I had written:
>>I totally agree with Jay's point. Wikipedia will
>>immediately lose any credibility it has if it becomes a
>>massive repository of crank views, which it will be if
>>people strictly follow the letter of the NPOV policy as
>>currently written. Articles on and by cranks will
>>outnumber serious issues a hundred to one (at least).
Ray Saintonge responded:
> Nobody is supporting "a massive repository of crank view"
> Saying that Wikipedia would become so is entirely
> speculative. There is no evidence for this nor for
> the hypothetical loss of credibility. ~~~~
For goodness sake, that is a strawman argument. You know
full well that NO ONE claimed that Wikipedia should be
turned into "a massive repository of crank view". I
certainly made no such claim.
Rather, I was pointing out the well-known fact that many
Wikipedia articles constantly are being altered to include
fringe and singular point-of-views. On an open Wiki-project
such as this, the NPOV policy has been abused by many
people to try and give the views of tiny groups the
appearance of having the same level of acceptance as views
held by much larger groups. Haven't you read Jimbo's posts
on this issue? In any case, it is a *fact* that this is
one of the many reasons why many people outside of
Wikipedia do not trust us yet. Your dismissal of their
concerns does not make them non-existent.
Ray continues:
> I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin with it
is
> sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or
> "alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary,
> and certainly detract from the flow of the text.
Sorry, Ray, but NPOV policy demands that all unproven
and/or unfounded claims must be phrased in this way. We
don't write about unproven phenomenon like ESP and alien
abuductions as facts; we may only write that "Person X
claims that they were abducted by aliens, who them examined
them with ESP. The alleged experience happened in a
cornfield in Iowa in 1977." We do not write about such
unproven and extraodrinary claims as if they were facts.
For some time now you have been claiming to accept NPOV,
yet at every opportunity you effectively subvert it. Please
recognize this, and desist.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
(Note*: Second Sending, but without the 32 KB picture this time)
Hello,
I'm quite upset writting this.
I'm not sure who to write too,... so please excuse my briefness.
AndyL has been making Facist links to the Canadian Ensign page of Wikipedia.
AndyL added this entry,... and my "dispute of it" got me banned from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ensign#Canada
In recent years many far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Canada, particularly those affiliated to Paul Fromm, have adopted the Canadian Red Ensign as a symbol of their movement meant to emphasise what they assert is their adherence to traditional Canadian values.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Zundelprotest.jpg
I find myself very angry at AndyL out-of-hand linking the Canadian Red Ensign to "these people", on a basis, that in my opinion is quite "flimpsy" to say the least. I though Wikipedia was a medium for the exchange of true facts,... not biased propaganda.
I'm not sure how to proceed,... except to say,...
I don't care about getting my Wikipedia ban lifted or my membership back anymore,
It is clear I'm not welcome here,
I just request that AndyL's slander of our past Canadian Red Ensign be considered for "editing", or removal.
Take care, and agian, I'm sorry to bother you,
Don
Hello,
I'm quite upset writting this.
I'm not sure who to write too,... so please excuse my briefness.
AndyL has been making Facist links to the Canadian Ensign page of Wikipedia.
AndyL added this entry,... and my "dispute of it" got me banned from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ensign#Canada
In recent years many far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Canada, particularly those affiliated to Paul Fromm, have adopted the Canadian Red Ensign as a symbol of their movement meant to emphasise what they assert is their adherence to traditional Canadian values.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Zundelprotest.jpg
I find myself very angry at AndyL out-of-hand linking the Canadian Red Ensign to "these people", on a basis, that in my opinion is quite "flimpsy" to say the least. I though Wikipedia was a medium for the exchange of true facts,... not biased propaganda.
I'm not sure how to proceed,... except to say,...
I don't care about getting my Wikipedia ban lifted or my membership back anymore,
It is clear I'm not welcome here,
I just request that AndyL's slander of our past Canadian Red Ensign be considered for "editing", or removal.
Take care, and agian, I'm sorry to bother you,
Don
David Gerard wrote:
>(I have had to consider this problem with wanting to write about Australian
>'80s indie rock. Trouble is, I'm one of the authoritative sources. Do I
>just not write about the stuff I'm the specialist in? Do I write about it
>and link to interviews I wrote and published? Should I just put a list of
>possible articles and the source I would list as reference and leave others
>to maybe write the articles?
>
I see no problem with published experts writing about their field of
expertise on Wikipedia. It's the sort of thing we should very much
encourage to boost our credibility. They can't use Wikipedia to present
and advance new material that hasn't seen the light of day yet - that
would be original research. But if they rewrite their own information
that has been published elsewhere, that would be fine. It's no different
from what anyone else can do using the same information, but the expert
is particularly well qualified to do so.
The critical thing is that the expert *can and should* cite their own
credible material that has already been published elsewhere. This makes
it verifiable and is a check against original research. In academia, it
might be bad form to cite yourself as a source unnecessarily, or as the
primary evidence for a disputed proposition. But self-citation also
happens legitimately, particularly in under-researched fields where the
available source literature is meager. Also, if some of the work is
effectively primary rather than secondary source material (oral history
being such an example), it could be positively poor scholarship *not* to
cite yourself in such cases.
In this sense the problem is somewhat different from the issue that
occasionally arises when people contribute to articles about themselves
or organizations they participate in. The concern there, I think, is
more about the appearance of impropriety and potential to slant the
content in violation of NPOV. The scenarios do have one thing in common,
though, which is that it can be challenging to distinguish between one's
personal knowledge of the subject and the knowledge that has actually
been disseminated to the public already.
--Michael Snow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity contains a major error, namely, the claim that the second postulate "has been verified experimentally."
Not only is this not so, but the postulate has not even been experimentally tested.
The status of the second postulate is vital because it is the sole basis of special relativity. This postulate calls for invariance and isotropy in the case of light's one-way speed between two clocks that are in the same frame. (The round-trip light speed case was essentially closed prior to special relativity by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, but the one-way case remains open, contrary to the Wiki Special_relativity article.)
(The first postulate does not call for any specific experimental results, but merely says that whatever results are found in one inertial frame must also be found in all other such frames; thus, the second postulate does not dictate an invariant one-way light speed of c over c � v or vice versa, so the first postulate does not support special relativity.)
This very serious problem needs to be quickly cleared up because of the current polling process which is looking to give the Wiki special relativity article "featured article" status.
The only way that the above-mentioned claim can be made legit is by having its author(s) provide the reference(s) for the alleged one-way light speed experiment(s).
Thank you for your attention,
--Cadwgan_Gedrych--
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
The article improperly mentioning us was in USA Today
print and online editions. The retraction was only in their
print edition. Just look at
http://www.worldwideuniversity.edu/alumni.php
to see how ridiculous was the USA Today mention of
us, and from other American sources which equally have not done their
research properly. We are not an American university
and accordingly would not accredited by a US regional
accrediting agency.
Likuan Tham
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
While off the current topic, I've always wondered, are interview that a Wikipedia editor conducted included in the realm of "original research"?
For example, I occasionally write a column on Family Entertainment for Suite101.com. I've interviewed people like Canadian TV show producer/creator/writer Blair Peters. While there no article yet on Studio B or him, is the information I found out in the interview "original"?
Zanimum
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Our Featured article just got vandalized. I made several attempts to
revert it to a previous version, but either (1) my network connection is
too slow or (2) the servers are bogged down.
Seeing how I'm currently connecting from work, & the company likely has at
least one high-speed conneciton to the Internet (they're a well-known
manufacturer of computer chips), I'm presuming that the problem lies on
the Wikipedia servers.
Can someone with better access to the servers do the necessary magic?
It doesn't look good for us when the Featured article of the day has been
vandalized.
Geoff
Some people have been complaining that this hasn't been implemented yet,
but I consider the results of the first poll too inconclusive to be
certain. Therefore, I have written a provision for a new vote into the
proposal. This new vote is not justified by the moanings of those
disappointed about the first poll's result, but by the following:
* The provisions for preventing abuse of the process gained a very
large following, and as such, have been severely reduced in size
and merged with the original proposal;
* The criteria have also been reduced in size, but not in meaning;
* A 9-point Q&A section answering common concerns has been added;
* A minimum edit count and registration date have been added to the
prerequisites for voters;
* A standard for minimum support to go ahead with the proposal has
been added to avoid ambiguities.
