WikiEN-l March 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

122 participants
422 discussions

The Australia problem - in a nutshell
by Poor, Edmund W 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

Steve has come up with both a cogent analysis and an effective solution: << Here is the problem, in a nutshell. Sometime conflicts at Wikipedia are over semantics, and sometimes they are substantive. Constructive editors are able to sort out which is what. Unconstructive, obstructionist editors systematically confuse one source of conflict for the other. For example, the conflict between Adam and Skyring owes to the fact that Skyring does not understand proper English grammar and usage ("proper" regardless of which English speaking country you live in) -- he doesn't understand the meaning of "shall be" and "is," nor the meaning of "paraphrase." Skyring insists that this is a substantive problem, that Adam is making factually false claims -- and as long as Skyring insists that this is a conflict over meaning rather than proper grammar, he will continue to obstruct progress on the article. Silverback is doing the reverse. He is suggesting that the conflict over "republic" is semantic, because Australians and Americans use words differently. He is as wrong as Skyring. Political Scientists as well as your average Yankee will call both Australia and the US "democracies," and both groups understand that neither is a pure democracy. For one thing, neither country makes decisions through the direct participation of all citizens -- they have what is called "representative democracy." Moreover, modern "liberal" political theory -- meaning, theory of modern liberal states -- also argue that democracy is and should be limited by rule of law. Since some notion of law (e.g. "inalienable rights" limits the powers of the majority, no country with rule of law can be a pure democracy. Silverback suggests that this is what "republic" means. I am not a political scientist, nor am I very knowledgeable about Australia (although as a kid I loved this TV show called "Skippy"), but I do not think this is what "republic" means. And we aren't going to resolve this by each of us coming up with our own definition. Let Adam, Silverback, and Skyring do research into Australian constitutional law and political theory, compare sources, and provide quotes OR paraphrases -- it really doesn't matter which, as long as they come from verifiable sources. My point is, that this argument isn't going to be solved by speculations about what we think words mean -- it will be solved by people doing research on how political scientists and politicians have used words, and perhaps how usage has changed over time. >> Those who wish my assistance with this article, please contact me (either here or on my talk page). Uncle Ed

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors
by actionforum＠comcast.net 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

-------------- Original message -------------- > actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote: > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > > >>I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal > >>attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however. > >> > >>-Snowspinner > > > > > > Abusers often blame the victim. Sadly, sometimes the victims believe them. > > > > -- Silverback > > Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Please spell out the point you are > trying to make. The idea of name callers blaming the victim for "baiting" them is analogous to spousal abusers who claim the spouse "egged them on", "was asking for it" or committed some other stupid oversight or offense. The spousal abuse victim, often will defend the abuser claiming it was their fault, they weren't perfect in some way. Of course, namecallers think their victims deserved it, egged them on, baited them, or was being unreasonable, or refused to acknowledge that the namecaller was right. Somehow, just as a lot of people manage to avoid abusing their spouses, a lot of people refrain from namecalling. The difference is more in the abuser or namecaller than in the victim or provocature. -- Silverback -- Silverback

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II
by actionforum＠comcast.net 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

