WikiEN-l September 2004

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

97 participants
176 discussions

Re: Why Academics are Useful to Wikipedia
by Michael Snow 14 Sep '04

14 Sep '04

Daniel Mayer wrote: >--- Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote: > > >>Last time I ventured my two cents concerning the print Wikipedia, the >>response I got led me to conlcude that there was no support for forking >>Wikipedia even in the slightest to make the content more acceptible -- which >>is what any approval board would end up doing. Then the project seemed to go >>into hibernation. Then it seemed that a group was working on it. Now it >>appears we are back to discussing what should be done. >> >> >What? How do you come to that conclusion? There *will* be no fork at *all* - >the only thing that will be done is selecting one version of an article that is >approved in some way. Any future approved version would be based on the >development version (that is, a regular Wikipedia article which would be in >perpetual development), not the last stable version. > If we adopt a formal approval system, the idea that all future approved versions will be based on development versions, rather than the last approved "stable" version, sounds naively idealistic to me. Even without an approval system, this is already not the case on some of our more contentious articles. When changes are not agreed on quickly, one side or the other, and sometimes both, may adopt the tactic of reverting back to an earlier version of which it "approves". However, since the sides generally do not approve of the same version, the dispute continues and often results in a revert war. Any system that marks a particular revision as "approved" or "stable" will inherently increase the temptation to blindly revert changes back to the "stable" revision, instead of trying to work with those changes and improve the article. This is already a problem in some places and among some editors (no names, this is not an invitation for finger-pointing). If we want to implement a system that lets people flag specific article revisions, let's at least be aware of the possible downsides to this as well. --Michael Snow

1 0

version control
by Minty 14 Sep '04

14 Sep '04

Been reading the threads about a stable 1.0 etc, and they are interesting. Here is my 2 pageclicks worth. I apologise up front if this has been bashed out before, in which case, ignore me :) Wiki's are about letting anyone contribute, in anyway they want. Anyone should be able to review - same way anyone can create, add, amend, edit, categorize, summarise or convert between british and american spellings ;) It is *your* opinion of the reviewer's reputation that seems to matter more. I might be happy with the most recent edit, my mum may want some approval from a well known (commercial?) brand she can trust. My friend in research would only accept articles that have been peer reviewed by at least two other subject aware academics. Having said I'd be happy with the most recent edits, I might actually want something more authoritative in some cases. For instance, if I put my personal mark of approval on these two articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_A-Team&oldid=5836501 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&… ... these (as far as I can tell) will never change [1]. You probably don't care - you don't know me from adam. Still, my mum might use my list. I need a way to list articles I have reviewed (and which versions). A watchlist with added version numbers? A Reviewlist? Only I can amend my watchlist, so this isn't a big leap forward. You need a way to read (but not edit) my reviewlist. A list of all the pages I have reviewed would be a start. Going further, and assuming I had reviewed enough, have the software only show links to articles on the reviewlist of your reviewer of choice. Or the reviewers of your choosing. There is a limit to how much one person can review, but *you* can choose to trust many people. Once you've seen articles reviewed by your own list of reviewers, add the second degree reviewers. Friends of friends. m. ps. reputation systems. basis for trust, eg amazon, ebay, etc. reviews. There is a connection here me thinks. Why do people buy from complete strangers on ebay who they've never met? If I've sold a lot of stuff, and 99% of people where happy, are you any more likely to trust me as a seller? What if seller becomes reviewer, and buyer is the reader and we are trading in words? [1] The only minor issue being I cannot find a way to get this style of perma-link for the most recent version.

