Fred Bauder wrote:
>The latest news here in Colorado is that our governor, Bill Owens, at some convention in Illinois told a few anti-French jokes, including one that went:
>
>"Why does the new French navy have glass-bottomed boats?
>
>So they can see the old French navy!"
>
You would think that the anti-French crowd could at least come up with
something more original than to recycle old sawhorses and scarecrows
that have been applied, at some point or another, to just about every
national/religious/ethnic group that some other
national/religious/ethnic group dislikes. I've seen that joke far more
often involving a different country, which I will not name here out of
respect. I guess it just goes to show the poverty of thought that
accompanies prejudice.
--Michael Snow
(To Stephen H. Wildstrom, BusinessWeek "Technology and You" columnist)
Your description of how Wikipedia is edited gives a seriously incorrect
impression. Users do not "suggest" corrections, they simply _make_
them. There is no "editorial group," or rather the editorial group is
everybody, and new articles and corrections do not undergo any _prior_
approval process.
You say, "If you find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction."
Wrong; if you find an error, we encourage you to "be bold" and simply
correct it yourself. You do not even need to create an account to do this.
The link on every page that says "edit this page" means exactly what it says.
It's _possible_ to suggest a correction, which is what the "discuss this
page" link is for, and _advisable_ if you're not sure or the topic is highly
controversial, but it is not necessary. If you see something wrong in
Wikipedia, just fix it.
You say that "An editorial group decides which corrections and contributions
merit posting." This is doubly wrong. First, this suggests that things need
to be approved _prior_ to posting. They don't. Anyone can create a new page
or correct any existing page at any time. Anything that happens, happens
after the fact.
Second, there's no "editorial group." Or, the editorial group is everyone,
including anons (those who haven't created usernames, a two-minute
process). There _is_ a special category of users called sysops that have the
ability to delete a page, making it actually disappear from the encyclopedia.
But this is a fairly subtle distinction, since _any_ user can replace a page
with totally new content, or blank it (remove all its content), or convert it
into a "redirect."
There are, indeed, checks and balances, but they don't work the way you seem
to think they do. For example, I have a special interest in Jack London, so I
have the Jack London page on my "watchlist." I don't own the page, I'm not
consider the author, I have no special responsibility--but I watch it. Any
time someone edits that page, it appears on my watchlist. If you were to add
a sentence to the page saying "Jack London was also the author of 'Lassie
Come-Home,'" I would probably spot it and remove it within a day or two. You
could, of course, put it back. Then I would probably remove it again and
message you saying "No, it's a great book but it was written by Eric Knight,
not Jack London. We could use an article on Eric Knight, by the way." And
that would probably be the end of it.
Many people watch the lists of recent changes and new pages. People create
silly pages all the time. If someone were to create a page on "Stevie
Wildstrom" saying "Stevie rocks! He is just totally cooooooool," it would be
spotted by a sysop and deleted, probably within hours.
On the other hand, suppose you created a page saying "Steven H. Wildstrom is
unquestionably the world's foremost authority on technology, whose
Technology and You column, has, since 1994, delighted billions of readers
every week. Widely considered a likely Nobel Prize nominee, Wildstrom
is the most prominent alumnus ever to graduate from the University of
Michigan. He lives in Victorian garden suburb of Kensington, Maryland, known
as the 'antique shop capital of the world.' He is a member of the local
arrangements committee for the International Math Olympiad."
A page like this, probably within hours, would be listed in Votes for
Deletion as a "vanity page," and _anyone interested_ would take part in a
discussion about whether the article had a suitably neutral point of view,
and whether you were really notable enough to warrant inclusion in an
encyclopedia. After five days of discussion, a sysop--any sysop--would
eyeball and judge whether or not there was a consensus to delete the page.
It is quite interesting how it works (and it does work). All is not sweetness
and light, and there are mechanisms for banning problem users, protecting
pages to stop edit wars and so forth, but probably 99.9% of all Wikipedia
articles are created and written by users simply... writing them.
It's been observed that errors on a page that nobody reads aren't serious,
because nobody reads the page; while errors on a page that many people read
aren't serious, because if many people read the page someone will spot the
error and fix it quickly.
I hope you and your readers will contribute to Wikipedia.
Yes, Theresa Knott was right that it was much much too long, but I had
already sent it...
I got a very interesting reply:
"It's true that the explanation I gave was grossly oversimplified, both
for space and, frankly, to put it in terms that editors could understand."
(!!!!!!)
"What I was referring to loosely as the "editorial group" are the
administrators, of whom you are one."
If he actually knows that I am an administrator, rather than guessing, that
suggests a reasonable degree of knowledgeability. Perhaps he is a Wikipedian
himself?
He concluded "The wonder of Wikipedia is that it works remarkably well. I
have a background in sociology and somewhere in this process there's a
dissertation for someone."
Have you sent it yet? It's too long IMO keep it simple and to the point, plus be more polite. Something like
Hi thanks for you article on Wikipedia, there are a couple of misconceptions that I would like to point out.
Users do not "suggest" corrections, they simply _make_
them. There is no "editorial group," or rather the editorial group is
everybody, and new articles and corrections do not undergo any _prior_
approval process.
You say, "If you find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction."
Not true; if you find an error, we encourage you to "be bold" and simply
correct it yourself. You do not even need to create an account to do this.
The link on every page that says "edit this page" means exactly what it says.
