Hello all,
I am happy to announce that a Wikimedia newsletter is underway. The
plan is to publish it online next week, then lay it out for print
publication. You can see an outline of the first issue here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Newsletter_(outline)
We are looking for a managing editor in each language, a lead
copyeditor, a print editor, and a community reporter. If you would
like to work on the newsletter in any capacity, please leave a note on
the talk page, or email me directly.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Newsletter
Everyone is encouraged to suggest content; particularly compelling
wiki-statistics, notes about local wikiprojects, symbolic articles
(preferably from the [[meta:List of articles all languages should
have]], and 'feature-quality' in more than one language) and images
for the gallery. Please leave suggestions for newsletter content on
the discussion page above.
We also need translators, and proofreaders in each language. You can
follow the translation effort or contribute to it here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/NL-1
Rundschreiben der Wikimedia
Wikimedia newsletter
Boletín de noticias de Wikimedia
Lettre de diffusion de Wikimedia
ウィキメディア広報誌
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/NL-1
Wer Lust hat, sich an der deutschen (oder anderen) Fassung zu
beteiligen, schreibt bitte an meta.sj(a)gmail.com
If you would like to help translate or edit the newsletter, please
send mail to meta.sj(a)gmail.com
Si Usted quiere traducir entre español y otro idioma, o corregir en
español, favor de mandar un email a meta.sj(a)gmail.com.
Si vous voulez faire une traduction ou rédacter en français,
écrivez-nous a meta.sj(a)gmail.com.
日本語への翻訳、日本語からの翻訳や、
日本語での編集作業を手伝っていただける方はmeta.sj(a)gmail.xn--com-u63b3a4a5b7b6byd5nri11b9dykl273d.
=====
On the subject of translations, I want to repeat Michael Snow's notice
of the press release being prepared in honor of the one millionth
Wikipedia article. Please spread the word, and help us translate this
into every one of our hundred+ languages (currently we only have
translations in 15). Note that the original is still being edited, and
is not yet ready for release.
Globale Presseerklärung (millionstel Seite)
Global press release (millionth article)
Lanzamiento de prensa global (millonésimo artículo)
Communiqué de presse global (millionième article)
１００万記事達成の全世界向けプレスリリース
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/PR-1mil
This is also a good time to think of local newspapers and radio
stations that you could contact about the announcement (it's not too
early to start contacting them now). For a list of organizations
contacted earlier this year, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/Logbook
September cheer,
Sj
JFW writes:
> The Maimonides issue has spun completely out of control,
> like many other pages where RK decides to take over.
No one has taken over any article. The real problem, as I
encourage you to see for yourself, is that JFW has refused
to offer any ideas, yet becomes angry when POVs other than
his exist. I have repeatedly extended my hand in
friendship, and encourged him to offer points-of-view from
within his own community. We have communicated in a most
friendly fashion in private e-mail and on a number of Talk
pages. I always welcome his point of view. I would love
for these articles to include many points of view. But what
can I do? JFW refuses to include any POVs he claims exist
from within his own community, and it hurts him that
not-ultra-Orthodox POVs views exist.
All JFW has been able to do so far is to protest the very
existence of ideas that differ from his own. That is not
Wikipedia NPOV policy.
I understand that an ultra-Orthodox Jew, JFW has only
rarely been exposed to critical-historical research of his
own faith. Still, it is a bit startling to see him dismiss
the writing of his fellow Orthodox Jew so blithely. Nothing
I added was original research; rather, I merely referred to
the views of mainstream scholars of the topic - many of
whom themselves are Orthodox Jews. Unfortunately, JFW has a
very select list of who he consideres authentic Orthodox
Jewish scholars and rabbis, and he is pained by the
citation of people not on his very short list.
To give an example of JFW's misunderstandings, the last
time I mentioned Orthodox Jewish points of view on the
topic of Artscroll books, he posted a panicky attack
accusing me of damaging Jewish unity. What JFW fails to
understand is that Wikipedia is not a fundamentalist Jewish
religious publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is NOT to
foster JFW's idea of "Jewish unity", Joe's idea of
"Christian Unity", or Sally's idea of "Islamic Unity". Our
goal is academic honesty and integrity.
A long time ago we found that many of our Christian
fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalist and Muslim
fundamentalists became angry when they were confronted with
historical-critical studies of their faiths. So? They
learn to allow these other points of view to exist, or they
revert all the material which pains them, and then they
eventually get reprimanded. JFW should choose wisely.