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why Academics are Useful to Wikipedia
by Jens Ropers 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:33:17 -0400 > From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> > > Computer equipment is becoming so incredibly cheap (...) > > <snip> > > -Mark Only in ''relative'' terms. True, the ''price per [[megaflop]]'', or ''price per megabyte'' of RAM or HD space, etc. -- these have all plummeted. However: in order to get a working computer system of ANY performance level, you will be lucky to get below a certain minimum price level. It doesn't even matter what computer generation we're talking about -- whether 386 / PowerPC 601 or G5 / Opteron. Sure, there always is that hiatus, that moment where people/companies who are upgrading obsessively give away their PCs for nothing. But securing one of these is sheer luck. As a check on ebay will tell you, there is a bottom line where things don't get cheaper, regardless of what generation of PC you're buying. Ironically, if you wanted to buy a good mid-class PC system 10 years ago, you probably had to spend, say, about $1200. If you want to buy a good mid-class PC system today, you have to spend -- surprise -- $1200! Yes, true, today you get "a lot more Mega" for your buck, but Joe Random User trying to buy a good mid-class PC has probably been spending the same amount for the last decade or so and the reason for that is that after the design phase is over, it costs about the same to fab an Opteron system today as it used to cost to fab a 386 system. (Back in the very old days it was different, and PCs did indeed cost $12000 and more instead of $1200. But you're getting my drift.) Of course marketing suits tell us that things are really, totally getting cheaper -- well, there probably is ''some'' truth in that as well. But less than most would think. Also, I would observe that the "minimum prize level" I mentioned above is still totally out of reach of (to make up a number), say 90% of the world population. They just can't spare that money, ridiculously little though it may seem to us. Let's not forget that. -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why Academics are Useful to Wikipedia
by Jens Ropers 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:46:43 +0100 (BST) > From: Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> > > So, if the Review Club has sufficient expertise, it reviews the > article itself. > If it feels unqualified, it solicits outside expertise. Forgive me if > I've > butchered the intent of your post, but this sounds pretty close to a > requirement for expert knowledge to me. (Reference: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html ) We positively DO want to get all the *expert knowledge* we can get. However we should NOT make the mistake of thinking that the only way we could get hold of *expert knowledge* was formally installing accredited experts and giving them more power than the next guy. I'm getting hoarse saying it, but: The idea is that all input should prevail by it's own merit and NOT by merit of the person contributing it holding a degree (=evidence of prior achievement). Letting EVERY contribution prevail on its own merit will be MORE likely to lead to superior results. YES to *expert knowledge*. YES to having people in our midst who ''could theoretically'' be regarded as "experts". NO to actually calling them "experts". (It would introduce bias, eg. it would intimidate some contributors who might have something useful to say and would choose to censor themselves because of false awe.) NO to expressly installing "experts". (They will come automatically.) NO to designating anyone an "expert" and NO to associating privilege with such labels. (It would lead to less scrutiny, because the "expert's" words would no longer have to prevail on their own merit.) "One man, one vote" will suffice. YES to an ''additional option'' to seek outside help: Only where the collective consensus of the review group gets to be that the group doesn't know enough, then seek help from outside experts. With this step, and ONLY with this step (and only as a last resort) the relevant review board ''could'' also look for academic degrees to for guidance of who might be competent. This last resort only becomes necessary when seeking outside help -- and that's because the outside world is not engaged in a Wiki process whereby it is possible only to look at the actual merit of "what was said". Using the "who said it"-principle when looking for outside expertise is a crutch, no doubt. But it's the "next best thing" to the Wiki process and it may be the only option left outside of the Wikisphere. > Moreover, a weakness of this system is > that the Review Club could easily make a mistake and not realise when > it has > insufficient expertise -- people generally dislike admitting their > limitations. An individual person might be tempted to oversell him/herself. Yet, because we're looking at a group of people engaged in a process as complete peers, that danger is minimized. > It seems much better to me to have mandatory input from some expert > with > evidence of his or her achievement. NO. See above. > -- Matt (User:Matt Crypto) Thanks and regards, -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com

