I'm stepping ina bit late on this discussion.
Is PIzza Puzzle the same person as Lir?
Is Hawthorn the same paerson as Pizza Puzzle?
I'm getting fed up with their bowdlerization of maths articles.
ChuckM - formerly DW/Black Widow/Olga Bityerkokoff/Jacques Delson/Joe Canuck
et al, left the following message on my talkpage:
Hello you monumental asshole, crackpot, horse manure, idiot, fuckwit. If I?m
all these banned people you claim, why don?t you have me banned too? ChuckM
21:18 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Regarding Joe Canuck. In my email it was suggested that Canuck was
'suceeded' by ChuckM. It turns out in true DW form this may not be wholly
accurate. [[User:L'il Orphan Eddie]] appeared at 22:32 on the 20th, a little
over hour after Joe Canuck was banned.
According to its user page:
I'm a poor orphan, cold and lonely since my papa DW was killed and mama
Black Widow followed. I miss them so much but I know I will make new friends
here. I can't stomach a lot of things but I take in as much [[Dietary
fiber]] as possible.
The following was put on its talk page in response, approximately one hour
later.
Most likey this is DW/Black Widow/Joe Canuck. -fonzy
See also User:Joe Canuck/ban, then. -- Karada 22:39 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Other than opening the page, this 'new' user did nothing. Instead DW
reverted to form and used a 'sleeper' already, the already created
[[User:ChuckM]] placed on wiki to begin defending Canuck and deleting
references to the hard ban.
So the current list DW 'creations' should read:
DW ( 9 Aug 02- 30 Jan 03 BANNED)
Ron Davis (7 Feb - 28 Feb 03)
Elliott (30 August 02 - 20 Dec 02; 03 March - 06 March 03)
Black Widow (12 March 03 - 15 April 03 BANNED)
Olga Bityerkokoff (15 April 03 - 17 April 03)
Jacques Delson (28 April 03 - 26 May 03)
64.228.30.125 (05 Jan 03 - 10 June 03)
ChuckM (10 June 03)
Joe Canuck (11 June 03 - 20 June 03 BANNED)
L'il Orphan Eddie (20 June 03)
ChuckM (22 June O3 - )
One final point: a quick glance suggests that many of the earlier DWs
(notably Ron Davis but also others) downloaded many images with no
indication of copyright. These may also have to be removed from articles and
deleted. The downloads of Joe Canuck have now been deleted from wikipedia.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>requesting clarification of copyright status about every image he can
>find that doesn't specifically cite a source.
Agreed.
Such an act is intended to scare away new Wikipedians uploading their very
first images, already with a conscious or subcon fear that they might've
done it wrong. Newcomers may even mistaken him as a representative of WP.
Therefore, such an act is destructive.
If he does not stop such a behaviour immediately as some administrators have
asked him to, his continuance will cause further damage to our name, and
therefore must be banned to ensure his discontinuance.
Menchi Zh-En
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>From: a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: ChuckM (ban)
>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:22:23 +0100
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by
>mc7-f33.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 26 Jun
>2003 21:23:08 -0700
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5R4N6I26563;Fri, 27 Jun
>2003 04:23:06 GMT
>Received: from smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk
>[195.188.213.6])by pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
>h5R4MMI26546for <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:22:22 GMT
>Received: from Pluto ([80.194.108.252]) by smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with
>Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:22:21 +0100
>X-Message-Info: EoYTbT2lH2MsQxQLKd6QGpQxvU17UYmU
>Message-ID: <3EFBD48F.29555.15216D7@localhost>
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.11)
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2003 04:22:21.0278 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[B3D167E0:01C33C63]
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by pliny.wikipedia.org
>id h5R4MMI26546
>Sender: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>Errors-To: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l@wikipedia.org>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia
><wikien-l.wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/>
>Return-Path: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>
>Evercat wrote:
>
> >>I request a ban on User:ChuckM. Currently, his only activities are
> >>complaining about Jtdirl on random people's talk pages, and
> >>requesting clarification of copyright status about every image he
> >>can find that doesn't specifically cite a source.
>
>JT replies:
>
> >Forget 'doesn't cite a source' . The images site the source, the RTÉ
> >Press Office. Someone even gave him their telephone number. But he
> >wants the formal name of the press officer, the full name and
> >address of the location. Next thing he will want Ann's fingerprints,
> >birth date, marriage certificate and favourite shade of lipstick.