JFw writes:
> He deposits a lot of research, most of which is only
> of marginal relevance to the issue,
Wow, that is dishonest. We were discussing a very specific
issue, and JFW and Jayjg repearedly asked me to provide
quotes and references. I complied; In response, JFW is now
attacking me for politely presenting the very quotes he
explicitly asked me for. I find it mean and disingenous for
someone to ask me to provide citations, yet then to
complain when I comply. That's outrageous behaviour.
JFW writes:
> and causes long and heated debates on talk pages
> whether these insertions are justified.
Yes, this occurs on every one of our pages about religion,
Jewish, Christian and Muslim. If you cannot handle this,
then this forum is not for you. I have seen a few Chrisitan
fundamentalists here become very angry when confronted with
sources that do not match thier religious dogma; the same
is true for Jewish fundamentalists such as you and Ezra
Wax. You both get angry when you see a historical-critical
POV.
This has all happened before. For example, see Ezra Wax's
old battles with Danny. Ezra viewed Danny's contributions
as wrong, heretical and biased. In Ezra's view, unless the
article was acceptable to ultra-Orthodox Jews, it was not
"NPOV". Unfortunately Ezra was wrong. As Danny pointed out
to him, NPOV does not mean that everyone will agree with
the article. It merely means that we say that "According to
group A, the following is true, while according to group B,
such-and-such is true". Your problem is that you don't
want the article to mention points of view that you
consider heretical, and that's not cool.
JFW writes:
> Often, vital POVs are not represented, because
> RK favours particular sources for his research
> and (?conveniently) forgets to mention that these
> POVs exist.
I am pained to see such deliberate falsehoods. Folks,
please check the talk pages for the articles in question.
You will see that I have repeatedly asked JFW to bring
forth other POVs, if he believes that they exist. JFW
refuses to do so - and that is his fault, for which he can
blame no one else. Instead of bringing forth other POVs, he
tries to censor those that he finds heretical or
inconvient. He especially seems angry at the views of
Orthodox Jews who are not ultra-Orthodox.
JFw writes:
> I do not argue with Robert over pages that don't
> have my interest, but we recently had a major flurry
> over [[Artscroll]], a Jewish publisher of religious
> texts. Robert wanted to insert allegations expressed
> on mailing lists concerning the historicity and
factuality
> of the content of many of these books. While some of
> these allegations came from respectable sources, some
> others were simple paranoid mumblings by mailinglist
contributors.
This is shockingly dishonest. The issue, ironically, was
about the phenomenon of ultra-Orthodox Jews censoring facts
that they found inconvenient.
We are talking about an ultra-Orthodox Jewish publisher
faking photos in Soviet-style revisionism, censoring facts
about the life of religious scholars, etc. The faked
photss and censored texts are well-established facts. The
phenomenon is openly discussed in the academic Jewish
community, and a significant amount of criticism towards
this censorship exists in the modern Orthodox community.
The fact that JFW is at odds with his own fellow Orthodox
Jews over censorship and historical distortion is a private
matter; the fact that he misrepresents this subject in
order to effectively censor an article is richly ironic.
> I'm seriously wondering where this is heading.
This is an ad homenim attack, attributing sinister
intentions to me, solely because I am openly discussing
subjects that you wish to keep hidden. For shame.
We here on Wikipedia do not allow Christian, Jewish or
Muslim fundamentalists to restrict the topic or contents of
our articles, in order to meet their comfort levels. As I
have always done, I continue to invite you to provide
quotes and references to back up any points-of-view that
you would like to include within any of our articles. Just
stop attacking other people for having the right to do the
same.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
--- wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
> to
> wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
> more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: VfD is broken (Tim Starling)
> 2. Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
> 3. Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
> 4. Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken (Matt Brown)
> 5. Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
> 6. Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
> 7. Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 14 (Denni)
> 8. Re: Please stop Danny from harassing me (J.F. de
> Wolff)
> 9. Announcing Wikibookclub (daniwo59(a)aol.com)
> 10. Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Rick)
> 11. Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Rick)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:09:11 +1000
> From: Tim Starling <ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <chggs8$rkp$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Chris Wood wrote in full:
> > Deletionism is a problem because it is against current
> Wikipedia policies.
