Earlier I wrote:
"All of [my sources on recent Russian history] fall with in the mainstream
of the academic literature, in the mainstream of Western political science
and Russia studies..." [This was in response to Stan Shebs, stating the
following in reference to my work: "I... worry that the unabashed socialist
viewpoint will hurt WP's credibility as an impartial recorder."]
The following is a list of some of the authors I've cited in my work on
post-Soviet Russia on Wikipedia: Anders Åslund, Stephen Cohen, Marshall
Goldman, Juan Linz, Branko Milanovic, Sheila M. Puffer, Henry S. Rowen,
Pekka Sutela, Joseph Stiglitz, Ray Taras, Stephen White, Charles Wolf.
[Perhaps Stiglitz and Cohen can be accused of social democracy and
neo-Keynesianism-- how sinister indeed-- but Anders Åslund offers some
balance from the "Washington Consensus" (BTW, this is quite a pro-market,
pro-Western mix next to general public opinion in Russia right now, and even
some of Vladimir Putin's statements in the past few years. And oddly enough,
I'm being accused of "socialist bias." If anything, it's probably the other
way around.)
I invite anyone interested to do some research in order to see for
himself/herself how absurd some of the attacks on my credibility have been.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
hello
I've long wished there were a genealogical database of European monarchs
etc, where for instance Charlemagne exists as an entry with his wives
listed in one column, his sons in another, his daughters in another, his
known mistresses in another and his mother and father in two more.
as it grew (wikistyle) you could then see things like: all male descendants
of Charlemagne (or whoever) or choose to display the information in all
sorts of ways.
but I don't know a) how to do it or b) if wikipedia is the right place for
it
any thoughts?
sc
------------------------------------------------------------------
Does your public services team deserve red carpet treatment?
To find out more about the Guardian Public Services Awards in
partnership with Hays, and nominate a deserving team, visit
SocietyGuardian.co.uk/publicservicesawards
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Newspaper Marketing Agency
Opening Up Newspapers
http://www.nmauk.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also
be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify
the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately.
Do not disclose the contents to another person. You may not use
the information for any purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way.
Guardian Newspapers Limited is not liable for any computer
viruses or other material transmitted with or as part of this
e-mail. You should employ virus checking software.
Guardian Newspapers Limited
A member of Guardian Media Group PLC
Registered Office
164 Deansgate, Manchester M3 MGG
Registered in England Number 908396
"Part of the problem is that quite a few people (Anthony is certainly not
the only one - others have been debated here on the list as well) seem
to feel perfectly justified in violating the 3-revert guideline."
The 3-revert guideline is not very useful when a group of people gang up
against another and refuse to discuss their point of view. The closest I
got to an explanation was "REVERT - YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE FEATURED ARTICLE.
PERIOD. User:Raul654 changes the featured article. NOT User:Anthony
DiPierro." While we're discussing violation of the 3-revert guideline,
let's also discuss violation of the guidelines on use of the rollback
button, which is meant for reverting anonymous vandals. I was neither
anonymous nor a vandal, yet the first and majority of the reverts of my
contribution were made using the rollback button. Let's talk about
violation of the page protection guidelines. Raul is not only reverting
without explanation, he's reverting without violation and then protecting
the page. Let's talk about why the violations of some users are ignored,
such as Blankfaze during the exact same edit war that got me banned.
Then, when we're done talking about all that, let's look at the hypocrisy
that is going on here. We call ourselves a free encyclopedia, yet edit wars
are fought and people are blocked so that we can feature non-free images on
the front page. Our page explaining administrators says that sysops "are
not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in
terms of editorial responsibility" yet failure to obey orders made by
administrators results in blocks and bans. We talk about consensus all over
the place, but all we do is vote. The viewpoints of the minority are
virtually never taken into consideration. Why should 3 people compromise
against 2 when 9 reverts is more than 6?
So yes, I ignore the 3-revert guideline, at least, the one written on
Wikipedia:revert. You have to ignore some of the guidelines, or you
wouldn't get anything done at all. There's even a rule telling people to
ignore all rules, complete with Jimbo's signature on it.
I had a fairly (i think) interesting idea just now. Do we have a list
of wikipedia-article factor per population or speaker of language. I
know we have both but could someone point me to a place where i could
harwest this in an easy manner with a script, i want to compile a list
that reads like:
articles on wiki x / speakers of language x = articles per person.
Then sort the whole thing and post it somewhere,
I think it would be a n interesting statistic, if nothing more.
