WikiEN-l March 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

122 participants
422 discussions

Abusive editors
by steven l. rubenstein 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

Silverback wrote: >but it is banned by NOR, unless a cite can be provided where someone else >has used those very same words in subject at hand. This is still completely wrong. There is no requirement that someone else has used the very same words. To follow this understanding of NOR would mean that editors can't write anything, but can only edit together collages of quotes -- this makes a mockery of the NOR policy. Paraphrasing does not violate NOR. Period. Your position here will have only one consequence: to make it harder to write good articles. Why would you want to do that? Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
by actionforum＠comcast.net 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

-------------- Original message -------------- Steven L. Rubenstein: > > Silverback wrote: > > >but it is banned by NOR, unless a cite can be provided where someone else > >has used those very same words in subject at hand. > > This is still completely wrong. There is no requirement that someone else > has used the very same words. To follow this understanding of NOR would > mean that editors can't write anything, but can only edit together collages > of quotes -- this makes a mockery of the NOR policy. Paraphrasing does not > violate NOR. Period. Your position here will have only one consequence: > to make it harder to write good articles. Why would you want to do that? I agree if you are referring to the intent of NOR. But in practice people can be very pickyune. BTW, it is not my position, quite the opposite, I oppose the position, it is just my observation of practice. Note that poor skyring, has not been allowed to use the word "republic" himself, but had to find a quote in order to use the word. Unfortunately a local consensus can take owership of a word, select a less common definition of the word, label it POV, and deny its usage. A good example is the word "regime" on the Iraq pages, if you are familiar with that dispute. -- Silverback

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Censorship campaign: Ann Coulter article
by Poor, Edmund W 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

> Clearly the government of Canada did not send troops to Vietnam. > Clearly also, Canadian citizens fought alongside Americans in > the Vietnam. > > However, I believe the only reasonable neutral interpretation > of "Canada sent troops to Vietnam", in the context provided > (when talking about the actions of the Canadian government > w.r.t. wars) is that the Canadian government sent soldiers > from its army to Vietnam. > > I quite agree that the anti-Coulter arguments deserve > balance, and I think it's important to mention that Canadians > did serve there (in Coulter's defence). But I also think > that suggesting that Canada > *did* send troops is an inaccurate characterization of the > facts surrounding that particular POV. > > Steve Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I agree that the [[Ann Coulter]] article should mention that (to use exact words): * Canadians did serve there Whether or not _government_ of Canada sent "troops in Canadian uniform" to Vietnam is a another thing. There are three points of view on this sub-point: 1. No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian government" to Vietnam (in any capacity). 2. Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops). 3. The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters. 4. Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam (at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy. Option one definitely implies that Coulter was 100% wrong. Option two makes Coulter partially wrong, and McKeown partially wrong (but McKeown wins the "gotcha" game). Option three makes Coulter partially right, and McKeown partially wrong (i.e., they both were somewhat mixed up; gotcha game ends in a draw!). Option four makes Coulter 100% right, and McKeown and Moore 100% wrong. I don't think options #1 or #4 are correct, not based on reading [[Canada and Vietnam]] and Ray (Eclecticology)'s recent post. Then there's the other slant: to what extent is a person "wrong" if they say "the country sent troops" (possibly meaning its government) rather than "men from that country fought" (could be either gov't troops or citizens who joined another country's army)? Coulter's slant is that she was wrong (but she seems to regard it as a misstatement more akin to a slip of the tongue or choosing the wrong word. Moore's slant is that she was dead wrong (probably even *knowingly* wrong, i.e., lied on purpose; or possibly just ignorantly wrong, i.e., thought it was the government sending active duty personnel). The anti-Coulter crowd in general (based on blog posts) seems to regard this as Coulter being "exposed" as a deliberate liar. Finally, they have clear, definitive proof that the B###h (or Wh###) just goes around making stuff up even though she really has no case at all. I don't think the Wikipedia should take the side of the anti-Coulter crowd, but I have no objection to letting the article recount or summarize their argument. Ed Poor

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
by actionforum＠comcast.net 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

-------------- Original message -------------- > >In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, > >new words, or reason. > > This is plain wrong. Paraphrasing is not "research" so it cannot be > "original research." There is nothing in the NOR policy that requires this > position, and I am pretty confident that most editors do not consider > paraphrasing to violate NOR policy. People paraphrase for a reason, the paraphrase most likely has some difference in meaning or more likely emphasis. I agree with your solution of presenting both sides below. But I have seen people insist that such nuances, compromises, disputes and caveats are not appropriate for introductions, which is probably the real estate most of the fights are over. I do not agree with you that because one has taken a position it is not NPOV. In the case at hand, it would be interesting to see which side in the dispute can best present the case for both sides and demonstrate that the position they take is an informed one. I bet the text itself, would be a good compromise. -- Silverback > Either you really misunderstand the NOR policy, or you have some agenda for > misrepresenting it. I am not judging your motives because whatever they > are, I cannot understand them. But whatever your motives, this statement > is false, unnecessary, and unhelpful. > > This claim is also wrong: > >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 > > Here you actually do violate NOR as well as NPOV. Articles are simply not > the place for advocating our own views. So it doesn't matter how the two > sides personally, subjectively, define their terms, and it is not for us to > invent an argument for why Australia is or is not a republic. Period. The > only way to handle this is to say something like this (consider this a > model, not a real proposal): > Australian nationals, politicians, and political theorists are divided over > the nature of the Australian state. > The dominant view, held by a, b, and c, is that Australia is an "X," > defining X as ... > A major competing view, held by d, e, and f, is that Australia is a "Y," > defining Y as ... > Some (such as g and h) argue that Australia is an "X" but they define X as ... > Some (such as i and j) argue that Australia is a "Y," but define Y as ... > And of course have verifiable sources for each claim ("Australia is X" and > "X is ...") > > Steve > > > Steve > > > > > Steven L. Rubenstein > Associate Professor > Department of Sociology and Anthropology > Bentley Annex > Ohio University > Athens, Ohio 45701 > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
by actionforum＠comcast.net 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