>
> [...and some other similar posts]
>
> Chris, how about rolling those 6 posts up into one in the
> future, and
> quoting the text that you're replying to. This is a
> mailing list, not IM.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:05:51 +1200
> From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <chggsa$s0g$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
>
> > Stubs yes, but their notability and/or verifiability is
> another. What
> > will people think of how trustworthy our information is
> if we permit
> > rubbish such as a biased advertisement for a discussion
> forum to
> > languish on Wikipedia?
>
> But what do you mean by notability? Your humble opinion?
> Have a look at the
> proposed policy on what "notability" means at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:05:56 +1200
> From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <chggse$s0g$2(a)sea.gmane.org>
>
> > Unfortunately, the things which CAN be quickly deleted
> are very limited.
> Right now, there is a huge number of pages written by a
> troll named [[El
> Coronado]] which are obvious fiction, but they are not
> allowed to be speedy
> deleted, because obviously false information is not an
> acceptable condition
> (by some) for speedy deletion. Instead, we have to go
> through the
> cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them. If obviously
> false information
> was an accpetable criterion, then we could have gotten
> rid of all of this
> user's creations already, and we wouldn't have several
> different entries on
> VfD for them.
> >
> > If there were no VfD, what would be the inclusionists'
> acceptable process
> for getting rid of this false information?
>
> I don't think any "inclusionists" have argued to get rid
> of VfD. We're just
> saying it isn't working like it was originally designed
> to. I don't have an
> alternative process, just a recommendation that people
> actually follow
> policy on which articles should be listed on VfD - this
> is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance
>
> > It took a great deal of work and research by several
> people actively
> involved in the VfD process to make this into a useable
> article. Would
> those of you objecting to VfD actually have preferred
> that it have remained
> as it was in its original state?
> > I am an active participant in [[Cleanup]]. But there
> are hundreds of
> articles listed there that never get worked on. By
> putting a 5-day deadline
> on them on the VfD page, we get some very reasonable
> articles, which then
> get kept. VfD is NOT just a "deletionist" playground,
> it's a serious effort
> by many people to make decent articles, or to figure out
> what to do with
> articles that aren't decent.
>
> We are saying "improve the article, don't delete it , if
> the article is
> important (Wikipedia:Importance) enough". VfD is not
> about improvement, it's
> about deletion. Cleanup is about improvement. Yes, there
> are some articles
> (less than hundreds) which are never worked on. Yet
> surely that is better
> than the hundreds which are deleted, not because they
> don't belong in
> Wikipedia, but because they aren't good enough?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:10:58 -0700
> From: Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re:VfD is broken
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <42f90dc0040905191057474d1c(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:50:43 +1200, Chris Wood
> <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Deletionism is a problem because it is against current
> Wikipedia policies.
>
> Both extremes - extreme deletionism, and extreme
> inclusionism - are
> against current Wikipedia policies.
>
> -Matt (User:Morven)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:16:37 +1200
> From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <chgham$t1v$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
>
> > > Deletionism is a problem because it is against
> current Wikipedia
> policies.
> >
> > Both extremes - extreme deletionism, and extreme
> inclusionism - are
> > against current Wikipedia policies.
> >
> > -Matt (User:Morven)
>
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
I�m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it�s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
>>> Having an article only gives the impression to readers
>>> that we tolerate junk.
>> Which is good. If we give the impression to readers
>> that we tolerate only full-grown complete articles,
>> we will detract contributors who are perhaps not quite
>> as good a writer as they would like to be.
> Exactly. This is why Nupedia failed.
That may be one of the reasons why the early attempt at
Nupedia failed, but the idea behind Nupedia still lives.
Haven't many of us discussed some form of stable Wikipedia
1.0, which has some form of peer-review above the usual?
And perhaps Nupedia was a bit premature, as we were asking
volunteers to start from zero.
Wikipedia has grown immensely in the last few years. The
number of people with serious academic credentials who have
some favorable opinion of it has probably grown by an order
of magnitude as well. Now that a huge amount of open-source
material is already available here, it should be easier to
re-kindle the Nupedia project today. The idea would be
much more attractive this time around, as (on many
subjects) people wouldn't have to start from scratch.
Contributors could take a series of Wikipedia articles (if
they wished) and use this text as a launching pad for their
own work.
Like Larry Sanger, I am still concerned about the long-term
prestige of Wikipedia. As long as many contributors don't
reference their claims, and don't rely on published
authorities (at least to some extent), then many people in
academic won't take our articles seriously. But using
Wikipedia as an open-source feeder for growing Nupedia
articles leverages everyone's efforts; the whole could be
much greater than the sum of its parts.