>
>I would point out that he's actually done this with a *lot* of users
>and a lot of images, not just JT's ones. This is not a minor act of
>disruption, it's quite severe.
>
>(sorry JT, I realise you were agreeing with me, but there was some
>potential for confusion)
>
>Evercat
I've been so busy dealing with abuse from him I haven't had time to pay much
attention to his abuse elsewhere. He really is so pathetic and childish.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Evercat wrote:
>>I request a ban on User:ChuckM. Currently, his only activities are
>>complaining about Jtdirl on random people's talk pages, and
>>requesting clarification of copyright status about every image he
>>can find that doesn't specifically cite a source.
JT replies:
>Forget 'doesn't cite a source' . The images site the source, the RTÉ
>Press Office. Someone even gave him their telephone number. But he
>wants the formal name of the press officer, the full name and
>address of the location. Next thing he will want Ann's fingerprints,
>birth date, marriage certificate and favourite shade of lipstick.
I would point out that he's actually done this with a *lot* of users
and a lot of images, not just JT's ones. This is not a minor act of
disruption, it's quite severe.
(sorry JT, I realise you were agreeing with me, but there was some
potential for confusion)
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
>Evercat wrote:
>I request a ban on User:ChuckM. Currently, his only activities are
>complaining about Jtdirl on random people's talk pages, and
>requesting clarification of copyright status about every image he can
>find that doesn't specifically cite a source.
Forget 'doesn't cite a source' . The images site the source, the RTÉ Press
Office. Someone even gave him their telephone number. But he wants the
formal name of the press officer, the full name and address of the location.
Next thing he will want Ann's fingerprints, birth date, marriage certificate
and favourite shade of lipstick.
Yeah. I think it is time this latest version of DW was binned. Then we can
play the game of 'spot DW's 19th identity!
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
I request a ban on User:ChuckM. Currently, his only activities are
complaining about Jtdirl on random people's talk pages, and
requesting clarification of copyright status about every image he can
find that doesn't specifically cite a source.
This is, frankly, ridiculous.
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Regarding the following from someone purporting to be called Joe Canuck:
This public communication is filled with prevarications and libelous
statements about me. I hereby demand that the person claiming to be someone
named james duffy, working on Wikipedia.org using variations of the logged
in User name Jtdirl, immediately retract these statements in a fomal (sic)
public communication on this mailing list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe this will cheer up the user formerly known as Joe Canuck since it has
more on the reality that he has kept hidden from ordinary wikipedians. The
records may suggest that Joe Canuck joined on 11th June 2003, but he had in
fact been a user since at least 2 August 2003. Since then he has been banned
from wikipedia numerous times under at least three identities. Banned as Joe
Canuck, he is now back on wikipedia as [[ChuckM]].
A trawl through the contributions made by him and his 'friends' throws up
some quite interesting facts. So apologies in advance for the length of this
mail. But I think many wikipedians will find what was discovered
thought-provoking. It brings home just how easily wikipedia could be damaged
or worse by a serious vandal.
Regarding the user formerly known as Joe Canuck, among his identities and
dates between which edits were made by these 'characters' he played are:
DW ( 9 Aug 02- 30 Jan 03 BANNED)
Ron Davis (7 Feb - 28 Feb 03)
Elliott (30 August 02 - 20 Dec 02; 03 March - 06 March 03)
Black Widow (12 March 03 - 15 April 03 BANNED)
Olga Bityerkokoff (15 April 03 - 17 April 03)
Jacques Delson (28 April 03 - 26 May 03)
64.228.30.125 (05 Jan 03 - 10 June 03)
ChuckM (10 June 03)
Joe Canuck (11 June 03 - 20 June 03 BANNED)
ChuckM (22 June O3 - )
There is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that he has also used
other identities. A large number of IP numbers show evidence of usage
patterns strikingly similar to these characters also. In Black Widow's own
words "97% of the late DW's articles were never logged in".