-------------- Original message -------------- > Silverback wrote > > >Now if only the debate could be conducted in American english, the debate > >becomes more clear. The issue all along has been not whether Austrailia > >is a republic, but whether it is a democracy. In American english, no it > >is not a democracy, it has a constitutionally limited form a government, a > >republic. Therefore, since Austailia is not a democracy, when we > >translate back to Austrailian english, Austrailia is not a republic. The > >queen has been irrelevant to the whole issue, just as she is to nearly > >anything in Austrailia. > > > This strikes me as perfect evidence of how people who have done no research > and yet who try to participate in discussions only waste other people's > time. The phrase, "In American english, no it is note a democracy" manages > to be both ignorant and irrelevant. Americans have many different ways of > using "democracy," and most Americans would say Australia is a > democracy. But so what? Why does it matter what Americans think? I'm not saying it did matter, but it might have mattered, because translating into "American" is an abstraction. No, it is not quite like abstracting to predicate logic, but it is abstracting away from the emotion laden usages of the words in the Austrailian discussion. Perhaps people could listen a bit more because, since it was the American words being used, they would feel less of an immediate need to be defensive. But it is an abstraction in another sense. The Americans have an ideological tradition starting with some of the founders and kept alive by conservatives, libertarians and classical liberals, which made a specific point that the US was not a democracy, but a republic. By republic they meant the rule of law, constitutional law, that could not be overridden by the majority. So, while Americans can be as sloppy in its use of democracy and as happy to call itself a democracy as the rest of the English speaking world, when democracy is drawn in opposition to republic, not only is the word republic understood in this context, but a less common definition of democracy is. So, by abstracting to American english, not only is emotional distancing achieved, so are more precisely defined and accepted meanings. In American, we know whether or not Austrailia is a republic, by the American definition. By introducing reasoning in American english into the discussion, there are two hopes. One is that the editors will be given new tools to refine their thinking, perhaps reaching agreement in a less emotional laden setting, and agreement they would then have to translate back into their Austrailian if possible. The second is that even if they can't resolve their dispute, perhaps they will take a fancy to the American distinctions, and we can have a common language once again. On another of your points was that people who are going to interject themselves should study and become familiar with the Austrailian constitution, etc. I disagree, in my experience, if the parties in their discussion cannot explain the issues clearly to a third party unfamiliar with the issues, then they probably don't understand the issues themselves. A third party who doesn't understand can often be an impetous to clearer explanations and understandings on their parts. -- Silverback

2 1

Queen Elizabeth II
by steven l. rubenstein 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

Silverback wrote >Now if only the debate could be conducted in American english, the debate >becomes more clear. The issue all along has been not whether Austrailia >is a republic, but whether it is a democracy. In American english, no it >is not a democracy, it has a constitutionally limited form a government, a >republic. Therefore, since Austailia is not a democracy, when we >translate back to Austrailian english, Austrailia is not a republic. The >queen has been irrelevant to the whole issue, just as she is to nearly >anything in Austrailia. This strikes me as perfect evidence of how people who have done no research and yet who try to participate in discussions only waste other people's time. The phrase, "In American english, no it is note a democracy" manages to be both ignorant and irrelevant. Americans have many different ways of using "democracy," and most Americans would say Australia is a democracy. But so what? Why does it matter what Americans think? Here is the problem, in a nutshell. Sometime conflicts at Wikipedia are over semantics, and sometimes they are substantive. Constructive editors are able to sort out which is what. Unconstructive, obstructionist editors systematically confuse one source of conflict for the other. For example, the conflict between Adam and Skyring owes to the fact that Skyring does not understand proper English grammar and usage ("proper" regardless of which English speaking country you live in) -- he doesn't understand the meaning of "shall be" and "is," nor the meaning of "paraphrase." Skyring insists that this is a substantive problem, that Adam is making factually false claims -- and as long as Skyring insists that this is a conflict over meaning rather than proper grammar, he will continue to obstruct progress on the article. Silverback is doing the reverse. He is suggesting that the conflict over "republic" is semantic, because Australians and Americans use words differently. He is as wrong as Skyring. Political Scientists as well as your average Yankee will call both Australia and the US "democracies," and both groups understand that neither is a pure democracy. For one thing, neither country makes decisions through the direct participation of all citizens -- they have what is called "representative democracy." Moreover, modern "liberal" political theory -- meaning, theory of modern liberal states -- also argue that democracy is and should be limited by rule of law. Since some notion of law (e.g. "inalienable rights" limits the powers of the majority, no country with rule of law can be a pure democracy. Silverback suggests that this is what "republic" means. I am not a political scientist, nor am I very knowledgeable about Australia (although as a kid I loved this TV show called "Skippy"), but I do not think this is what "republic" means. And we aren't going to resolve this by each of us coming up with our own definition. Let Adam, Silverback, and Skyring do research into Australian constitutional law and political theory, compare sources, and provide quotes OR paraphrases -- it really doesn't matter which, as long as they come from verifiable sources. My point is, that this argument isn't going to be solved by speculations about what we think words mean -- it will be solved by people doing research on how political scientists and politicians have used words, and perhaps how usage has changed over time. Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701

