-----Original Message-----
From: Delirium [mailto:delirium@hackish.org]
>I don't think academic credentials are very good ones.
> Perhaps some measure of involvement in Wikipedia would
>be a reasonable start, as most of our longtime
>contributors are reasonably reliable.
>
>-Mark
Perhaps articles should be reviewed by at least a couple of people. One
'expert' plus one long term wikipedian, in whom we trust.
Theresa
Daniel "mav" Mayer wisely observed:
> But we have to start something ala Larry's sifter idea since
> we are getting slammed in the media due to our perceived
> non-trusted status (I personally think these objections are
> laughable since they are comparing us to encyclopedias that
> are hundreds of years old and that have very similar disclaimers).
For our first 3 1/2 years, *all* our articles were development versions.
We had to do it that way because it was the only way to attract enough
writers to get started. For our next 96 1/2 years, as we catch up to
Britannica and World Book, I think we should adopt mav's idea.
We should make our "stable" versions more prominent. When Google sends
their robot by, to index the latest changes, tell the robot to look at
the stable version -- not the latest "development version".
If we agree on this (and I'm not saying we have done so) -- then we will
be able to move ahead and decide *what sort* of endorsement we're
looking for to flag a version as stable.
Jens is also right: we don't need academic degrees for everything. Okay,
in most areas of physics or chemistry I admit to being awed by PhD's --
but in any field of science less old than a few decades I stubbornly
refuse to accept the authority of academia as being capable of
"settling" anything.
Also, as discussed last month, there are different *types* of
endorsement:
* If mav has "patrolled" an article version, this means he did a diff or
read the whole thing and certifies that it's "vandalism-free"
* If Vicky Rosenzweig has "proofread" or "copy-edited" the article, than
I'm reasonable sure that it's free of typos, spelling errors and
grammatical mistakes.
* I'm not so sure about Grunt's "NPOV" stamp of approval: there will
always be a large handful of articles which NEVER produce a "stable
version" -- BUT the prospect of getting a version 'ready for 1.0' MIGHT
be an incentive for edit warriors to produce a stripped-down 'consensus
version' (in maybe 10% of cases ;-)
* Some professional or academic can throw their weight behind a version.
I'd rather read an article on teeth and gums with some dentist's "flag
of approval" than an unflagged article. As a reader, I can decide how
much faith to have in that dentist's education and experience.
What I'm saying is that the "rating system" won't be perfect, but that
it will be better than nothing (even at first) - and that over time we
can improve it!
Ed Poor
An experienced Wikipedian
Matt R matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Sep 10 14:25:56 UTC 2004
> --- Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
>> Again, I hold that the "review club" should be very open to all
>> comers,
>> just as the "edit club". We may choose a more disciplined approach
>> within the "review club" and be more harsh about disturbances, but we
>> absolutely should not ask for (and entrants should not mention their)
>> academic qualifications at the doorstep. Their ''actual writing''
>> should be their sole guarantor. With reference to this post:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/
>> 030499.html
>> If renowned academic Alice cannot conclusively prove and defend her
>> view of things and layman Bob can, then we should follow Bob. We
>> should
>> NOT believe something is right just because "the right people" say it.
>> That's a reverse ad-hominem. Go read the [[ad hominem]] article. Do it
>> now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>
> Or rather, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Yea.
Thanks for actually looking up the [[ad hominem]] and [[appeal to
authority]] articles! :-)
My referencing of a "reverse [[Ad hominem]]" instead of [[Appeal to
authority]] had the "subtle" ;-) advantage of carrying a negative
connotation:
Because I regard what I described before as a ''bad'' thing (at least
in the WP context) -- whereas an [[Appeal to authority]] per definition
needn't necessarily be bad.
Sneaky me.
;-)
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
On 10 Sep 2004, at 10:35, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?
>
> --- Patrick Aiden Hunt <skyler1534(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> I know this may seem to some to be a silly question, but why do you
>> need
>> someone with academic credentials reviewing articles? Any normal
>> encyclopedia simply uses a basic bibliography and the information in
>> the
>> article is from books that are written by experts who have academic
>> credentials already recognized. If we had people simply cite sources
>> for
>> information, then it seems like we would have to worry much less about
>> the reviewers' credentials.
>
> Pragmatic; many people will not trust and in fact warn people against
> using our
> content otherwise. Think of it as building a bridge to the old way of
> publishing and to the drones who think that is the only way content
> can be
> trusted.
If we'd insist on, or automatically give preference to, academic
credentials/individuals at any stage and in any way, then we'd yield
to, and become part of, the self-fulfilling prophecy that only academic
folks can "get it right".
Please understand that I'm not against academics participating in our
review processes (just as everybody else). But I'm very much against
reverting the Wikipedia into just another place where "academically
accredited" equals "holier than thou". I fervently favour the notion of
"one man, one vote" (with apologies to non-sexist language advocates).
Just because most people in the world today allow many of their equally
good ideas to be overruled by <awe>academic experts</awe>, doesn't make
it the right thing to do. Yes, true, most academics are, on average,
probably better qualified than non-academics. But under the traditional
system A LOT of brilliant brilliant input is lost, because people are
simply put off by never having a chance of working as equals (unless
they ''become'' academics as well) and people are put off by that, if
not even turned away at the door for failing to meet "minimum
standards".
I believe. I believe that every human is unique. I believe that every
human has unique contributions to make to human knowledge. I believe
that in an ideal world there would be a system of joint knowledge
aggregation that could embrace everybody's contribution and then
magically combine these contributions (diverse and imperfect, all) into
something elaborate and serene that's more than the sum of its parts. I
believe that Wikipedia currently ''IS'' that dream. It allows just that
to happen. Not easily, not automatically, not without dispute, but it
does happen. It would pain me if our future implementations of our
review processes would end that dream. Because taking this "pragmatic"
step is not a bridge to the past. It's ''becoming'' the bad old days
again. And I for one, would feel betrayed for all the contributions I
made. The Wikipedia you're proposing is not the Wikipedia I submitted
my work to.
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
PS: This is NOT against having a better review system -- I ''DO'' want
just that. I again refer to my previous post:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030496.html
Again, I hold that the "review club" should be very open to all comers,
just as the "edit club". We may choose a more disciplined approach
within the "review club" and be more harsh about disturbances, but we
absolutely should not ask for (and entrants should not mention their)
academic qualifications at the doorstep. Their ''actual writing''
should be their sole guarantor. With reference to this post:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030499.html
If renowned academic Alice cannot conclusively prove and defend her
view of things and layman Bob can, then we should follow Bob. We should
NOT believe something is right just because "the right people" say it.
That's a reverse ad-hominem. Go read the [[ad hominem]] article. Do it
now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
On 10 Sep 2004, at 10:35, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:42:43 +0100
> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
>
> <snip />
>
> D) You are not going to get top academics interested.
>
> Charles
Yes we will.
Build it and they will come.
They already are coming.
There already are rather good academics in our midst.
If however some "top academics" were to refuse to respond to our
invitation (which we extend to academics and non-academics alike) just
because they cannot throw their weight around here and have to -gasp-
defend their views among equals, then we're probably better off without
those "top academics". We're not shedding any tears over trolls
deserting the Wikipedia either.
The ''real'' top academics will continue to be (increasingy) attracted
by our proposition and they won't have a problem with defending their
views, nor with conversing with fellow contributors as equals.
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
On 10 Sep 2004, at 10:35, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:35:02 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2004, at 01:23, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly, Britain and Ireland are considered part of Europe,
>>> even
>>> Iceland is, while Cuba is not considered part of North America.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>
>> Is that so?
>> Well... four words: United States foreign politics ;-)
>
> I believe that this position predates the Castro era.
>
> Ec
Hm. That's probably because of the "islands aren't continents" concept
I referenced earlier.
-J
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@ctelco.net]
Sent: 09 September 2004 17:47
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Robert Brookes
>I think referring to him as "this prick" is not cool despite his
referring
>to you as part of the "lunatic fringe".
>Fred
Of course you are right and I apologize. I just got very irritated over
the smegma article. Because of edit warring this article had around 100
edits yet still remained stubby. My first edit was to try to a
compromise wording to try and satisfy both sides of the argument. RB
reverted. I tried to reason with him. RB insulted. So I stopped talking
to him but instead tried to work on expanding the article. There was a
phrase that said smegma contained antiviral and antibacterial agents and
also protected against irritation from urine. I could find no evidence
to support the antviral or protection from urine claim so I removed them
(Presumably RB would have been pleased with this) However there was
evidence of antibacterial properties so I wrote.
"Smegma contains the enzyme lysozyme which attacks the cell walls of
many Gram positive bacteria causing them to burst. Presumably this
prevents the massive build up of harmful bacteria in what would
otherwise be an ideal environment for them. Lysozyme is only able to
lyse certain Gram positive bacteria. Some are resistant. The
non-pathogenic mycobacterium M. smegmatis is not affected by lysozyme
and grows rapidly in smegma."
RB wrote on the talk page:
"What a lot of garbage. What has this to do with smegma? Give me one
good reason why this rubbish should remain in the smegma article? -
Robert Brookes 04:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Interesting to see another anti-circumcision activist come to Theresa's
assistance. I hope no one asks what has all this business of lysozyme
got to do with circumcision. Give it a little time and a few tweeks and
all will become apparent. - Robert Brookes 05:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)"
GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!! The fact that my writing had bugger all to do with
circumcision is seen as evidence that I am a sneaky activist trying to
insert anti circumcision POV "by stealth".
Anyway that's why I was annoyed. That and the fact that my lasted edits
have all been to do with penis related articles so I've got pricks on
the brain ;-)
Theresa
I am surprised by the recent attacks from JFW. I don't even
understand how they started. Up until two days ago he and I
got along fine; we had a most friendly relationship. His
letter attacking me came out of nowhere.
JFW writes:
> In one day, I've been called dishonest, a fundamentalist
> and a censor by Robert, and dishonest and a censor by an
> antisemitic vandal who decided to change my userpage.
> For some reason I've stuck my arm in the crate with
> velociraptors, haven't I?
Calling me a "velociraptor" and lumping me together with
anti-Semites is a hateful thing to do, especially
considering that he and I have worked together in a
friendly fashion. Worse, he knows that he and I are on the
same side against anti-Semites. To see JFW write this is
painful and disappointing.
> I have stated my real concern with Robert's
> "critical historical" quotes in my original post
> to this list. However, Robert is in fact turning
> my views inside out. I do *not* want to eliminate
> or suppress historical interpretations, but I'm
> annoyed that Robert doens't research the traditional
> (or Haredi, if you want) take on things.
That is patently false. The only person refusing to do this
is JFW himself. I am very happy to include any such views,
when I come across them.
The real problem is that while JFW is a member of the
ultra-Orthodox Jewish community (i.e. Haredi Judaism), he
absolutely refuses to contribute anything on this point
from the Haredi perspective. Oddly, he demands that other
people write about his own community's point of view, even
when other people tell him that we are not familiar enough
with their views to do so. Does this make sense to anyone?
The current subject of contention is [[Maimonides]] and his
ideas on "true beliefs" versus "necessary beliefs", an
important topic both in the philosophy of religion, and in
the philosophy of political systems. JFW keeps claiming
that there must be Haredi points-of-view on this issue, and
that I am deliberately not including them. That's nonsense.
JFW can't even tell us where to find Haredi points-of-view
on this specific issue, yet he demands that someone outside
of his community should include them.
Folks, here is the general rule for Wikipedia: If you want
to include a point-of-view, then write it. But never
attack others for not writing what you wish you had written
yourself.
Not every person is an expert on every issue. Stop
attributing a lack of knowledge to deceit and malice. For
instance, I fully admit that I have no knowledge of what
ultra-Orthodox Jews may think of Maimonides' writings on
"true beliefs" versus "necessary beliefs". That is why I
can't contribute anything on this specific point.
If JFW has some info on this issue, he is free to include
them. But he is not free to repeatedly harass me about
including info that I just do not have! (And I do not have
the time to get this info either, especially since he has
given no specific references! If he gave me a specific
book and page number, from an English source, I might be
able to find it, but JFW has never done so.)
> I cannot stand by idly to see him overwhelm
> Judaism-related articles with critical-historical
> material without making serious mention of the
> traditional interpretations (which are not all too
> hard to find in English-language literature).
First off, I have contributed a tremendous amount of such
material. Apparently, you think that it wasn't enough?
Fine! Then add more! If you want to include a
point-of-view within an article, then include it. No one
is stopping you. You and I fully agree.
But never attack others for not writing your POV for you!
I am merely a volunteer contributor to Wikipedia, and I am
not anyone's galley slave. Since you are unwilling to do
the work yourself, you certainly have no right to attack
others.
> On [[Talk:Maimonides]] I asked Robert to reproduce a
> particular quotation from the scholar Ibn Tibbon,
> something that Robert refused to do despite having
> photocopies of the article from which the quote could
> be taken.
This goes too far. JFW is not honest. Anyone here can go to
the article and see the quotes I added for
themselves...unless someone dishonestly deleted the quote I
added.
Summary: JFW absolutely refuses to add information, berates
me for not doing his own work for him, and then makes false
claims about quotes that I really gave him. That is nothing
less than harassment.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Interestingly, Britain and Ireland are considered part of Europe, even
Iceland is, while Cuba is not considered part of North America.
Fred
> From: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins(a)gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins(a)gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:51:00 +0100
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ABOUT LATITUDE.
>
> Two things: first, I am also European - English, to be precise -