All the above share the following characteristics:
1. a unique shared editing style;
2. a preoccupation with editing and creating pages of lists, specifically in
the areas of sports, history, Canada, etc.;
3. personal abuse of other users, specifically including legal threats;
4. the downloading of images that in context, shape, colour and style are
strikingly similar; indeed so similar are all the sports images that the
suspicion is raised that not only are they the work of the one person but
were taken possibly from the same source, practically all of them well after
1923, the key copyright year;
5. an identical unusual captioning style, namely - caption - in which all
three elements were bold italicised;
6. the downloading of jpegs with distinctive and similar name constructions;
names of pictures of a person which always merge the first name and surname
together without use of an underscore between them, with the first letter of
the surname always distinctively capitalised, eg, JackPickford.jpg by Ron
Davis on 19th February, BobbyHull.jpg by Joe Canuck on the 14th of June.
Most of the users in the above list downloaded images, and most were in the
'firstnameSurname.jpg form. It is worth mentioning that /very/ few other
wiki users used that form when naming jpegs.
7. the absolute and frequently rude refusal to state the origins of the
images;
8. the attacking of anyone who dares question the origins of the images;
9. a striking similarity in the nature of insults made against other people,
including accusations of (i) elites, (ii) vendettas, (iii) implicit or
explicit claims of legal knowledge; and (iv) defence of Canada from all
sorts of weird and non-existent imagined slights.
10. the pre-occupation of each 'new' user with their predecessor and a
determination to defend them, in the process showing a surprising degree of
knowledge about wiki, how to use it and about other users who had been
critical of their 'predecessor', to a degree that is almost incompatible
with their supposed status as a 'new' user. Thus Black Widow defended DW,
Olga defending Black Widow, ChuckM defended Joe Canuck; if and when ChuckM
is banned another user will appear, possessing all the standard
characteristics and defending him.
CANUCK & CHUCKM: EDIT PATTERNS & DATES
ChuckM 10 June
Joe Canuck 11 June - 20 June
ChuckM 22 June -
Some of ChuckM's edits
19:25 10 Jun 2003 1982 in sports
19:16 10 Jun 2003 1982 in sports (added Akiyda )
19:08 10 Jun 2003 1982 in sports
19:06 10 Jun 2003 1975 in sports
19:05 10 Jun 2003 1970 in sports
19:03 10 Jun 2003 1972 in sports
19:00 10 Jun 2003 1951 in sports (date)
18:59 10 Jun 2003 1951 in sports
Some of Joe Canuck's edits
15:28 20 Jun 2003 1960 in sports (top) [rollback]
15:27 20 Jun 2003 1960 in sports
15:25 20 Jun 2003 1959 in sports (top) [rollback]
15:23 20 Jun 2003 1958 in sports (top) [rollback]
15:22 20 Jun 2003 1957 in sports (top) [rollback]
15:20 20 Jun 2003 1956 in sports (top) [rollback]
15:20 20 Jun 2003 1956 in sports
15:16 20 Jun 2003 1955 in sports (top) [rollback]
15:14 20 Jun 2003 1954 in sports (top) [rollback]
15:14 20 Jun 2003 1954 in sports
The degree of overlap between their edit histories is notable. Both focus
almost exclusively on the year in sports pages. (Obviously DW by that stage
had either finished all the historical lists he had previously worked on or
lost the book!) In some cases entire pages of sports lists were contributed
by the same bunch of people, with Jacques Delson seemlessly picking
something that Ron Davis had done, then being replaced by one or two
constantly repeating IPs, then ChuckM for a change, then Canuck. Unlike most
wiki pages, in these these pages there were no edit wars, no disputes, no
reversions, talk pages unused. [[1951 in sports]] has I think 36 edits by
Jacques Delson. When he left wiki, an IP linked to DW took over, then ChuckM
for a day, then Joe Canuck.
Though DW as DW remained on wiki until banned on 30 January 2003, it appears
he simultanously used some IP numbers independently. (That BTW was why DW
never in signed as ~~~ but always typed the letters DW; though with one IP
number only once did he actually reveal his identity, possibly an accident,
forgetting he wa on an IP and not his own page while signing an outburst on
a Hemingway talk page.) The practice of using overlapping IPs and identities
appears to have continued for all of this year so far. ChuckM and Joe Canuck
on the evidence are probably just the latest in the queue.
