On 26 Aug 2004, at 04:31, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
>> And if I may allowed to be chauvanistic for a moment, I think this
>> ideal
>> is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be taught to
>> the
>> rest of the world. We should respect other people's POV, we should be
>> willing to explain our own POV, & that there should be a fair &
>> beneficial
>> exchange between them.
I'm not trying to get into a political argument here, but I would like
to note my objection to the above assumptions in the strongest possible
terms. I believe they are:
- historically untrue,
- (on balance) also absurdly false as regards the present,
- anachronistically missionaristic and
- the positive aspects favoured in this paragraph are the very
ANTITHESIS of how occidental civilization has historically conducted
and continues to conduct itself.
Occidental civilization as we know it is largely based on the
underlying morality of monotheistic religion(s). As such it is deeply
rooted in a moral code that has at its very heart the presumption of an
existing all-encompassing principle of GOOD and EVIL. This
ever-polarizing world view is one of dimensional reduction and not
particularly well suited to permit many faceted multi-aspect
deliberations and relations. In fact, among all world views and
civilizatory movements, it probably stands tall among the absolute
WORST suited ones.
>Recently, on Wikisource, where I do follow such things someone enterred
>a scattering of Swedish daily TV schedules going back to 1969. He seems
>to have stalled after very few. This seems the sort of thing that could
>inspire even an ardent inclusionist to put weight on the delete button.
>I am, nevertheless, willing to be patient. I might even be convinced to
>accept it if he can present things in a consistently informative. In
>practical terms, I'm confident that the size of his project is well
>beyond his capacity, and that he will tire very soon. In another month
>I may even suggest to him that this would be more beneficial if did a
>more thorough job. I may then seek to delete it as a fragmentary and
>abandoned experiment, hopefully in a way that does not generate a lot of
>friction.
PLEASE dont! I've been looking for such a resource for a long time and it
would be very useful to me. Finding old and complete tv schedules is very
hard.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com>
>
> Unfortunately, even though the class assignment required that the
> articles created by the students meet Wikipedia requirements, now that
> most of them have been listed on VfD, the instructor is trying to
> claim that they do meet our requirements. It seems if the vast
> majority of the articles have made it to VfD, then not only has the
> majority of the class failed the assignment, but the instructor
> doesn't understand the nature of Wikipedia. If the majority of a
> class fails an assignment, that has to say something about the
> instructor, as well.
>
> RickK
I think [[Hanlon's razor]] applies.
The instructor has really gotten his knickers in a twist with this:
He's obviously got an IT background (at least to some extent) or he
would hardly be an instructor at all (maybe I'm too optimistic ;-).
However, as we all like to forget, IT has ''somewhat'' diversified in
the last two decades or so and somebody might be an old pro who knows
his x86 assembly language by heart but has somehow, say, never touched
Usenet. Or (more recent example) doesn't know what a blog is. I request
that for virtually everybody of us, there's some "essential" part of
the entire IT experience that has passed us by. Now maybe User:Pcw was
just a bit unfamiliar with the entire copyleft, open-source-philosophy,
Bazaar-and-Cathedral, Free Documentation and community collaboration
thing.
The next problem would be hubris.
Most of us have on some occasion fallen into the trap of assuming that
me had "instantly grasped it" when there was a lot more to "it"
(whatever the particular subject be).
This might have led to a situation where User:Pcw might have skimped on
the lurking, waiting and observing part and where he's been a bit too
swift to officially present the Wikipedia to his students, who duly
took it "straight from the horse's mouth".
Seeing that he's failed to grasp a few very relevant nuances about the
critical collaboration process (which I for one am only just now
learning by trial and error), he's gotten himself into this Catch-22
situation:
- He probably finds it difficult to admit to his students "Sorry guys.
My Bad. Missed a few bits there, threw you all into the fray and most
of you found your good efforts (which you've all worked for) wasted and
rejected. It was a shite assignment. Let's move on." -- I mean, my
understanding is that they are just starting this course w/ him. Three
words: Loss of credibility.
- On the other hand, he can't ignore the fact that all or most of the
articles WERE really rejected (for IMHO mostly valid reasons).
So what he's doing now is holding that "we" (i.e. all those Wikipedians
who somehow opposed the said articles) got it all wrong. So "he's right
and the others are all wrong". (I was only a lurking passive reader on
this one btw.) It's a very human reaction to a very unfortunate
situation that he's gotten himself into for very human reasons.
At least that's my interpretation of the entire affair.
- Jens
PS:
==Can WE learn from this?==
It's in our interest to gather more potential future contributors and
initiatives like this would have been an excellent opportunity to
"recruit".
Maybe we should think about how we can more prominently feature
[[Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects]] -- Suggestion: Main Page
link "Educators - click here".
And then we should figure out what info we can write into
[[Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects]] to avoid such fiascos in
the future?
Sounds good?
Dear Mr. Fasoldt, Dear Ms Stagnitta,
I read your article in the Post-Standard "Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia
as source" at
http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1093338972…,
where you wrote:
I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia.
If you know of other supposedly authoritative Web
sites that are untrustworthy, send a note to
technology(a)syracuse.com and let me know about them.
Have you visited britannica.com?
http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html
> Disclaimer of Warranties
>
> Neither Britannica, its affiliates, nor any third-party content
> providers or licensors makes any warranty whatsoever, including
> without limitation: that the operation of the Site will be
> uninterrupted or error-free; that defects will be corrected; that
> this Site, including the server that makes it available, is free of
> infection, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses, or other harmful components
> or other code that manifest contaminating or destructive properties;
> as to the results that may be obtained from use of the materials on
> the Site; or as to the accuracy, reliability, availability,
> suitability, quality, or operation of any information, software, or
> service provided on or accessible from the Site or as to any
> information, products, or services on the Internet in any way. In
> addition, Britannica does not assume any responsibility or risk for
> your use of the Internet.
> THE SITE AND ALL INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND OTHER CONTENT (INCLUDING
> THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND CONTENT) INCLUDED IN OR
> ACCESSIBLE FROM THIS SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES
> OF ANY KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AND STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF TITLE AND NONINFRINGEMENT AND THE
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE), ALL OF WHICH BRITANNICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS TO THE FULLEST
> EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE
> RISK.
Information at britannica.com can be edited by anyone who was given
permission from the company. It might be a PhD who hasn't done anything
else than writing about this specific topic. It might be someone else
who feels competent. You never know.
Just compare
http://www.britannica.com/eb/dailycontent?eu=422756#e%0Avent " Haile
Selassie" with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie
At wikipedia, you can see a) who wrote b) when c) which part of the
text, who changed it, who altered the order who removed parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Haile+Selassie+of+Ethiopia&actio…
The authors, such as David Parker can be emailed or asked for
clearification in doubt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Parker
You and Susan Stagnitta are perfectly right to advise people never to
"trust" unreliable sources but I can't see a difference in this case
between a "black box" company and a group of academics and skilled
laymen who make the process of encyclopedic writing transparent.
Several wikipedians have created a document called "Making fun of
Britannica" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Making_fun_of_Britannica,
which contains a list of "errors" (in a broader sense). This does not
change the level of trust towards Britannica.
If you spot a mistake in Britannica, what are the consequences? If it
was in a book, there is no chance to correct it and the risk might be
that a student relies on wrong information. She/He will not be able to
get a refund from Britannica or even a discount on the new and
(hopefully) corrected version.
Ms. Stagnitta said "Anyone can change the content of an article in the
Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content." Even if the
first part of that sentence is correct, the second part does not
describe the reality.
Just have a look at the procedures at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. It
might be hard to get used to the fact that editorial review might be
ad-hoc or it might be a constant effort. If an article was found fit for
being a "Featured article", the process of improving that article does
not stop.
I would like you to encourage you to ask Britannica if they feel that
their content is "authoritative" in a sense that they will guarantee any
given fact in their Encyclopedia. Ask them if they are able to attribute
every sense to a specific author who can be contacted. Ask them if they
will make their decision transparent, which lemma does get into the EB
and which lemma does not get into it.
Yours,
Mathias Schindler
neubau(a)presroi.de
Ringelstr.50
60385 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
I hesitate to even post this, because it's virtual flame-bait. :) But
with all the accolades Wikipedia receives in the press, you have to
take the knocks too.
This from the Syracuse Post-Standard and comes up with a very weak and
uninformed criticism of Wikipedia. I'm sure one of Jimbo's wonderful
standard letters will set this writer straight.
Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado)
andrew.lih(a)gmail.com
----
http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1093338972…
Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
AL FASOLDT
STAFF WRITER
In a column published a few weeks ago by my companion Dr. Gizmo,
readers were urged to go to the Wikipedia Web site at www.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Main Page , an online encyclopedia, for more information on
computer history. The doctor and I had figured Wikipedia was a good
independent source.
Not so, wrote a school librarian who read that article. Susan
Stagnitta, of the Liverpool High School library, explained that
Wikipedia is not what many casual Web surfers think it is.
It's not the online version of an established, well-researched
traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself
encyclopedia, without any credentials.
"As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students
develop critical thinking skills," Stagnitta wrote. "One of these
skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their
disclaimer on their Web site."
Wikipedia, she explains, takes the idea of open source one step too
far for most of us.
"Anyone can change the content of an article in the Wikipedia, and
there is no editorial review of the content. I use this Web site as a
learning experience for my students. Many of them have used it in the
past for research and were very surprised when we investigated the
authority of the site."
Stagnitta gives two quotes from the Wikipedia site that illustrate the problem.
>From the home page:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by its readers.
The site is a Wiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can also edit
any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that
appears at the top of every Wikipedia article."
>From the disclaimer page:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
"Wikipedia is an online open-content encyclopedia, that is, a
voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a
common resource of human knowledge. Its structure allows any
individual with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to
alter the content found here.
"Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily
been reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular
areas of expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or
reliable information about any subject in Wikipedia."
I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia. If you know of
other supposedly authoritative Web sites that are untrustworthy, send
a note to technology(a)syracuse.com and let me know about them.
The best thing about the Web is also the worst thing: Information is
all over the place. You need to be careful about trusting what you
read.
On 26 Aug 2004, at 04:31, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
<snip>
> (is an acronym for Extreme Loeschkandidating ("Vfding") Excess Points)
> where people can assign scores.
<snip>
> greetings,
> elian
"Extreme Loeschkandidating"???
Gosh, that [[Germish]] physically HURTS.
Ouch.
;-)
- Jens
Andrew Lih wrote:
>I'm all for reevaluating how VfD works, but I'd like to oppose the
>name "Editorial Review."
>
>Not only does it sound Nupedia-ish, but I have a strange image of a
>salon with leather chairs, Ivy League professors smoking cigars and
>sipping cognac while deciding the fate of articles from commonfolk.
>The name "votes for deletion" makes the barrier high, meaning an
>article stays unless you put yourself on the record for endorsing a
>destructive act.
>
>This may come as a surprise to those who've found me a "deletionist",
>but I think adopting the "Editorial Review" moniker makes Wikipedia
>less wiki-like. It makes Wikipedia sound really stuffy and formal,
>which it really is NOT.
>
I share at least some of Andrew's concerns about the choice of name,
though perhaps not so much that I would say "Votes for deletion" is
necessarily better than "Editorial review". But at a minimum, we would
need to do something that doesn't confuse the process with "Peer
review", which we already have a page for, and which is very different
from the deletion process.
I also agree with RickK, in that I think most of the problems can be
addressed by improving the atmosphere, through renaming the page and/or
providing better instructions on what the process is for. If this is
done, I think the existing process can handle the issues just fine. For
example, I definitely disagree with the suggestion that all new pages
should be sent into a special editorial review process; they get that
already with the wiki system and recent changes. Whatever we call it,
VfD is for special cases that need something beyond that.
--Michael Snow
Andrew Lih wrote:
>Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source
>Wednesday, August 25, 2004
>AL FASOLDT
>STAFF WRITER
>
>
<snip>
>Stagnitta gives two quotes from the Wikipedia site that illustrate the problem.
>
>>From the home page:
>
>"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by its readers.
>The site is a Wiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can also edit
>any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that
>appears at the top of every Wikipedia article."
>
Actually, this quote is not taken from the home page, but from
[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers]].
All I can say is if that kind of sloppy journalism is representative of
their work, I'll put our reliability up against theirs anytime.
But Andrew's right, criticism is bound to appear because to the media,
we're a subject to be treated with their own version of NPOV. Usually
that means when the coverage has been too slanted in one direction,
there will be attempts at debunking the misperceptions. This one is
mildly amusing, not worth getting riled up about, and still brings us
free publicity.
--Michael Snow
[[en:User:Blankfaze]] is writing up a policy proposal which would
formalise actions to be taken against an abusive sysop at
[[Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator_Accountability_Policy]]. Please
discuss this proposal on the talk page thereof between now and 00:00
August 29 2004 UTC (when voting on the policy is scheduled to begin).
~Grunt (Steven Melenchuk)
Andrew Lih wrote:
>I guess this could be cast as a finer grain interpretation of
>inclusionism and deletionism.
>
>Absolute inclusionist - any and everything should be in Wikipedia
>Optimistic inclusionist - maybe not good now, but it may be, keep and
>check back later
>Pessimistic deletionist - may be good sometime, but delete it now, and
>keep only when good
>Absolute deletionist - it's not "encyclopediac", get rid of it
>
Hey, you left out eventualism, which will ultimately triumph over both
inclusionism and deletionism (eventually, of course).
Absolute eventualist - Ignore VfD at all costs, because it just breeds
hostility and flame wars, and trust that in the end, the community will
keep/delete articles appropriately, even if they don't make the right
call the first time around (or sometimes even the second and third time)
Optimistic eventualist - Occasionally try and intervene by commenting on
VfD or attempting to salvage articles, to try and speed up the process
of reaching the right outcome eventually
Pessimistic eventualist - Believes that Wikipedia is eventually going to
fail anyway, so doesn't bother to participate in any of it
--Michael Snow