On 28 Aug 2004, at 00:13, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:30:55 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
>
> let's see a sample article developed according to
> the principles of Islamic or Hindu civilization. Dunno about other
> people, but I'm tremendously curious about how that would go.
>
> Stan
Me too, but let's face it guys:
Most of use don't really know ANYTHING about Islamic or Hindu
civilization or their cultural principles. How much do you know about
Islamic scholarship? See? We should thus never make the mistake of
denying or belittling their cultural achievements when we don't even
KNOW them. Because doing so would say more about our ability to
monopolize most channels of communication with our views and
achievements than about the worth or lack thereof of theirs.
NB:
It should be noted that Hinduism and Islam are RELIGIONS. Mentioning
these religions when we were talking about western civilization is
rather conspicuous: Do we equalize western civilization with
Christianity or are we /so/ unknowing that we even fail to distinguish
between Indian and Arabic civilizations and their respective religions?
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
On 28 Aug 2004, at 06:21, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:34:16 -0700
> From: Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anent Dartmouth, Again
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>>> I guess I've learned that this
>>> ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that
>>> strongly
>>> held within the Wikipedia community.
>>>
>>> Geoff
>>
>> Quite to the contrary, it absolutely is. What makes you think
>> otherwise?
>
> Maybe the constant lecturing and rather hostile attitudes proceeding
> forth from both sides of this debate?
Admittedly I'm not perfect and whether someone feels attacked or
lectured to depends on a message's recipient as well.
However, I do feel that I did not lecture but plead and also feel that
I did not engage in hostile behaviour.
> Fortunately, although these flare-ups are regrettably common, they also
> gradually fade away. Hopefully with a little time for reflection, and
> after we all resume a calmer mode of discussion, Geoff will find that
> the ideals he cherishes are still alive and well.
>
> --Michael Snow
SUPPORT. ~~~~
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
On 27 Aug 2004, at 22:05, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:02:00 +0100
> From: Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com>
>
> Google recently got valued at about $20bn.
> I guess some people must think its search results are ok.
That's a joke is it?
You don't /really/ believe that software-service companies, once
evaluated above a certain market value, somehow get their (merely very
good) algorithms transmogrified so they attain absolute perfection??
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
> > > A positive purchase maybe:
> > > Lies My Teacher Told Me:Everything Your American History Textbook Got
> > > Wrong http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html
> > >
> > > A book for everyone of the American Empire.
> >
> > Sorry, but my reading time is currently spent on teaching myself the immense
> > amount of knowledge that was not covered -- if even alluded to -- in
> > my school years.
>
> A good book, though. If you didn't already know the low reliability of US
> history as it's taught in US schools, it would be worth reading. But then,
> surely *all* the people on this list know the ppor quality of the history
> that's taught in *their own country's* schools. I would not for a moment
> suggest that the only people who understand that are (a subset of)
> Americans.
>
Good point. Canadian schoolchildren, while taught (IMHO) far more American history than necessary, are pathetically unknowledgeable about their own country's.
Close to half of Canadians are unable to recall the name of our first Prime Minister. Agggh!
Denni
Mr. Burling was referring to the great popular movements of the 18th, 19th
and 20th century that forced our governments to allow us the rights we enjoy
today. If it wasn't for the great thinkers and leaders like Rosseau, Marx,
Lenin, Benjamin Franklin, the leader of the French Revolution and MILLIONS
of American and Europeian nobodys that actually striked and protested and
got things done, then we wouldn't have the rights that we have today.
And THAT, solidarity through organised struggle, IS (historically) a trait
of Western Culture and something to be proud of. So stop hitting on Mr.
Burling just cause he didn't explain it as good.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Jens Ropers wrote:
>> I guess I've learned that this
>> ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that
>> strongly
>> held within the Wikipedia community.
>>
>> Geoff
>
> Quite to the contrary, it absolutely is. What makes you think otherwise?
Maybe the constant lecturing and rather hostile attitudes proceeding
forth from both sides of this debate?
Fortunately, although these flare-ups are regrettably common, they also
gradually fade away. Hopefully with a little time for reflection, and
after we all resume a calmer mode of discussion, Geoff will find that
the ideals he cherishes are still alive and well.
--Michael Snow
see below
On 27 Aug 2004, at 22:05, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again
>
> If you cannot
> accept that there is at least one or two redeeming things to Western
> Civilization, then I don't know what I could say that you'd care to
> hear.
Oh, I can /easily/ accept that there are "at least one or two redeeming
things to Western Civilization".
You just picked a subject where we're hardly an example to the world.
If I don't misread your original email
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030035.html)
then you seemed to say that a
"willing[ness] to engage in a conversation about [one's
views/contributions]"
was an
"ideal [which] is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to
be taught to the
rest of the world."
You also appeared to say that "respect[ing] other people's POV" and
being "willing to explain our own POV" and seeking a "fair & beneficial
exchange between [our own POV and other people's POV]" was part of that
same ideal which you perceived as an occidental contribution that
should be taught to the world.
- I would question the overall willingness of "Western Civilization" to
engage in a conversation about its own ideals/views, both historically
and on balance also today. Famous quote: "You're either with us or
against us."
- I would also question whether "Western Civilization" ever sought, or
is seeking now, a "fair & beneficial exchange" of ideals. Beneficial to
us, maybe. Fair, I doubt it.
- In essence: Meaningful multilateral discourse and compromise is
hardly an occidental invention. We have a lot to learn in that area and
are no way near being teachers on the subject. To the contrary, we're
the bleeding school yard bullies who for all their mistaken self-esteem
and deluded overbearing pride /just won't bloody listen/.
> And because it seems to be a point of anger here,
Anger? Hm. Immediately perceiving a strong objection as "anger" isn't a
good example your aforementioned ideals, now is it?
> let me explain _precisely_
> what I mean by the term "Western Civilization": it is the common
> heritage
> of Europe, the Americas, Australia & New Zealand. One tradition that
> can
> be found amongst all of these people is the struggle towards tolerance,
> pluralism, & unfetered speech;
EXACTLY.
Our tradition is to STRUGGLE with these issues.
That's not quite the same as HAVING high standards of "tolerance,
pluralism, & unfettered speech".
I'm not saying that other cultures don't struggle with them, but we're
HARDLY the sole inventors or champions of these ideals.
> I am unaware of any serious argument
> that this tradition of thought was introduced from Africa, India, or
> China.
Let me put it like this: I believe "Western" history (incl. present
politics) as regards freedom of thought and free interchange of ideas
is flawed at best.
Yes there are good and noble attempts. But we have consistently
destroyed more such attempts than fostered them (and still do).
There are many examples. Let me give you just two:
1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/165363.stm
Quick aside: Which country /backed/ the coup (that unseated the
democratically elected Chilean president) in connection with which Jara
was killed?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/hob/prog_11.shtml
This is the companion website to a TV production -- you can also get
the DVD:
http://video.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?
sourceid=00395996645644787198&btob=Y&ean=733961704464&VIEW=MNU
> And from my long reading of history, I know that Western Civilization
> hardly has a monopoly on violence, oppression, ignorance & hatred.
Not a monopoly, no. Far from it. But we still manage to clearly
dominate the market.
> Wow. All of this verbage just because I tried to express (& again, I
> admit
> I did so badly) the hope that despite all of the crimes, objectionable
> behavior & just plain shit that has been done, it would nice if there
> was
> one positive ideal we in the west could pass on to not only the rest of
> the world, but also those who come after us.
We can TOGETHER with all other cultures try to pass on the better
ideals OF THE WORLD.
But we should cut our omphaloskepsis and not claim to have invented
them alone.
And before we try to "teach" other cultures anything, we should maybe
try and mend our own ways. And I DO NOT say that we should "lead by
example". Because there really isn't any reason why we always have to
"lead". What's wrong with cooperation under equal terms?
> And the means this could be
> passed on is thru how we run Wikipedia.
Could be. The Wikipedia could become a noble instrument for together
passing on the better ideals of the world. However, in the meantime,
there is a digital divide. And a food divide. A senior US diplomat once
said that 3000-odd people perished in the 9/11 attacks and we still
mourn them, but we should not forget that 10,000 people die of hunger
EVERY DAY. (His words, not mine. But in case you're not counting, that
is more than three 9/11's a day.)
> I guess I've learned that this
> ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that
> strongly
> held within the Wikipedia community.
>
> Geoff
Quite to the contrary, it absolutely is. What makes you think otherwise?
Thanks and regards,
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
Search for George Washington on www.google.com. There doesn't seem to be any
stuff about George Washington's underwear on the internet that Google has
indexed. But there are some stuff about George Washington's penis (go
figure) so we have that as example. With the search "George Washington" you
will not encounter anything about his penis in the 100,000 first hits or so.
The reason is that Google manages to figure out that there are atleast
100,000 pages that are more releveant to the search George Washington then
the pages about George Washington's penis.
I don't know why Google in almost all cases seem to, almost magically, to
figure out what you were looking for. One reason appears to be that Google
rates pages that many pages link to higher, and therefore kinda exploits
what other humans thinks are relevant. Google's search algorithm is a secret
and there are many more around that knows much more and can explain it much
better. See also [[Googlebomd]].
In anyway, the argument that bad articles will cripple the search function,
is false.
>Why not? It's going to bring up every article with the term "George
>Washington" in it, and if [[George Washington's underwear]] begins ...
>[[George Washington]] wore white [[boxer shorts]], then Google will
>certainly pick it up.
>
>RickK
>
>"Eric B. Rakim" <eric_b_and_rakim(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >So, what happens when you search for "George Washington" and "George
> >Washington's underwear" shows up?
> >
> >RickK
>
>It will not show up. Atleast not if google search is used. I can't test
>whether it would show up with mediawiki's search algorithm, but if it does,
>that algorithm would be very much broken.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:05:25 +0200
>From: ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Image of Gandhi
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <51dd1af8040826120559af4bcd(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mahatma_Gandhi.jpg
>
>"This image may not have information on its source. It may be usable
>under fair use but this has yet to be verified. It might be public
>domain or under a licence compatible with the GNU FDL. To the
>uploader: Please provide licensing information as soon as possible.
>Images without this information may be deleted in the future. If you
>want to publish an image as fair use, please list it on Wikipedia:Fair
>use."
>
>We do not know.
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:15 -0700, Danavir Goswami (USA)
><danavir.goswami(a)pamho.net> wrote:
> > Dear Friends, Aug. 26, 2004
> >
> > Greetings. I am a monk writing a book on celibacy---the title is "Brain
> > Gain" (1,000 copies) and would like to use, within the book, an image of
> > Gandhi I found on your website.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
> >
> > If you could be so kind as to inform me A) whether the image is in the
> > public domain (copyright-free), or B) if you have the ability to grant
> > permission for its use, or C) you could suggest how I might seek
>permission.
> >
> > The seminary is non profit and the publication is also not a profit
> > enterprise.
> >
> > Thank you so much for your help.
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> > Dr. Dane Holtzman
> >
> > Rupanuga Vedic College (USA)
> > 5201 Paseo, Kansas City, Missouri 64110
> > Tel: (816) 924-5619, (800) 340-5286, Fax: (816) 924-5640
> > E-mail: danavir.goswami(a)pamho.net Website: www.rvc.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:53:39 -0500
>From: <dpbsmith(a)verizon.net>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Renaming VfD now under discussion...
>To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <20040826195339.JKAR24594.out001.verizon.net(a)outgoing.verizon.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>I got enough of an encouraging reception on this list to have started a
>discussion about it at
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion
>
>There does seem to be support for renaming VfD and rewriting the VfD page
>notice, so I want to concentrate on that part of my proposal.
>
>And my campaign slogan for the change is: as we currently present VfD, some
>newbies are feeling _bitten_ when they should really only feel _barked at._
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:52:19 -0400
>From: Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Renaming VfD now under discussion...
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <742dfd0604082613526f445692(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>I'm all for it.
>
>It *would* be nice to be able to tell people who scoff at WP's lack of
>editorial review,
>"actually, [[WP:Editorial Review]] is the three most active pages on the
>site."
>
>=sj=
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:53:39 -0500, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
><dpbsmith(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> > I got enough of an encouraging reception on this list to have started a
> > discussion about it at
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion
> >
> > There does seem to be support for renaming VfD and rewriting the VfD
>page
> > notice, so I want to concentrate on that part of my proposal.
> >
> > And my campaign slogan for the change is: as we currently present VfD,
>some
> > newbies are feeling _bitten_ when they should really only feel _barked
>at._
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 11
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:08:26 +0100
>From: Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 65
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Message-ID: <cglj4p$b6h$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
>Rick wrote:
>
> > Why not? It's going to bring up every article with the term "George
>Washington" in it, and if [[George Washington's underwear]] begins ...
>[[George Washington]] wore white [[boxer shorts]], then Google will
>certainly pick it up.
> > that algorithm would be very much broken.
>
>If Google listed it that highly (in GW's case in the first dozen pages
>or so) then people are clearly interested in it, and that is a strong
>argument for having the article.
>
>Pete
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 66
>****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
I got enough of an encouraging reception on this list to have started a
discussion about it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion
There does seem to be support for renaming VfD and rewriting the VfD page
notice, so I want to concentrate on that part of my proposal.
And my campaign slogan for the change is: as we currently present VfD, some
newbies are feeling _bitten_ when they should really only feel _barked at._
>
>
> Just keep in mind that renaming/reorganizing VfD will have serious
> implications as it ripples through the rest of the other languages.
> Make sure the system does not get more convoluted or depends on much
> more instruction reading.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
What sorts of implications do you see, Andrew? I see this as evolving into a shape
much like featured article or featured picture, where the same sorts of
discussions go on as in VfD, just at a less emotional level. The first (and maybe
the only) step is the change to a less fractitious name, and I'd also suggest
using the same terms as in feature article; that is to say, "support" or
"oppose". The fact is, we =do= bite the newbies, though I suspect that's a
systemic problem rather than Wiki's own: Everything2 is quite explicit in pointing
out that life for a level 1 noder is supposed to suck (go figure), and many
higher-level noders have no qualms about dumping all over newbies. I'm glad to see
the push at Wiki is back on track in the opposite direction.
Denni