As you can see, the proposal has changed quite a bit, and as such, I
have felt justified in making provisions for a second round of voting. I
hope those who have opposed and supported the proposal will not just
vote, but actually *discuss* the proposal before passing full judgement
on it. Those concerned may find the proposal located at
[[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]].
John Lee
([[en:User:Johnleemk]])
Boy do I disagree with Shane. Yes, it is true that relying on previously
published source sshifts the burden. But that doesn't mean there is no
difference. I can see a difference between our assuming the burden, and
editors of journals and publishers assuming the burden. First, most
academic articles and books go through a peer-review process. This process
has its flaws, but it does mean that authors are held accountable to
experts in the field on which they are writing. Second, published books
and articles are authored and authors are accountable. This is not the
case in Wikipedia where, as a collaborative project, articles have no
authors. Problems with wikipedia articles are likely to be debated on talk
pages, which may lead to changes in articles -- an original, innovative,
and interesting process I am happy to participate in. But when scholarly
books and articles are published, professional researches in the field
often go out and try the experiments over, or re-check sources, or try to
apply theories to other situations, and then publish more articles or books
which carry research further. Our articles can report on this process and
the debates within academic fields it engenders, but we cannot be a
substitute for it.
One of the big problems with peer-review is, as Shane points out, that it
excludes ideas and research that peers do not find credible. There
certainly should be a venue for such indiosyncratic and potentially
ground-breaking work. The internet already provides a venue for
publicizing such work. I do not think the internet needs one more such
venue. There are, thanks to the WWW, now an almost infinite space for
people to present such fringe research. The question is, do we report on
it. I still say: no. If such fringe research has merit I truly believe it
will end up in a book or peer-reviewed journal. We all know how much of
what is our there is crap. I just don't think we should waste reader's
time with crap, and I think to include it in our encyclopedia articles
demeans the whole project. How do we decide what is crap? We don't -- we
let professional editors of journals and presses do that, because that is
their business. Wikipeida's strength is that it is an amateur's venture,
and that is indeed it is a strength. It is also a weakness, and I see no
reason why, in this one case, we can't rely on the pros.
Steve
>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:06:51 +1000
>From: Shane King <shakes(a)dontletsstart.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <41B661BB.6000302(a)dontletsstart.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> > The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to
> > make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or
> > not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether
> > someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped
> > to do that. But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually
> > has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
> > So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by
> > simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people
> > much better equipped to decide.
>I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I can't get around one
>basic issue: we haven't solved the problem. We've shifted the burden of
>evaluating the credibility of the theory to evaluating the credibility
>of the sources. I see no reason to believe we're any better at
>evaluating the credibility of sources than of theories.
>Heck, I see no reason why we should even care whether something is
>credible. The NPOV policy says we shouldn't, as I read it. In fact, I
>largely see the NPOV policy and the "no original research" policy as
>being in conflict. We have to report neutrally on all views, yet we
>exclude views that experts don't deem credible. Am I the only one who
>sees a contradiction in that?
>If it was up to me, "no original research" would mean precisely what it
>looks like it does. You can't write new stuff directly to wikipedia.
>However, if someone else has written it somewhere, it's fair game,
>without the need for credibility evaluation.
>I think the real purpose of the rule is about not misrepresenting things
>on wikipedia, and making crackpots' ideas seem more mainstream than they
>are. But if we write with intellectual honesty (ie call minority
>opinions minority opinions when they are) and cite our sources, I don't
>see any need for the no original research rule as it's currently
>formulated.
>One of the best things about wikipedia is that it has the ability to
>report on the bizarre that would never make it above the radar of a
>normal encyclopedia. I find that to be perhaps the most entertaining
>part of reading wikipedia. I think it's unfortunate that we have a rule
>that restricts that without providing any real benefit that I can see.
>Shane.
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