The main page is subject to the same rules as the rest of Wikipedia. It's
also subject to this wonderful stuff called "Common sense"
The policy is quite simple. Where we can, we use free images. Where
we can't, we're willing to use fair use images. Now, generally, we like the
main page to set a good example, so we try hard to avoid fair use images
there. But don't confuse discouraged with prohibited.
If we should happen to have a fair use image on the main page (ala,
[[Jim Henson]]) and you know of a free alternative, by all means replace
it. However, our policy does *NOT* give you license to start an edit war
on the main page, or vandalize it by overwrite the image with a blank one
just because you don't like fair use.
See? Common sense.
--Mark.
Fred Bauder wrote:
>Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy and progaganda. (from
>[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]). His statement, "We are not White
>supremacists because we do not feel the need to rule over other people of
>different races, we simply want seperation because we feel this is best for
>our people.", whether true or not, basically says it all. He is here editing
>in order to advocate a political position and engaging in disseminating
>propaganda to that end.
Indeed. But we can put up with the Church of Scientology sending an
editor for the same purpose; dealing with neo-Nazis, IME the hard part
is *not* exploding their heads with unfair tactics like logic, history
and joined-up thinking. One day I may be proven wrong ...
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>One thing I discovered in my conversations with Paul Vogel is that
>they prefer to be called "white separatists". I think we can safely
>use that terminology as well, because it's more accurate.
><POV>
>If they think that "white supremacist" is a pejorative insult, whereas
>"white separatist" is a delightful explanation of their terribly
>enlightened ideals, well, the joke is on them. They still sound like
>morons to me.
></POV>
The reason I ask for checkable references is that every neo-Nazi who
comes through seems to want the articles with different
euphemisms^Wterms for the same things and insist on their correctness.
Saying "this group maintains" when it's really a case of "this editor
insists" is not ideal IMO - a bit much of that made it into the
articles in question in an effort to work with Vogel.
(I'm real big on references this month.)
- d.
> Regardless of his actions they raise a good question, arent we giving
> an article some kind of gold standard by featuring it and havent
> fair-use images been tolerated rather then accepted?
But don't you see, Raul has deemed fair use acceptable for the main page,
and whatever he says goes. Yes, nowadays he's supposed to give an
alternative, but if he wants that can contain a non-free image too!
--- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> If we're going to have a rollback button, I have a request: a text
box
> for a meaningful summary next to it. It can start filled with the
> present default summary, but make it easy to make a rollback
meaningful.
David's idea is something I decide (but never get around) to ask
for every time I use the rollback feature. It would make the
feature much more flexible and also make us sysops look a bit less
like a lot of cold bastards who can't be bothered explaining why they
are reverting something. So I would like to ask the developers to
please consider this. Thanks muchly.
Zero.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Jimbo wrote: "Actually, of course, we have huge volumes of guidelines, all
carefully
discussed and debated, and we have institutional mechanisms set up to
deal with such things, right?
What do you mean when we say we have "no guidelines against users who
are out to disrupt things"?"
We have policies against the most disruptive things a user can do. There are
plenty of
ways to disrupt Wikipedia without violating written policies. (Emphasis on
"written"). We
also have plenty of users who go right up to the edge of what is acceptable
behavior, and
admins are helpless to use common sense and ban these users for fear of
acting
"unilaterally" or being accused of abusing their powers. The institutional
mechanisms (the
arbcom, for example) are crowded out by cases that any admin with a modicum
of
common sense could have dealt with in 5 minutes. The "hard" cases, where the
issues
aren't so clear-cut, get ignored so that the most blatant cases can be
adjudicated.
--Mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_6#Deaths :
July 6
Deaths
a.. 1189 - Henry II of England
b.. 1249 - Alexander II of Scotland
c.. 1415 - Jan Hus, reformer (burned for heresy)
d.. 1476 - Regiomantus, astronomer and mathematician
e.. 1535 - Sir Thomas More, writer and philosopher (executed for treason)
f.. 1553 - Edward VI, king of England
g.. 1762 - Peter III, tsar of Russia (murdered)
h.. 1893 - Guy de Maupassant (Henry-René-Albert-Guy de Maupassant), author
i.. 1916 - Odilon Redon, painter
j.. 1932 - Kenneth Grahame, author (The Wind in the Willows)
k.. 1962 - William Faulkner, novelist
l.. 1971 - Louis Armstrong, jazz musician
m.. 1973 - Otto Klemperer, conductor
n.. 1998 - Roy Rogers, cowboy actor, singer
o.. 1999 - Joaquin Rodrigo, composer
p.. 2004 - Bill Clinton, former US President !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Incorrect information.
Selingr
---
Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
Verze: 6.0.716 / Virová báze: 472 - datum vydání: 5.7.2004