angela to name only a few) that his conduct
is not acceptable but I can see no tendency of his to change his ways.
Although one may try talking to him, my experience with him makes me believe that
he is unwilling to accept advice. He has even declared his will to "make
[Wikipedia] less lame or be banned in the attempt". Given that by saying "lame" he
seems to refer to our fundamental dogmas, I see little hope that he can be
convinced to become more collegial. I do not think that we should set a
precedent by continuing to tolerate such conduct.
Kosebamse
--
GMX Weihnachts-Special: Seychellen-Traumreise zu gewinnen!
Rentier entlaufen. Finden Sie Rudolph! Als Belohnung winken
tolle Preise. http://www.gmx.net/de/cgi/specialmail/
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More! +++
2 weeks ago I noted my situation with Wik, at this mailing list. This situation continues; most recently at [[death camp]] and [[extermination camp]] where I was trying to apply the naming convention on most common usage. Google uses "death camp" with a frequency of 6:1. I hear "death camp", in my daily life, with a much higher frequency.
No matter what I edit, no matter what subject, no matter what sort of edit, and no matter how controversial -- Wik almost invariably comes and reverts it. I then appeal for assitance from the community, and nothing happens.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
++>> From: Poor, Edmund W
++
++>> Well, if you say so, I'll unblock him.
++>>
++ I just want to make it clear I have no idea whether or not
++ HeadCase should be >blocked or not. It's just that from
++ how Ed described the situation, Ed should not have been
++ the one to take such an action.
> 05:36, 21 Nov 2003, Ahoerstemeier blocked Rothwellisretarded
(contribs)
> (unblock) (account only created for vandalism)
I think Andy was correct, although Cunc might not.
Opinions?
Uncle Ed