2 1

When Powerful Jewish or Social-Marxist-PC Lobbies Censor the Internet....
by Mr Paul Vogel 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Dear Jens, Pedro, Mark, etc. et al: When any Powerful Jewish or Social-Marxist-PC Lobbies Censor the Internet...or RULE...EVERYONE ELSE ACTUALLY PAYS THE VERY HIGH PRICE, as the events of 9/11/01 and since have thereafter demonstrated. Jews and Social-Marxists also obviously do have control over both the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and in banning and in censoring anything or banning or censoring anyone editing Wikipedia that is not considered "Kosher" enough by them. This is also the actual and real reason for the undo one year ban and extensions, based upon the dishonest and unfair judgement of this same "Kosher" Arbitration Committee and cabal of lying hypocrites and censors. Like AIPAC and the Spy Scandal and Pollard etc. ad nauseum, and the "Neo-Con", actually "Zionist-Jewish" Kosher Conservative, invasion of Iraq, soon Iran and then maybe Syria, based upon lies and hypocrisy and instigated by same-EVERYONE PAYS THE VERY HIGH PRICE for this biased JEWISH and SOCIAL-MARXIST-PC CENSORSHIP and RULE! For example: A Look at The 'Powerful Jewish Lobby' by Mark Weber For decades Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression. Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and criminal. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities. "The whole world," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole world ... can be wrong." [1] Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid. Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel? Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: "The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful � very powerful." [2] Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only about three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence � vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group. As Jewish author and political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg has pointed out: [3] Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked ... Jews are only three percent of the nation's population and comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation's elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organizations, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants. Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the "disproportionate political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to explain that "Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry." [4] Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene: [5] During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series. The influence of American Jewry in Washington, notes the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post, is "far disproportionate to the size of the community, Jewish leaders and U.S. official acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they contribute to [election] campaigns." One member of the influential Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations "estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign." [6] "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." [7] One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, now editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [8] In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation ... Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish � one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 percent among top-grossing films. The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America's most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates. Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are routinely portrayed as high-minded, altruistic, trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of Americans readily accept such stereotyped imagery, not everyone is impressed. "I am very angry with some of the Jews," complained actor Marlon Brando during a 1996 interview. "They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are ... Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering." [9] A Well-Entrenched Factor The intimidating power of the "Jewish lobby" is not a new phenomenon, but has long been an important factor in American life. In 1941 Charles Lindbergh spoke about the danger of Jewish power in the media and government. The shy 39-year-old � known around the world for his epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first solo trans-Atlantic crossing � was addressing 7,000 people in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941, about the dangers of US involvement in the war then raging in Europe. The three most important groups pressing America into war, he explained, were the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration. Of the Jews, he said: "Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government." Lindbergh went on: ... For reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, [they] wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we must also look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction. In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal wrote in his detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [10] How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power ... In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles. As a result of the Jewish grip on the media, wrote Lilienthal, news coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in American television, newspapers and magazines is relentlessly sympathetic to Israel. This is manifest, for example, in the misleading portrayal of Palestinian "terrorism." As Lilienthal put it: "One-sided reportage on terrorism, in which cause is never related to effect, was assured because the most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control." One-Sided 'Holocaust' History The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life has had a profound impact on how Americans look at the past. Nowhere is the well entrenched Judeocentric view of history more obvious than in the "Holocaust" media campaign, which focuses on the fate of Jews in Europe during World War II. Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has remarked: [11] Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in accordance with the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes by without a new TV production, a new film, a new drama, new books, prose or poetry, dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing rather than abating. Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable attention. Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish victimization are, for example, the tens of millions of victims of America's World War II ally, Stalinist Russia, along with the tens of millions of victims of China's Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14 million Germans, victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of whom some two million lost their lives. The well-financed Holocaust media and "educational" campaign is crucially important to the interests of Israel. Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University, has observed: "With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy." [12] Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught political science at City University of New York (Hunter College), says in his book, The Holocaust Industry, that "invoking The Holocaust" is "a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews." [13] "By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure ... Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel's and its own morally indefensible policies." He writes of the brazen "shakedown" of Germany, Switzerland and other countries by Israel and organized Jewry "to extort billions of dollars." "The Holocaust," Finkelstein predicts, "may yet turn out to be the 'greatest robbery in the history of mankind'." Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own." [14] Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States: [15] I've never seen a President � I don't care who he is � stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on. Today the danger is greater than ever. Israel and Jewish organizations, in collaboration with this country's pro-Zionist "amen corner," are prodding the United States � the world's foremost military and economic power � into new wars against Israel's enemies. As the French ambassador in London recently acknowledged, Israel � which he called "that shitty little country" � is a threat to world peace. "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?," he said. [16] To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States. The "Jewish lobby" is a decisive factor in US support for Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to American interests. In fact, they often conflict. As long as the "very powerful" Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of current affairs and history, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S. political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace. Notes 1. Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19, 2002, p. 11. 2. D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002. 3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103. 4. S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy," Center for Immigration Studies, Nov. 2001. http://www.cis. org/articles/2001/back1301.html 5. Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27. 6. Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors of the Jewish State," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2, 2000. Reprinted in "Other Voices," June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 7. M. Medved, "Is Hollywood Too Jewish?," Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37. 8. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291. 9. Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April 5, 1996. "Brando Remarks," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1996, p. F4 (OC). A short time later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his remarks. 10. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 218, 219, 229. 11. From a 1992 lecture, published in: David Cesarani, ed., The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306. 12. Paula E. Hyman, "New Debate on the Holocaust," The New York Times Magazine, Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79. 13. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London, New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149. 14. The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit is identified as a columnist for Ha'aretz, a Hebrew-language Israeli daily newspaper, "from which this article is adapted." 15. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161. 16. D. Davis, "French Envoy to UK: Israel Threatens World Peace," Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2001. The French ambassador is Daniel Bernard. 6/02 About the author Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review. Send $2 for a packet of literature and full listing of books. Or, order more copies of this leaflet, postpaid, at the following prices: 10 copies: $2.00 � 50 copies: $7.50 100 copies, or more: 10 cents each INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW Post Office Box 2739 � Newport Beach, California 92659 www.ihr.org <br><br> Free Speech Web Hosting <br> http://www.1st-amendment.net Best regards, Paul Vogel aka the NEEDLE http://www.cosmotheism.net We divinely conscious humans are not apart, but are a meaningful and purposeful part of the whole physical Cosmos. Humans are both a mental and a spiritual _expression and manifestation of the universe coming into a total conscious awakening and full awareness of both KNOWING and COMPLETING itself. Humans are the physical manifestation of the cosmos coming into a total awareness of itself as a UNIFIED WHOLE through arete' and via both creative and conscious evolution. _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool

5 10

RE: [WikiEN-l] Why Academics are Useful to Wikipedia
by Jens Ropers 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

>> Um what's to stop the expert making a mistake and not realising that >> he >> has insufficient expertise? > > The scenario is that Wikipedia editors have found an expert with a > proven > track-record in the specific subject area of the article, and > solicited his > opinion. In this scenario, the expert's track-record provides some > evidence > that the expert has the expertise -- we wouldn't be relying on his or > her > self-evaluation. Such evidence could never be conclusive, but I think > it's a > lot better than none at all. > > -- Matt (User:Matt Crypto) This is NOT a choice between one single person's academic accreditation vs. one single person's self-evaluation. It's a choice between the ''collective'' wisdom and joint assessment of a larger group of people** vs. one single person's academic accreditation. ** some of them likely will just so happen to hold academic degrees themselves, without that ever being an issue or getting mentioned - Jens

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why Academics are Useful to Wikipedia
by Jens Ropers 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

On 13 Sep 2004, at 15:47, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote: > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:06:08 -0700 (PDT) > From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> > > We need a way to select content for the print/stable version and to > make sure > that that content is good quality and can be trusted. > > -- mav Yes we do. But as I've explained here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html we do ''not'' need to give any preference to "experts" (ie. people who can demonstrate prior achievement) to make that happen. We ''can'' build a review club in the best Wikipedia spirit and it will work for the same reasons that Wikipedia works. -- Jens

3 2

RE: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?
by Jens Ropers 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

> Message: 11 > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:50:47 -0700 (PDT) > From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> > >> No. We. Don't. > > We don't want them to read our content? Sorry, but you are in an > extreme > minority around here if you think that. > > -- mav You're misreading me. We don't have to give them "that bit of comfort". They will get around to reading and trusting our content anyway. Related posts: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030551.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030552.html Sorry for maybe not being clear. -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com

7 7

RE: [WikiEN-l] Why Academics are Useful to Wikipedia
by KNOTT, T 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

>that the Review Club could easily make a mistake and not realise when it >has >insufficient expertise -- people generally dislike admitting their >limitations. >It seems much better to me to have mandatory input from some expert with >evidence of his or her achievement. > >-- Matt (User:Matt Crypto) Um what's to stop the expert making a mistake and not realising that he has insufficient expertise? Theresa

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why Academics are Useful to Wikipedia
by Jens Ropers 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

On 13 Sep 2004, at 15:47, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote: > Message: 10 > Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:44:46 -0400 > From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> > > Daniel Mayer wrote: > >> What? How do you come to that conclusion? There *will* be no fork at >> *all* - >> the only thing that will be done is selecting one version of an >> article that is >> approved in some way. Any future approved version would be based on >> the >> development version (that is, a regular Wikipedia article which would >> be in >> perpetual development), not the last stable version. >> >> > I can imagine at least one scenario that would lead to a bit of a fork, > although whether it's a bad thing is not clear: > > Imagine that we have experts of some sort working on an article. They > hash out between them and the others editing an article something > reasonably neutral, and it becomes the "stable" version. A few months > later, they come back, and the article has been editing by 500 people > in > the meantime and become mostly a mess. They decide to take a few of > the > good facts and improvements from the new version and "backport" them to > the previous stable version rather than dealing with the mess of the > development version, because frankly the last stable version was better > (except for the few facts that were duly incorporated). That'd be a > fork of sorts, I suppose. > > Of course, something similar happens on occasion already, which has > been > the subject of some revert wars... > > -Mark This is precisely why I've insisted here http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html that >> The review club would not edit. No editing would take place on the >> stable branch. The job of the review club would only be to determine >> whether "wiki" versions can be promoted to "stable". If an article >> needs editing, the review club would say so on the talk page. Review >> club members could edit ''in their other role of being regular >> contributors'', but these edits would be treated ''the same as any >> other contributor's edits''. -- Jens

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
18
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l September 2004