Since performance is generally up again and some people are itching to
use the special pages (Most Wanted etc), I've gone ahead and re-enabled
them during off-peak hours and weekends.
Please be gentle with them though; these functions still haven't been
optimized and can slow things down. If it's problematic, they'll be
disabled again until they're rewritten.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Zoe Wrote:
>Looking at the CDC's home page, I find "In general all information
presented in these pages and all items available for download are for
public use."
>
>Does this mean we can use the information at that website?
I took that to refer to security clearance, not copyright or lack
thereof (it goes on to talk about passwords, etc.) But most u.s.
federal govt info is in the public domain, as it should be since the
public paid for it. At the Department of State site everything that
doesn't have an explicity copyright notice is in the public domain;
the CIA releases their World Factbook each year into the public
domain; there are some excellent navy pages on ships and sailors for
people into that stuff, NASA's and NOAA's excellent photos are in the
public domain etc.
kq
wikikarma: [[Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hoods Hills]]
and [[Paradise Lost 2: Revelations]]
The MIT vandal is back, vandalizing [[Woman]] with his misogynistic work. I've repeatedly asked him to tell us what his information means and to give us supporting documentation, but he refuses, and continues to put his "trademark" words into the document. He's logged in twice tonight, first as Qcix, second as Abcde.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
tarquin Wrote:
>What do we think about all these pages about music albums, which give
>just a track listing and nothing else?
I've disliked those from the start. It seems very little thought went
into them, not even enough to establish barebones context (e.g. artist
and genre), much less a greater historical or social context (e.g. why
we should care). (something we often fail to establish, me included,
though with the basics down it's easier to get there).
>[[Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band]] - now *that*'s an encyclopedia
>article!
yes.
kq
wikikarma: stub for [[Baraka (film)]]--and now I'm off to continue
editing my own film, tho one that almost certainly will not merit an
article. :-)
Regarding Jimbo's QUESTION:
This is the disputed text:
- * More women than men suffer from [[anorexia]] and [[bulimia]]
- * More women than men suffer from [[borderline personality
disorder|borderline]], [[histrionic personality disorder]] and
[[hysteria]]
Are these things not true? Why should they be omitted from the
article, if true?
----
I have composed a little poem to help as remember one of the ways disputed text can be made to conform to Jimbo's neutral-point-of-view policy:
Wherever there's dispute,
We've got to attribute!
--Copyright 2003, Ed Poor and freely distributable under the GPL
Thus, edit the two passages above as follows.
* According to Dr. Effie Nymist, more women than men suffer from [[anorexia]] and [[bulimia]] (source: Annals of statistical medicine, 23:456 June 1997)
* Dr. Mael Fraud of the San Francisco Street People's Clinic observed in his 1997-2001 study of drug addicts and street people that more women than men suffer from [[borderline personality disorder|borderline]], [[histrionic personality disorder]] and [[hysteria]]. Dr. Fraud wrote in Psychology Today, December 2002, that his findings can be generalized to the American public with a 0.0003% chance of certainty.
Okay, maybe the second example is a bit far-fetched, but the idea is to attribute each POV to its adherent. Thus, the Wikipedia itself will not be seen as endorsing that POV but as remaining neutral on the issue.
Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor
Here are some limericks I made up after a friend said I had problems with my meter:
There once came a man with a view
Which aroused such a hullaballoo
That all of us said,
"It should only be read,
If attributed clearly to you!"
There once was a man with a view
About which was made a to-do
The people said, "See?
It's his own P.O.V.!"
Attribute the thing, and we're through.
Happy Valentines Day!
Uncle Ed
Geoff,
I'm chiming in to agree with Jimbo, and to give a few illustrations of a simple way to attribute point of view.
I understand that this is a serious problem. Please don't think I'm taking it too light-heartedly if I suggest that the solution is very simple.
In a word: use qualifiers.
What are qualifiers? They are words that qualify (or attribute) points of view. Here are some examples.
Change:
* Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is considered the finest...
To:
* Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is _widely_ considered the finest...
Change:
* Tolstoy's two novels... are considered to be his best.
To:
* Tolstoy's two novels... are considered _by many_ to be his best.
The next requires a slight rewording, but the principle is the same.
Change:
* The UNIX operating system is favored by programmers because of
its many tools and its successful abstraction of system resources
as files
To:
* _Many programmers favor_ the UNIX operating system because of...
Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor
Please review [[Commit Suiside]]. URL 66.210.117.46 has written what appears to be a suicide note. But it could be a troll. Anyone have any suggestions?
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
I hope I'm adding to the signal, & not to the noise, of this
discussion with my contribution.
One problem I see in this discussion about the individual in
question is that he/she has found a serious weakness in the
rule concerning NPOV. If one were to submit to Wikipedia a comment
like "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is considered the finest musical
piece written" or "Tolstoy's two novels _War and Peace_ and
_Anna Karinina_ are considered his best writings", one could
insist that this is not a valid submission -- even though these
are judgements that are widely held and considered by many
people statements of fact, rather than opinion. And even
conceding the point that they are opinions, it would not be
that hard to find justification for this opinion, along the
lines of "Orson Welles' 'Citizen Kane' was voted the best
motion picture by the American Film Institute."
I'm punting on that last example -- I don't know if that is
what they agreed to, but I hope all of you see what I am trying
to explain: a given group who is considered authoritative in
a given field, makes a judgement. And that judgement is recorded
in Wikipedia as a fact.
However, all that does in move the problem of subjectivity to
another area: how do we then determine if the authority cited
is truly authoritative? What if some troll insists on countering
the reasonable example I made above about "Citizen Kane" with
her/his own citation, "Joe Blow considers 'Manos, the Hands of
Fate' to be the best motion picture ever made"?
We could avoid this problem entirely by refusing to state that
any given work or object is considered by anyone to be the
"best", "most influential", "best known", et cetera, of its
classification. However, this runs headlong into another problem,
which I would argue is equally important: by doing so, we
contributors cannot acknowledge the existence of certain opinions,
either widely-held, or the result of informed, educated discussion.
Ignoring the fact, for example, that certain authors of literature
belong in a "canon" and should be taught in schools because of
their skill with language, ability of perception, or influence of
ideas, means that Wikipedia abdicates helping a user decide if,
as an example, V. C. Andrews should be considered the equal of
Homer, Tolstoy or Virginia Wolf. Making a statement such as,
"The UNIX operating system is favored by programmers because of
its many tools and its successful abstraction of system resources
as files" then becomes impossible and prohibited. And the same
with a statement like "Although newcomers are often daunted by the long
periods of overcast skies and long rainstorms, native Oregonians
apparently take this weather in stride."
I don't have an answer to help Wikipedia out of this dilemma.
All I can do in this email is point to it, ask that everyone
acknowledges that it is a problem that needs solving, & hope that
we can discuss this as adults.
Geoff
Well, Lir, I assume you're still reading this mailing list.
Tom/Ortolan is looking for an acknowledgement about past behavior, and Vicki wants to know what "being good" is going to mean.
Is there anything you would like to say to the Wikipedia community?
"Uncle Ed", aka Ed Poor