The English-language Wikipedia is currently in read-only mode while the
old revisions table is munged into a more friendly, less prone to delays
when loading oft-edited pages, state. It should be through in a couple
of hours (it's a DARN big table!); sorry for the wait.
In the meantime, explore meta.wikipedia.org, wiktionary.org, or dabble
in another language...
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Yep - she's marking EVERYTHING as a "minor change" again. The edit war
lunacies can't be far away. Please, can't anyone DO SOMETHING?
She is supposed to be banned. Twice over. Is "banning" just a word that
means "go away for a few days"?
mav writes:
>Anybody who believes that is is possible /not/ to have bickering and
>wrangling in Wikipedia hasn't spent much time working with large
groups of
>people in an academic setting (or even in an office working on a
project for
>that matter).
I've been here since April 2001. you judge if that's long enough to
determine whether things are getting better or worse, or staying the
same. thanks for the personal snub though. I suppose I had it coming.
>Different people have different viewpoints and Wikipedia IMO does a
very good
>job of distilling the POV down to their NPOV elements. But this
process takes
>a lot of time for highly contentious subjects. It also occasionally
requires
>us to expel those people who can't work with others - but the same is
true in
>the real world.
Perhaps I'm just impatient then. Certainly the pedia, as of late,
seems to be for some other type of person than me.
kq
Sorry about that - those long lines are difficult for many people to
read, so here is my message again in more presentable form.
The twice-banned troublemaker Vera Cruz is making edits again. Would
someone with the appropriate skills and permissions ind explaining how
this is possible, and what action can be taken about it please?
We all know that it's possible for a banned user to use a different IP
to make edits anyway (by visiting an Internet cafe, for example), but
the inconvenience is obviously going to slow them down a bit. Pending
any possible further technical action to enforce the ban - and enforce
it we must, else there is no point whatever in having a ban in the
first place - I suggest that all list members revert any new edits made
by the banned member *regardless of content*.
The only alternative is to admit that we lack the power to enforce any
policy, and that does not bear thinking about.
The twice-banned troublemaker Vera Cruz is making edits again. Would someone with the appropriate skills and permissions
mind explaining how this is possible, and what action can be taken about it please?
We all know that it's possible for a banned user to use a different IP to make edits anyway (by visiting an Internet cafe, for
example), but the inconvenience is obviously going to slow them down a bit. Pending any possible further technical action to
enforce the ban - and enforce it we must, else there is no point whatever in having a ban in the first place - I suggest that all list
members revert any new edits made by the banned member *regardless of content*.
The only alternative is to admit that we lack the power to enforce any policy, and that does not bear thinking about.
On Saturday 01 February 2003 01:37 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
> That is a pessimistic view of Wikipedia in its current state. Accurate,
> from what I've observed of certain articles, but still pessimistic.
>
> Unfortunately, the evaluation of mankind's accumulated knowledge frequently
> results in the same kind of dust-ups we're seeing in Wikipedia. For
> example, Eric Thompson, while undoubtedly the most learned & influential
> scholar of Mayan history & culture in recent times, nonetheless delayed
> the successful translation of Mayan inscriptions for a generation
> because of his own biasses and a tenacious insistence on his own POV.
> For an example outside of the humanities, I am reminded of an attempt by
> one of the leading US medical journals -- I forget if it was the New
> England Journal of Medicine or the Journal of the AMA -- to review the
> lauded discoveries that journal had published a few years prior: after
> a few months they discontinued this series, having discovered
> that far too many of these articles turned out to have been bad science![*]
Excellent point! I was thinking about writing just such an email. In short:
Anybody who believes that is is possible /not/ to have bickering and
wrangling in Wikipedia hasn't spent much time working with large groups of
people in an academic setting (or even in an office working on a project for
that matter).
Different people have different viewpoints and Wikipedia IMO does a very good
job of distilling the POV down to their NPOV elements. But this process takes
a lot of time for highly contentious subjects. It also occasionally requires
us to expel those people who can't work with others - but the same is true in
the real world.
--mav
WikiKarma:
Work on adapting NASA bio information to expand [[Rick D. Husband]]
Hey, speaking of disingenuous answers, how about applying the NPOV to the [[global warming]] article? Are you able to step back from your advocacy and be neutral for a few minutes, and help us make a balanced article there?
One of the best ways to attain neutrality in a contentious article is for a person who believes passionately in one side to focus on making the best case for the OTHER SIDE. If you could do this, it would be a big help.
Ed Poor
>Sometimes people just want to be told what to do
>even while they're voicing support for some kind of democracy. They
>become so afraid to offend that they no longer trust their. They're
>perfect soldiers -- perfect cannon fodder. When they defend an opinion
>it's with the ardour of a my-country-right-or-wrong patriot.
Unfortunately, I chose a poor example. A better example would be a
scientific experiment which shows person A going about his business
typing up notes, not bothering anybody, but wired to receive electric
shocks, and person B comes along and picks up the buzzer and keeps at
it until person A socks him in the jaw or runs from the room.
Certainly Jimbo has not encouraged anyone to shock anyone else; though
the sadists have found the site anyway.
kq
wikikarma: going away for 16 days; I hope it's enough.
All,
please take a look
at
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Wagner&diff=0&oldid=634…
I believe this edit speaks for itself. Notice that this edit was labeled as
"restoring an URL and working toward a compromise on POV issues". A
"compromise" (after his previous drastic POVification of the article) which includes
the unexplained removal of plenty of significant information and obviously
POV statements such as:
"Labelling Wagner as an anti-Semite is misleading; he never supported
violence against Jews, nor did he hold them to be at fault for the cultural divide
that he perceived existed between German Jews of his time, and mainstream
German culture."
Once more, Clutch is trying to whitewash Wagner of any and all anti-Semitism
(the "accusations" of which he believes are only made by Jews.) Frankly, I'm
fed up by his edits. I can see absolutely no reason why Lir is banned and he
is not. Enough is enough.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!