It's _possible_ to suggest a correction, which is what the "discuss this
page" link is for, and _advisable_ if you're not sure or the topic is highly
controversial, but it is not necessary. If you see something wrong in
Wikipedia, just fix it.
You say that "An editorial group decides which corrections and contributions
merit posting." This is doubly wrong. First, this suggests that things need
to be approved _prior_ to posting. They don't. Anyone can create a new page
or correct any existing page at any time.
Second, there's no "editorial group." Or, the editorial group is everyone! It's a weird way of working, yet it does work.
I sent an email, thanking him for mentioning Wikipedia and pointing out
that changes are made in real time. The reply I got was that he was
simplifying the explanation of the site in the interest of space. The
reason he mentioned the editorial group is because any change can be
reverted. (Though I think he thinks only sysops can revert.)
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service
David Gerard wrote:
>How about an optional {{msg:disinfopedia:Article_name}}. While we're
>wishing ;-)
>
>The articles are *mostly* - though not always - under the same name.
If the names aren't the same, the obvious solution is to use
redirects and/or move articles.
--Sheldon Rampton
> From: "Peter Jaros" <rjaros(a)shaysnet.com>
>
> > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885044.htm:
> >
> > > WIKIPEDIA IS ONE of the more remarkable projects on the Web. The
> > > online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the work of 6,000-odd
> > > volunteers covering a huge range of subjects, even though it does
> > > better on science and technology than on arts and culture. Not
> > > surprisingly, the articles are of uneven depth and quality. If you
> > > find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction. And if you
> > > find a topic that isn't covered, you are welcome to create a new
> > > article. (An editorial group decides which corrections and
> > > contributions merit posting.)
> >
> > Uh, who is this "editorial group"? This wouldn't disturb me so much
> > if I hadn't sent a letter to another columnist recently about almost
> > the same language. I supposed the WikiWay is just too hard for some
> > people to believe, but who is this "editorial group"?
Christopher Larberg added
> Perhaps a correction letter should be sent to the magazine? We don't want
> people to get the wrong impression about Wikipedia.
This should definitely be corrected. It's just... totally... wrong. (I'd
better to log into BusinessWeek right now and fix it. Oh, wait...)
Nobody needs to "suggest" corrections, they can just _make_ them. The
"editorial group" is everyone, including anons. (Any user can blank an entire
page or replace it with a redirect. The distinction between doing that and
deleting a page is very subtle). And the even if the "editorial group" means
the admins/sysops it's wrong. Sysops don't "decide what merits posting"
before the fact--no "prior restraint." It acts, if at all, after the fact.
And it doesn't act as a group--whoever feels like discussing an article
discusses it. And all decisions are reversible...
I suggest we do this:
1. Ensure that there is an article about their publication, e.g.,
[[Business Week]].
2. Include something obviously wrong and easy to fix, like the spelling
of the journalist's name!
3. Send them the URL of the Wikipedia article and invite them to fix
it!!!
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Bureaucrat
Mediator
WikiEvangelist
>From: N.T. Riche [mailto:vonriche@yahoo.com]
>OK Theresa I'll use the Talk pages I do find some MNH's behavior "troubling"
>(I'm avoiding personal attacks) as well as yours. Maybe you two should go the Arbitration.
Been there done that, MNH was banned for a month. I may well ask the AC to look into things again but I'd rather let them deal with irismeister first.
>Now for thing Lir's real name is Adam he's guy.
I know that. As I understand it, he prefers to be addressed as she. If that is not the case, then perhaps you could let us all know, because I am not the only one who thinks this.
>Also I do have a will of my own Michael chats with me a lot on aim and I don't listen to him. It's just Adam is a fellow socialist, and friend.
I'm sorry if I seemed a bit curt. Of course you have free will, but you have got into a dispute that has been ongoing for months, and you don't know anything about it. MNH has told blatant lies about mediation with me, he has also told blatant lies about me harassing him, yet you choose to believe him. Adam came to iridology looking for a fight. Adam has driven several people away from wikipedia, and she tried her usual tactics on me. But it didn't work we me, and she didn't like. <shrugs shoulders> that's just tough I'm afraid. Irismeister is one of the rudest people I've ever met. He attacks loads of people with really low down nasty remarks. When people like fabiform can't take it anymore and decide to get out of iridology, her follows them to their talk page with his insults. When they delete him from their own talk page he posts their names on review of admin actions or on conflicts between users claiming they have no right to delete stuff. He also threatens people with lawsuits. Yet you choose to allow him into pressuring you to agree with MNH
You appear to me to have taken sides in this dispute. You posted that you have seen me attacking MNH on this mailing list without backing things up with links. You posted "I have seen Ms. knott engage in Poving articles such as Iridology" in MNHs request for comments on me, and have still not posted links proving this despite being asked to by David Gerard two days ago.
So what's it to be? You have to choose. Are you going to side with them or are you going to be neutral? If you want to act as a neutral go between between MNH and the "science people" I personally have no problem with that.But you have to stop taking sides, you have to not be pressured into doing things by anyone, and you have to back up signed posts on RFCs with links as evidence or else strike out your comment. Sometimes doing the right thing means upsetting people. That's just the way it is.
Theresa
Here is an E-mail I just got from the Enforcer (i Will NOT show you my responce):
Hey, Plato,
Can you list me as a member of the Red Faction?
I hope you don't mind the legal information I contributed to your
talk page. I thought it proper to drop a casual Wiki hint before I
started posting letters to attorneys general that could get members
of the cabal fined or worse...
Happy May Day. Thanks for your work for freedom.
~`~
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger