I just wanted to note here that I have raised a couple
of serious questions at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_policy#Reasons
for recusal
I have two key questions for the community, the
arbitrators, and Jimbo if he would like to comment --
what do we feel are legitimate grounds for recusal as
an arbitrator, and what may a user legitimately demand
to know about an arbitrator when the user is
considering asking them to recuse? While they stem
from an actual comment made recently at WP:RfAr, I'm
interested in the more general principles we're
operating under. Please do leave comments at the page
I've indicated rather than the maiilng list (I don't
want to add more conversations than I have to), and
forgive me if it was unwise to announce here a
conversation which is perhaps unimportant to most of
you.
My best wishes to you all this holiday season (and to
those of you celebrating them, my warmest Chanukah and
Christmas greetings),
James R.
en:User:Jwrosenzweig
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
To those who work on the image copyright tags:
I ran a (read-only) bot on [1], removing already tagged images, and
adding hints to those that contain certain keywords. Would this be
helpful for the other pages too, or is it rather distracting?
Magnus
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Untagged_Images/untaggedimages-bi
Regarding the references tab, I coincidentally posted a similar idea
to WP:VP a few days ago. My idea differs slightly, in that I think it
would be better if the reference page was not automatically generated
from inline footnotes. Here's the text I posted on WP:VP:
----
I think that in addition to a Talk: page for each article, there
should be a References: page. With the current talk of referencing
every fact in Wikipedia (which is a great idea), this seems like the
only solution to me. Adding notes and inline links everywhere in
articles only adds clutter, especially if the information about a
reference is to include more than just a link.
My idea for the References: page is that it could mirror the section
structure of the main article. The references page could then include
prose, such as for example, "The fact that X is Y given in the first
paragraph of this section is based on Foo (1990), pages 800-803, and
supported by Bar (1992), page 456."
This way references can be provided in a way that is easier to
interpret for the reader, more information about the references can be
provided (since there's no cluttering of the articles), and editing
becomes easier than with footnotes.
The link to the "References" page should be next to the "Article" and
"Discussion" links. This would probably be easy to implement in the
software.
By the way, another argument for this is that in-article references
IMO break the excellent philosphy employed by Wikipedia that article
content should be separated from discussion about articles. Though not
discussion, references like discussion is not information about the
subject but meta-information. ("further reading" bibliography
sections, just like external links, should however still be provided
in the main article.)
Another thing is that users could be allowed to sign with their names
on the references page. That way, when a published reference work is
not available, a user could sign to assert the validity of
information. That way, information can be judged based on the
credentials of that user. This is not different from looking up who
added a piece of information using the page history, but more
convenient since many articles have several pages of revision history
listing, and users could then add more justification than there is
room for in edit summaries.
Just to clarify, this does not mean that discussion of sources should
be removed from articles entirely. Discussion of sources in the case
where facts are disputed (outside of Wikipedia, that is) is of course
relevant. But for undisputed facts, we already write "the Earth is
round", not "according to NASA, the Earth is round".
--
Fredrik Johansson
Ec wrote:
> There are probably ways in which this whole class of
> articles can be approached more civilly. A short opening
> paragraph can define the subject. There is no need to
> say that anything is "alleged" there unless you are
> disputing the definition itself. A definition is not
> a falsifiable statements.
This is incorrect. Sometimes a definition *is* a
falsifiable statement. For example, someone could write
"ESP is the method by which a human can do such-and-such."
The very definition presumes that ESP exists, which itself
is controversial. No one has ever shown that any such
phenomenon exists. The same is true for telepathy,
telekinesis, pyrokinesis, and dozens of other alleged
phenomenon.
One is obligated by our NPOV policy to say something like
"ESP is alleged to be the method by which..." because no
one can even show that ESP (or any of these other
phenomenon.)
We can of course say that "Believers in ESP believe that
ESP has been proven to exist."
> One well known contributor with a reputation for a
> confrontational style
Ec, stop with the ad homenin remarks. It is unprofessional
to belittle my argument by attacking my reputation. It is
also unprofessional to refuse to use my name. No one
mistreats you in this fashion; do not do this to others.
Ec then claims:
> sought to confound ESP with alien abduction, by
> suggesting that an abductee might claim that the aliens
> would use ESP to communicate with him. One thing to
> remember is that it is quite normal for people to
> believe in one but not the other. In that case a
> believer in one would find it insulting to be associated
> with a belief in the other.
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You are trying
to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one
example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
In any case, many studies have proven that believers in UFO
abductions also generally believe in ESP. This is not an
"insult". Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to ackowledge
the relationship between these beliefs, but the
relationship is firmly established, even if you find it
embarassing.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Hi, I'm doing a paper for my math class strangely enough and I was wondering how you cite in a paper for the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. I don't want to plagiarize and I didn't know how to cite online encyclopedias. If you could contact me back ASAP that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Here's a weird one. Any idea where this could be happening? Something
substituting words in his browser?
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: BEST1FORTHEJOB(a)aol.com <BEST1FORTHEJOB(a)aol.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:20:35 EST
Subject: Notice of error
To: wikien-l-owner(a)wikipedia.org
Cc: BEST1FORTHEJOB(a)aol.com
Hello. I am new to Wikipeida and discovered an error that I attempted
to edit twice to no avail. I was researching the Russian Orthodox
Church and reading about the physical church buildings and spires and
such and came across the Gospel of John which is appearing as "mcgd".