1 0

Re: Queen Elizabeth II
by steven l. rubenstein 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

Skyring writes: >Ummm, that merely gives the definition of republic you've already >quoted. I wasn't disputing that. What''s your definitive source for >saying the Queen is the head of state? Well, as a committed republican I am actually interested in this debate. So I put "Australia constitution" in Google, and went to the Parliament of Australia's web-page, where I found something called "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act." Now I am no expert on Australia so if this thing -- I mean Parliament or the Act -- have no official standing, please tell me! Anyway, I learned that the Act was itself enacted by HRH >Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with >the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, >in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as >follows:-- I then went to chapter 1, which is about the legistlative branch, and read this: >1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal >Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of >Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or >"The Parliament of the Commonwealth. " >2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's >representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the >Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this >Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be >pleased to assign to him. I then went to chapter 2 which is about the Executive branch and it starts like this: >61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is >exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and >extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the >laws of the Commonwealth. I also learned that there is a republican movement in Australia (which suggests to me that at least some Australians do not think they live in a republic, yet). Well, this movement has a web-page that has a FAQ section. The answer to the question, "Who is Australia's Head of State" is: >Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is >Australia's Head of State because: >The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a >Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative >(law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution). >The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the >Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution). >The Queen has the power to disallow any law within one year of it being >made even after the Governor-General has given his assent (section 59, >Constitution). >The Governor-General only holds office "during the Queen's pleasure" which >means that the he can be dismissed by the Queen at any time (section 2, >Constitution). >Lastly, but probably most importantly in a symbolic sense, is the Schedule >to the Constitution that requires all Federal Parliamentarians to swear an >oath or declare an affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. This oath of >allegiance can only be changed by alteration of the Constitution unlike >the Citizenship Oath, which can be changed by an Act of Parliament, or the >Ministerial Oath which can be changed by Proclamation. The "Australian Monarchist League" (motto: protecting Australia's constitution) also seems to think Australia is not a republic. Their web-page has an article by Sir David Smith (I'm not exactly sure what "Sir" means in this context since I happen to live in a republic -- is this "sir" like "Sir Lancelot?"), which begins: >Under our Constitution we have two Heads of State - a symbolic Head of >State in the Sovereign, and a constitutional Head of State in the >Governor-General. So look, I am not a constitutional lawyer. But these few quotes give me the impression that the Queen has some role in that polity called Australia. I am not sure that the Queen is head of state, maybe the Governor-General is the head of state -- but it seems pretty clear that s/he derives this status from the Queen. Soooo ... can someone explain to me why there seems to be some controversy over this matter? Curiously yours, Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701

6 8

POV featured articles?
by actionforum＠comcast.net 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

I noticed that an article I considered POV just became a featured article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Soviet_Union I've marked it NPOV, and have made several improvements, including a couple I made before it achieved featured article status. How do articles become featured articles? I've read Wikipedia:Featured articles, and it talks about standards but not how the actual decision about the status is made. I looked at the nomination page, and there were only 5 supporting votes, and zero opposing votes, before mine which I have just added after the fact. I am not criticising those reviewers, they may not be sensitive to some of the selection biases that can occur within articles or may have been unfamiliar with the subject. I am however surprised that an article can become featured without far wider review that hopefully would catch incompleteness or biases such as this. I had seen contributions to featured articles cited as feathers in ones cap, so I thought the review must have been high. Is there a minimum number of supporting votes that are required? -- Silverback

3 2

Abusive editors
by Poor, Edmund W 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