CANUCK, CHUCKM: PART OF A PATTERN
More often than not, the scale of the their rudeness and their
pre-occupation with the same things would lead someone (usually Camembert)
to challenge them about being DW; the response was usually for them to go
ballistic which was curious because as new members, they should not have had
a clue who DW was! When Camembert asked Canuck whether he was DW his
response was bizzarre in the extreme. He told Cam:
I should not reply to your bigoted comment about Canadians, it only
encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer and drive our
snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks making fun of Canadians is
out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes for your intellect,
whoever or whatever you are. [[User:Joe Canuck|Joe Canuck]] 17:08 15 Jun
2003 (UTC) (And very proud of it)
Camembert's /exact/ question was'' I think you are DW. Are you? '
[User:Camembert|Camembert]]
2. ABUSE OF USERS
When he 'returned', ChuckM spent ALL his time 'defending' JC, (curious as
Canuck was on wiki during ChuckM's supposed holiday and gone when he came
back!) ChuckM left this on Martin's (MyRedDice's) talk page:
"Your conduct is disrepectful and childish. Grow up and do something useful
besides playing games. ChuckM 23:04 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)"
He told Wapcaplet on the talk page on Image Use Policy/Copyright:
"Note above from the list, many others including you, Wapcaplet conduct
themselves in the same manner as Joe Canuck did and not a word is said. Do
you have special privlidges here that the rest of us don't? And just so you
understand the law: this site is the property of Wikipedia.org."
This comment hits on two classic DWisms: law and of special privlidges
(sic). For comparisons with other members of the DW family, note:
Law:
''To User:Zoe Your derogatory comments are inappropriate and libelous. Any
further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or
elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies
available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States. AND DO
GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. User:Olga Bityerkokoff''
It is people such as [[User:Maveric149|mav]], who are totally and completely
ignorant of the law but take charge of Wikipedia and force their views on
others, that makes people leave. After being away for months, I regret
coming back today. -- Elliot.
Special Privileges:
Perhaps you missed my question above. Why does JHK get to deface Jacques
Delson's page with stereotypical comments about Canadians and not be accused
of a breach of Wikiquette? [[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
:Cat's got your tongue, eh? No matter -- your silence speaks volumes. It
seems Wikiquette only applies to certain people. If you're one of the cool
kids you can be as obnoxious as you want. And that's why I'm posting
anonymously. Don't need JHK slagging me off at the length she likes to
ramble on and having no recourse. [[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
CHUCKM DEFENDING CANUCK
Though the nature of the verbal abuse by Canuck is a matter beyond dispute
and can be read in all its glory on his talk page (onto which his abusive
comments were transferred after his banning), ChuckM asserted:
"I read all of User Joe Canuck's staements and this statement by User:Jtdirl
appears to be a complete falsehood as I found no such abuse or threats of
any kind. What I saw was repeated harassment that User:Joe Canuch (sic)
complained about."
Though no-one suggested he was Canuck (let alone Canuch!), and not a
solitary person on wikipedia suggested he was anyone else on wiki, he rather
bizarrely stated in the debate on that page that:
"no, I am not Joe Canuck or any other person in the history of Wikipedia and
he was the only guy interested in doing the big job to include sports
highlights in Wikipedia. And, in my opinion, something smells. ChuckM 20:06
22 Jun 2003 (UTC)"
Curiously, elsewhere ChuckM explained his absence from wiki for a month by
saying he was on holidays. But given that Canuck appeared after he 'went on
holidays' and left two days before he returned from his hols, how come he
seemed to know so much about Canuck's work in his absence? Yes he could have
checked through the user contributions, but how many /new/ users on their
second day on wiki know enough about how wiki works to check user
contributions? I know it took me longer than two days to find my way around,
let alone to be able to find that a user had been banned and use their user
contributions to check on their edit history in detail, then place a defence
of them on a variety of pages including the Votes for Deletion page.
Because of the strong suspicion that Canuck was DW (and 64.228.30.125 and
64.228.30.174) and so had a long history of trying to circumvent banning, I
left a note on the Votes for Deletion page urging that if it was decided to
delete the unsourced images the origins of which Canuck had got abusive over
(and everyone but ChuckM said the should indeed be deleted) I suggested
deleting them as soon as the one week waiting period was over (ie, this
coming Thursday). ChuckM removed the request and buried it in the page
discussing copyright issues.