-------------- Original message -------------- > >In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, > >new words, or reason. > > Why do you think so? I see nothing in the policy which indicates that. I agree, I said "in practice". Look how many disputes are over single words or phrases. If you use exacly the same words, then it isn't a paraphrase, if you use different words, it is a paraphrase, but it is banned by NOR, unless a cite can be provided where someone else has used those very same words in subject at hand. -- Silverback

3 2

Abusive editors
by steven l. rubenstein 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

Charles Matthews wrote: >Indeed. Why dice with death and take the moral low ground in revert wars, >when there is the more satisfying approach of the uber-troll: get yourself >personally-attacked on the Talk page, and get your opponent (if briefly) >thrown off the wiki? Perhaps Charles is being facetious. But if this is a serious position that anyone holds, I must express my profound opposition to this approach. I do not believe that those editors who care about the quality of the content of articles -- that is, all editors -- should have to wait, or stoop to manipulating another editor, until the other editor makes a personal attack, to then get that editor thrown off Wikipedia. We should not be relying on the no personal attack policy as a way of enforcing quality content. If an editor is obstructing improvement of the article, or is damaging the article, we need an effective mechanism to deal with that problem, directly. Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701

4 3

Abusive editors
by steven l. rubenstein 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

Tom Haws wrote: >More often than not, a root of the problem is the POV-pusher (and often >the valiant defender) has not read [[WP:NPOV]] at all, or maybe has only >read it quickly once. Tom, you are missing the point (mine and JAYJG's) This case has nothing to do with the NPOV policy. The issue here (such as it is, it is a hypothetical reenactment) is that I did research and was providing a date held by many historians, and CheeseDreams had done no research. In this hypothetical case, CheeseDreams' claim that Jesus was born 100 BCE is not a legitimate view to which NPOV can apply -- because it is solely her view, and not held by anyone else. My claim is not that Jesus was born 4BCE (because my view of when Jesus was born is as irrelevant as CheeseDreams). My claim is that several historians claim that Jesus was born 4 BCE and I am providing verifiable sources. Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701

1 0

Abusive editors
by steven l. rubenstein 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

Silverback wrote: >In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, >new words, or reason. This is plain wrong. Paraphrasing is not "research" so it cannot be "original research." There is nothing in the NOR policy that requires this position, and I am pretty confident that most editors do not consider paraphrasing to violate NOR policy. Either you really misunderstand the NOR policy, or you have some agenda for misrepresenting it. I am not judging your motives because whatever they are, I cannot understand them. But whatever your motives, this statement is false, unnecessary, and unhelpful. This claim is also wrong: >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 Here you actually do violate NOR as well as NPOV. Articles are simply not the place for advocating our own views. So it doesn't matter how the two sides personally, subjectively, define their terms, and it is not for us to invent an argument for why Australia is or is not a republic. Period. The only way to handle this is to say something like this (consider this a model, not a real proposal): Australian nationals, politicians, and political theorists are divided over the nature of the Australian state. The dominant view, held by a, b, and c, is that Australia is an "X," defining X as ... A major competing view, held by d, e, and f, is that Australia is a "Y," defining Y as ... Some (such as g and h) argue that Australia is an "X" but they define X as ... Some (such as i and j) argue that Australia is a "Y," but define Y as ... And of course have verifiable sources for each claim ("Australia is X" and "X is ...") Steve Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
by Matt R 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste(a)ohiou.edu> wrote: > ...2) what appears to be a personal attack on the part of Adam Carr > is simply an example of how members of the community, acting in their > anarchic, unregulated way, try to protect the quality of articles > after reasonable, polite efforts have failed. (..merging two posts...) > If an editor is obstructing improvement of the article, or is damaging the > article, we need an effective mechanism to deal with that problem, directly. Would none of the measures in [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]] have been appropriate in this instance? For example, quantifying consensus via a vote, requesting sanctions against a user who flouts consensus...etc. I'm not convinced Adam Carr was placed in a situation where he had no other choice but to be rude in order to maintain the quality of the article. In any case, becoming abusive is a completely ineffectual tactic in these situations -- it's only likely to exacerbate the situation. Moreover, for third parties, it muddies the waters about who is in the "right" in a dispute: at first glance, it's very tempting to favour the side of whoever sounds calm, measured and rational, regardless of the substance of the debate itself. --Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]] Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
by Rick 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

--- Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote: >Speaking from personal experience, I > find my admin > privileges largely useless. Outright vandalism is > quite rare Are you reading the same Wikipedia that I am? RickK __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

1 0

← Newer
1
...
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
...
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