I gave Adam Carr a 15-hour block (for abusive language). But then I read Fred Bauder's remark that: * We do not provide for automatic blocking or banning of persons who make personal attacks. So once again I hereby "place myself on report". I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the rules - such as: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] If I'm wrong, then I hope the first thing the arbcom will do is unblock Adam Carr. In fact, if I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong, than I guess ANY ONE of the 415 admins will reverse the block. Hmm. This is interesting. Let's see what happens. Uncle Ed

8 9

Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
by Matt R 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

--- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There is the fact that a specific vote on whether admins could block people > for personal attacks failed to achieve consensus a few months ago (a real > pity, in my opinion). As such, it's dicey ground. (Do you know where I could find the page where this vote took place?) I think something like a 24-hour block for clear outbursts of of personal abuse would be a very sensible policy for Wikipedia to adopt. When users become stressed out enough to lash out at others, it's probably as good for them as for the project to take a time-out. -- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]] Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

11 15

Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
by steven l. rubenstein 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> >A natural consequence of allowing the Arbitration Committee seriously >consider contents would be ArbCom elections based on such issues as >where one stands in the Israel/Palestine conflict. This is one way to construe 172's suggestions -- but it is not the only way. I certainly do not believe that the solution to conflicts over content can come down to "you are right, you are wrong." Surely there are other ways. here is one: a committee that would specialize in enforcing policies concerning content, e.g. NPOV, No original research (which is not, as Charles Matthews suggested, subordinate to NPOV, or it shouldn't be. They are equally important; neither one trumps the other). This is clearly different from ArbCom which as members of ArbCom have made abundantly clear deals only with conflicts between two or more users, and matters of behavior, not content. Although two users can and often do come into conflict over NPOV or NOR, this is categorically different from the kinds of conflicts ArbCom deals with. ArbCom deals with violations of certain policies (specifically behavioral) caused by a conflict between users. What I and I think 172 and SlimVirgin are talking about is conflicts between users caused by violations of other policies (concerning content). Obviously in order to intervene in a conflict over NPOV or No original research a committee would have to be very attentive to content. But I am sure that no matter what one's beliefs about Jesus, Zionism, or fascism, experienced editors can reach an agreement over what does or doesn't constitute NPOV or original research. This might not resolve all of the issues 172 and SlimVirgin raise, but I think it would go far to address some of them. Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701

9 34

Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
by actionforum＠comcast.net 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

-------------- Original message -------------- Steven I. Rubinstein wrote: > Michael Snow suggested (at this point) that Adam Carr is giving a > reasonable paraphrase of the constitution; Skyring repeats that the > Australian constitution does not say what Adam Carr says it says. So there > are two ways to understand Skyring's position: either evidence does not > matter, or paraphrasing is impermissible. I believe that either one of > these positions does damage to the quality of Wikipedia articles. Skyring > won't budge, though. In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, new words, or reason. Yes, we have a lot of these on wikipedia, but it required a community that was tolerant. I am currently in a dispute with an editor, who wants to include a quite logical (and I think arguably correct) refutation of a statement that an outside authority has made. I don't think it belongs in there because it refutes a minor peripheral point, so it is making more of a credibility attack upon the outside source, than contributing to the substance of the article. Frankly, I think I can easily "win" this editing conflict, by insisting on the NOR standards, but I have not pressed this point, because that is not my actual objection to text. In the case at hand, there is no excuse for the personal attacks. However, the source of their problem is that they have not agreed to a definition of terms and then applied them to the situation. A possible reason for that, is that the NOR clause would preclude them from applying their agreed upon definitions and including them in the article. Probably both sides are quite right as long as they keep their own definitions in mind, and they know this for a fact, so why should they give an inch, because it becomes a matter of principle. Austrailia is a "republic", to the extent that American overtones of republic have some validity in Austrailia, and is NOT a republic in the predominate (but not exclusive) non-technical sense in which it is used in Austrailia. Of course in an encyclopedia, where one is trying to be precise, it is natural to prefer the more technical sense, because words are being chosen for the information or distinctions they provide. -- Silverback

3 2

← Newer
1
...
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
...
43
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 March 2005