In the aftermath of Canuck's banning, JeLuf placed an initial ban notice on
Canuck's page. ChuckM left a message in response on JeLuf's page criticising
that action and informing him that he would be reverting the page. (In the
meantime, Martin had added in a stronger note on the ban on the page
(provoking the response stating '"Your conduct is disrepectful and childish.
Grow up and do something useful besides playing games.') Interestingly
ChuckM did not revert the Canuck page to its pre-ban state. He rewrote it,
keeping the word 'and' from the ban notice and tagging on the three words
"proud of it'' the four words that Canuck had constantly put on his first
page. DId he check back to know the words? If so, why not then revert? Or
did he already know the wording of Canuck's page for the simple reason that
he is Canuck?
In a second add-on, he added:
''This user was banned by Mr. Jimbo Wales late Friday based on allegations
by User:Jtdirl who stated that User:Joe Canuck has the right to appeal. This
matter, in my opinion, remains unresolved and respect for that right of
appeal should be shown. ChuckM 22:49 22 Jun 2003 (UTC) '' (Canuck,
coincidentially has 'followed' ChuckM's advice and appealed.)
Stan Shebs has since reverted to the hard ban notice. To prevent further
removal of the note I have now protected it and listed it on the required
page as protected.
WHAT SHOULD WIKI DO?
Compared to the sheer number of 'followers' DW has (and remember I have not
included the names of others who have been suspected by some users of DW, or
the list of IPs with similar behavioural patterns; according to Black Widow
(DW's . . . em . . 'defender' "97% of the late DW's articles were never
logged in"!) the Adam family (Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber/Shino
Baku/Pizza Puzzle et al) looks tiny by comparison. While Adam and Michael
are annoying tantrum throwers, DW on the evidence seems like something more
worrying and dangerous. A review of image downloads by Canuck's 'ancestors'
showed few if any of those were authenticated as being copyright free. While
individual mistakes can be made by anyone, wiki currently has quite a few
images added onto wiki by DW, almost all of which could cause copyright
problems at any time. Every DW family member has behaved in the same abusive
matter, threatened legal consequences if they don't get their own way, etc
etc. In the circumstances, the question has to be asked: what should wiki do
about ChuckM? And what will it do about the next DW visitor? and the next?
and the next? Unless wiki deals ruthlessly with this multiple banned user,
thrice-hardbannedas far as I could count, with many more members leaving
before they could be banned, its position could be endangered by the
copyright-questionable downloadings of this individual. And beyond this user
as he has already done, could drive away good users in droves through his
boorish bullying behaviour.
JT
EPILOGUE: SOME HEART-WARMING DW FAMILY QUOTES
"Perhaps, instead of imposing this small group's ''community norm'' on
contributors whose work is clearly from someone wishing to see Wikipedia
succeed, you and other sincere contributors might use your valuable time
more constructively by improving the content of my articles and fix the
thousands of other incomplete and very poorly done articles that already
exist on Wikipedia." User:Ron Davis
''To User:Zoe Your derogatory comments are inappropriate and libelous. Any
further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or
elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies
available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States. AND DO
GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. User:Olga Bityerkokoff''
Please leave and don't come back until you can cooperate and work in the
spirit of creating something valuable.[[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
22:31 25 May 2003 (UTC) (comment to J. Hoffman Kemp)
Perhaps you missed my question above. Why does JHK get to deface Jacques
Delson's page with stereotypical comments about Canadians and not be accused
of a breach of Wikiquette? [[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
:Cat's got your tongue, eh? No matter -- your silence speaks volumes. It
seems Wikiquette only applies to certain people. If you're one of the cool
kids you can be as obnoxious as you want. And that's why I'm posting
anonymously. Don't need JHK slagging me off at the length she likes to
ramble on and having no recourse. [[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
Do you have special privlidges here that the rest of us don't? ChuckM to
Wapcaplet
:I should not reply to your bigoted comment about Canadians, it only
encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer and drive our
snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks making fun of Canadians is
out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes for your intellect,
whoever or whatever you are. [[User:Joe Canuck|Joe Canuck]] 17:08 15 Jun
2003 (UTC) (And very proud of it)
I am removing the offensive and threatening statements for the second time.
The conduct of the person placing this here and reinstating with the
addition of the words: ''# of times removed and un-answered: 1'' after I
have deleted it, contravenes [[User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles]],
and constitutes harassment. Any further harassment will result in this
matter being e-mailed to the site owner for immediate remedial action.
[[User:Joe Canuck|Joe Canuck]] 12:18 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> wrote:Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
>>focus; that was my point.
>Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an article is about X, then it
>is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue
>about". Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the
>title.
Exactly. If all that mav means by "DPOV" is
�restricting the topic to the discipline at hand and NPOV within that limit�,
then I agree with him about how the textbooks should be written.
But I disagree that this isn't already just part of NPOV.
In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology,
then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology.
This doesn't violate NPOV, and neither will the biology textbook.
An important point is the existence (or potential existence)
of other articles on parts of the discipline of scientific creationism
(such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the flood
by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data)
and similarly, the (potential) existence of a textbook on that topic.
To be sure, we don't have those articles on Wikipedia
and probably never will have that textbook -- but we could.
The text in [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] of course must be changed,
since it refers to a comprehensive encyclopaedia on everything.
But this is /context/, not the /essence/ of NPOV.
-- Toby
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
"In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology, then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology."
Well. No. That is not always true.
I just don't understand why some of you just keep focusing on the creationnism issue, only leading to hiding more important matters.
Important matters are that some topics just cannot be treated just within one disciplin.
Mine definitly can't. Writing a textbook about corn, and only sticking to the plant biology would be of no interest to a farming student. He will need plant science and botany to know the crop, farming information to grow it, animal science to understand what it is needed for (hence the quality required), soil science to understand the crop requirement versus soil resources, climate science and water science to irrigate the crop wisely, chemistry and quality management to understand how to best deal with this crop disease and insect specificities whilst insuring food quality and safety, environmental issues related to that crop, such as benefits and drawbacks associated with a particular crop management, a minimum of biotech information to understand what a gmo is and what the different trends are on that topic, mechanics for the farming equipment, trade, market, economical and political background to best sell his product and project himself in the future.
That is what I would put in a good textbook on this "so-restricted" topic. This is the book I would offer to students trained to be farmers for example, this is the book I would tell them to buy. This book would encompass at least 10 different disciplines. Likely, it can only be a group work, as it requires different disciplins to work together. And that is *exactly* where Wikip�dia can help, because it is likely to benefit from different inputs, while in the "meat space", these various disciplins don't always meet.
Note I don't necessarily say this has to be NPOV. I just say what Wikipedia can offer that others can't, is the vision offered by people on the same topic from different perspectives. Here, the perspective of a farmer, of an accountant, of a trader, of a seed retailer, of a chemist researcher, of a trade-unionist, of a policy maker...
If corn is too restricted, similar books about cereal cropping would be perfect. Including all these various perspectives. This would be a good book imho.
There are very few books of that type. Even when there is a collaboration, it is usually of two people at best. 2 people cannot give the best in all these disciplines. Wikip�dia can provide better because we can be more than 2.
But if all the various aspects of the topics are spreaded in 15 different booklets, all focusing on one discipline, we do just as the others do. Bland food.
It is quite frequent that professors tend to teach students research stuff, because that is what they know best, and that tend to suggest them the whole world is turning around research, here around biology. But in truth, only professors and researchers are doing stuff in research. What most students will do, and need really, is practical information to do well in life. Professors are not always very good at giving practical information. They need (and often welcome) support to adjust their teaching. They need a resource giving the practical and up to date information they have more pain to provide.
Well, that all depends if we want to make little booklets for academics to put on the shelf, or if we want to make books useful and helping people to get the big picture, as well as provide them with accurate and much needed info to deal with daily life.
Both are ok, but I am here for the second point. Not the first.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
May I change the layout of the homepage of the English
Wikipedia to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia? I think
that layout looks much better. I would ask this on
[[Talk:Main Page]], but not many people look there
that often, and this would be a huge change.
Note for non-Esperantists: Aktuale is where the
current events should go, but someone from the UEA
(big esperalto association) just wrote about wikipedia
itself there for some reason. The rest of the things
there are fairly obvious, but the explanations in
different languages would be left out.
-LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com