Nupedia might not have worked then. But one or two years
from now it might be the perfect idea.
Robert (RK)
=====
I�m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it�s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I have left a message for Netoholic warning him that I will be blocking him
if he doesn't stop "refactoring" various talk pages where he is being
criticized, citing [[Wikipedia:Refactoring]] and [[Wikipedia:Remove
personal attacks]].
The message I left was here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#Warning_re:_refactoring>
Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)
At 05:48 AM 9/7/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re:
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <20040907054809.44301.qmail(a)web60606.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>His actions on the VfD page and the pages listed there can only be
>considered vandalism. Repeated deletions of VfD headers, and repeated
>deletions of pages listed on the VfD page is vandalism. Non-consensus
>mass moving of pages is vandalism. Repeated deletions of other people's
>discussions is vandalism.
>
>RickK
>
>Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote:
> > I have blocked Netoholic for 24 hours. I am sure somebody will run
> slavering to the Special pages in order to unblock him as soon as they
> see this, but I'll tell you why I have blocked him.
>
>I'd unblocked him before you sent this. And it didn't involve running
>or slavering.
>
> > Netoholic, since his first few days on Wikipedia, has been nothing but
> disruptive.
>
>I don't think that is a fair summary. Netoholic is not a troll acting
>in bad faith. He believes he is improving the VfD system. In my
>opinion, he's going about that the wrong way, but his edits can not be
>classed as purely disruptive.
>
>Angela.
Good day all,
I have recently signed up to the WikiEN-l list and would like to say
hello to all members! If I post dumb or stupid replys to anything
please forgive me as I am new here.
Thank you for your time,
Regards,
--
Matthew Larsen
> mat.larsen(a)gmail.com
> 07739 785 249
Hi Mathew and welcome to the wonderful world of this mailing list. I
might as well use this reply to announce that whilst I've been of this
list for a couple of months I'm back now. Theresa
I think it would be a good idea to have the information in a tab
called "Metrics", which could have those numbers, as well as the
number of unique authors, and number of edits. (And of course some
heuristic to filter out effects from edit wars, etc.)
BTW, this is the recent experiment that has caused the latest buzz:
http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html
Note that each of the five articles used in this person's experiment
are very low traffic - one had only three authors and four edits,
another had two authors and two edits. Certainly it was not
Wikipedia's finest hour, but he certainly chose (and if an appropriate
word, cherrypicked) the right ones to highlight the weaknesses.
Articles were: Layzie Bone; Magni; Empuries; Philipsburg, PA; Bernice
Johnson Reagon
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:20:05 -0400, Alex Krupp <amk63(a)cornell.edu> wrote:
> On the top of each Wikipedia article should be two things: The time
> since each article was last edited and the average number of views
> that article gets per day. This would form a rough system of
> accountability for every article. For example, a page that hasn't
> been edited in twenty days and gets over a hundred views per days
> would be likely to contain fewer errors than a page that was last
> edited three days ago and gets four views per day.
>
> This way one could even come up with a simple heuristic combining the
> two statistics so that editors could surf through articles looking
> for the ones most likely to contain mistakes. One could also surf
> through the articles least likely to contain mistakes as an
> admittedly imperfect although useful way of finding articles to
> nominate for 1.0. I know you can check all of the edits and their
> dates through the edit history, but there is no easy way for the
> average user to check how many views any given page gets. This could
> potentially go a great way for increasing the amount of faith the
> average population has in Wikipedia.
>
> Also, I should mention this has been inspired by the recent
> controversy involving the article by Al Fasoldt and the subsequent
> discussion on this list and now slashdot.
>
> Alex Krupp
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
--
Andrew Lih
andrew.lih(a)gmail.com
I've recently had an email discussion with Al Fasoldt about the entire
"can-Wikipedia-be-trusted" affair.
He is ok with me sharing his emails, so I could forward all related
emails to this list.
Do people want me to do that?
I'm just asking 'cuz we're talking several emails here and I won't
trigger this minor flood unless people are interested.
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
This issue is really getting tiresome. Danny, a Wikipedia
administrator, is again harassing me. Danny keeps jumping
into articles where a discussion about the content is
taking place...and instead of offering constructive
criticism about how the article should be changed, he makes
multiple ad homenim attacks towards me.