I edited this twice, changing "mcgd" to "John" and though it was saved
I later reached that page and saw that "mcgd" is back.
Can you help? I noticed the letter combination of "mcgd" on other
websites where the discussion was pertaining to God or spiritual
things. Once this appeared on a website of a newspaper in South
Florida and again on a website of a newspaper in Washington, D.C.
I didn't think it was a coincidence, but some kind of computer glitch
or even computer code. I would like to know your thoughts on this and
would ask that you edit the portion of the Wikipedia (English) that I
attempted to fix.
I thank you.
Bunny
Four Evangelists
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The four followers of Jesus whose writings form the four Gospels of
the New Testament. They are Matthew, Mark, Luke and mcgd.
For everyone's information, en:User:OneGuy has posted
a proposal here --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disabling edits
by unregistered users and stricter registration
requirement
There is already a vote of sorts taking place -- a
list of "support" and "oppose" votes is growing
slowly. I am not clear as to why a vote is taking
place so early, or whether the vote is intended to
have any force. I also don't know if it was
advertised anywhere (I hadn't seen it anywhere but
RC), but I thought a proposal (and apparent vote) to
disable anonymous editing and add stricter
requirements for registering as a user deserved a note
on the mailing list. If it's already been posted
here, forgive me (but I don't think it has). Thanks
for your attention to this issue,
James Rosenzweig (en:User:Jwrosenzweig)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Jimbo wrote:
> Our current article on Extra-Sensory Perception, for example, is quite
> bad. And the reason is precisely the lack of _credible_ sources.
> These exist, but the current article appears to be written by people
> who would prefer for these not to be named.
This is a problem we have with a certain class of articles.
Over at [[surrealism]], we have a determined edit warrior who has stated
that "art historians are not qualified to write about surrealism," and
"mainstream sources regarding surrealism are useless because they are
written by art historians." So, well-researched contributions get
shouted down and the article remains an embarrasment.
In like fashion, there is an ongoing edit war at [[cult]], with one side
maintaining that peer-reviewed articles about cults written by
sociologists merely parrot the views of the "anti-cult movement," which
they characterize as fringe. I cleaned up the article some time ago and
added some well-referenced material, which is now gone; the references
themselves are orphaned at the end of the article amidst a sea of links
to cult-sponsored and cult-apoligist sites.
Some of the alternative medicine articles have the same problems.
The difficulty is political. The people who care deeply about
[[surrealism]], and [[cult]], and ESP are willing to expend
considerable effort and political capital to get their way, while for
me, each is merely one of many interests.
I have two comments concerning the most recent discussion on original
research. First, can I include information if it comes from an interview I
conducted. I think the answer has to be no. This is "original" research
in the clearest sense -- raw data prior to any interpretation or analysis
(I think most of our discussion has centered on, can we provide our own
interpretation or analysis in articles? Again I think the answer is no,
but this seems to be a more complex issue for many people). I think this
is a very easy question to answer, given our policy. I have to say, I have
some regret that the answer is no. One of the primary ideals of academic
research is making raw data available to allow new interpretations or
analysis, but the way academic research is actually published severely
limits this. One of the great things about the internet is its potential
to make a great deal of raw data available to the general public, which is
a great thing. Still, I can think of three reasons why Wikipedia should
not be in the business of making raw data available. First is
methodological (this doesn't apply to this particular question, which I
think has to do with a rock band, but applies to most scientific research):
can we assert some reasonable degree of confidence that the data was
produced through appropriate (e.g. scientific -- but in courts, the
equivalent would be "following the rules of evidence")
means? Peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic presses make
this claim, and it is in part based on peer-review and evaluating the
credentials of the author. We won't be doing that. As I said, this
doesn't hold for interviewing a musician, but I think it is something to
bear in mind. My second and third reasons however may be relevant to the
question at hand: publishing information involves legal and ethical
responsibilities. Here we may be better off comparing ourselves to
newspapers. Aside from having legal staffs that can and often do check
stories before they are published, journalism schools and newspapers are
supposed to cultivate a common set of ethical principles to guide
journalists. And journalists still often act unethically! If journalists,
who as part of their profession may have spent a good deal of time talking
about ethics of reporting screw up, how much more likely is it that someone
somewhere along the line on the internet will screw up? It is safer for us
not to try to act as reporters.
The second comment has to do with credibility. I agree 100% with Jimbo's
point that what makes Einstein's theories more credible than aunt Gertie's
is not crude popularity but that physicists give more credence to
Einstein's theories (about physics by the way -- Aunt Gertrude may be more
of an authority on needlepoint or, so as not to be sexist, repairing a
carburetor, than Einstein). But what about controversial topics like
flouridation or ESP? Well, in the first case an article can say that there
are debates among scientists and among politicians, and give accounts of
both kinds of views (the obvious model is global warming: all atmospheric
scientists agree that global warming is occurring; some scientists debate
whether it is anthropogenic or whatever the term is; many politicians
debate it). In the second case -- or let's just say, other cases, we can
say that there is not only debate over what is going on; there is debate
over who is a credible authority: some people say x, others say y ..."
In other words, I don't see this as an NPOV problem; I just see it as
another layer of NPOV -- in some (probably very few) cases there is debate
over who's views are most authoritative/credible, and if so we should
provide some account of this debate.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701