For instance, consider the recent issue over what should be
mentioned in the article on [[Maimonides]] (Rabbi Moses ben
Maimon.) I have been doing a lot of reading on this issue
for a number of years. I am trying to have the points of
view of several mainstream Maimonidean scholars included in
the article. Here is the situation, pre-Danny:
I brought forth quotes and citations to illustrate the
point of view of these people, who are generally regarded
as experts in the field. In contrast, Jayjg won't let me
quote anybody, and is making the claim that this is part of
some Orthodox versus non-Orthodox struggle (It isn't, and I
do not understand where his idea comes from; ironically, I
haven't quoted any figures from non-Orthodox schools of
thought!) I have repeatedly told Jay that I would be happy
for this article to include points of view from people with
other views, and I am still waiting for him to bring
examples. He hasn't offered any at all.
Thus, the only points of view mentioned so far are the ones
from the sources I brought.
JFW had a different complaint. He says that he believes
that somewhere, some Orthodox rabbis must have written on
this topic, and that we should include their views as well.
This isn't a problem, as I totally agree with JFW. I would
be very happy if brought forth their views on these issues.
So far he hasn't. But I look forward to learning from any
other points of view that JFW may yet find. This is how
Wikipedia articles grow and improve. No problem, right?
But into this Danny started making ad homenim attacks.
Danny interjected:
> Oh, but RK, you mentioned that you frequent the
> JTS library. They certainly have an Or Sameach, as
> would any yeshiva in New York and Westchester. For
> people who are genuinely intersted in Jewish
scholarship,
> they are far more accessible than any journal you can
quote.
> Or are you incapable of conducting "scholarship" that
does
> not support your POV
This personal attack is a violation of Wikipedia standards,
yet Danny uses his position as an administrator to get away
with repeated personal abuse. He is saying that I am
dishonestly not reporting points-of-view that I do not
agree with.
(A) That is a total lie, and a defamation of character.
(B) Curiously, Danny is unable to disagree with a single
sentence I contributed; he himself offers no reason to
doubt that the quotes I offered are accurate. He certainly
offers no other citations.
(C) If Danny thinks that other important points of view
exist, then by all means go find them and help contribue to
the article. But do not slander a Wikipedia contributor for
not including points of view that they are not even aware
of! We have thousands of contributors who bring new points
of view every day. Do we harass them for not bringing
counter-points-of-view? No! We'd drive away all of
contributors if we did this! If we think something is
missing, we simply add it. Is this unreasonable?
(D) Danny is lying about my ability to go to a library and
look up the specific Hebrew sources that JFW requested.
See, Danny and I have spoken on the telephone many times,
and he knows that I do not speak Hebrew. When I want to
understand what a Hebrew text means, I go to established
authorities known for expertise in translation, and I do
not attempt to translate it myself. Danny certainly had no
problem with any other user on Wikipedia doing this. Why am
I the only person who has to read ancient Hebrew in order
to write on Judaica articles? Do all of our contributors to
Christianity articles have to read ancient Greek? That is
just insane.
(E) Danny writes "As for the topic at hand, RK, since the
vast majority of material on this topic is in Hebrew, as
are all the primary sources, you seem incapable of
conducting any 'serious scholarship.' " There are two huge
problems with this personal attack
* Danny is confused about the difference between original
scholarship, which we DO NOT accept on Wikipedia, and
describing the views of scholars, which is encouraged. I am
quoting established authorities and summarizing their
views, as is standard for Wikipedia. If he really disagrees
the views that I have described, then he is free to look
for other views to add. Isn't that always the standard
operating procedure? He should not dishonestly attribute
what I am writing as my own original research, in order to
impugn the views of scholars he may disagree with.
* Danny is making factualy false claims. A huge amount of
scholarship on this topic is in English, by many of the
world's leading scholars. Any claim to the contray is a bad
joke. Just go to the huge JTS or HUC libraries in
Manhattan, and you will see that half of their collections
are in the English language, including many fine scholarly
journals. In fact, more Judaica is written in English than
in any other language in the world. Danny's factually
false claim to the contrary does not improve the article,
it is just more harassment of me.
Danny's personal attacks have been a long-term problem, and
we really need to do something about this. He needs to stop
following me around from article to article making ad
homenim comments. Being a Wikipedia administrator means
being a role model, not someone who uses a personal grudge
to harass users.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail