--- Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Theresa Knott wrote:
>
> >I've unblocked this user as it does look like a
> content dispute rather
> >than vandalism.
> >
> I would like to hear from Neutrality on this. I
> left a note today, but
> have not heard back. Unless we hear some quick
> backpedalling, this kind
> of behavior should lead to indefinite suspension of
> sysop privileges.
> The last thing Wikipedia needs is this kind of face
> toward anons.
>
> Tom Haws
Oh, please.
Why is it every time an admin does something that
somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the
hounds and the torches and go raging after them with
the rest of the mob?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
I was interviewing for graduate assistantships this afternoon and in
the course of discussion mentioned writing articles on Wikipedia
(actually, a few to which I've been the near-sole contributor were in
my portfolio, too). One of the committee seemed very enthusiastic
about it; he asked me about a few topics, including the proposed plans
for article validation, and recommended that the rest of the committee
(five or six others) take a look at the project. (I wasn't quite bold
enough to ask if he had a user account!)
I was pleased (and not a little surprised!) at the generally positive
reaction from the ones who weren't familiar with it. Points scored
there for me and for Wikipedia, I think.
-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]
--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
Tom Haws wrote,
>steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>
>
> > Some people have suggested that if someone keeps putting unsourced
> > material on the page, the solution is to delete it. Well, this is the
> > first solution to any problem at Wikipedia.
>
>
>Heh-heh. It is easy to see how this problem got started. Deleting
>unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and
>their ilk. But it doesn't go over too well in polite society.
>
>
>Tom Haws
Are you being disingenuous, or have you just not been following this
thread? I thought it was abundantly clear that the person in question had
been asked for a source several times. The question is, what to do
then? Ray Saintonge replied, delete. And that is where my e-mail picks
up. To then suggest I am a POV cop in this matter is disingenuous and
dangerous.
What POV do you think I am pushing, Tom?
It should be clear that this is NOT a matter of pushing a POV. I have no
objection to including a marxist definition in the article. But it must be
accurate. Otherwise, what kind of encyclopedia is this?
Okay Tom, what do you think we should do, if someone refuses over the
course of several weeks to provide a source for a claim that some editors
say is inaccurate or simply false?
I am getting tired of this discussion that seems to go nowhere, but I think
it is important. If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be
enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia? Or
do you have a different goal, Tom?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Thomas Haws wrote:
>Silverback, you couldn't have said it better about adminship. If we were more effective at removing admins we could be more generous about installing them.
>
>
I have heard this line of argument a few times now from people
advocating some form of quick and easy de-adminship without resorting to
arbitration. In general, I think we already readily give adminship to
those who are nominated, and anyone who has a close call on their first
try will normally pass overwhelmingly after waiting a month or two. I
invite anyone who believes the argument above to point me to a case
where having an easier de-adminship process would have made the
difference in the success of an adminship nomination.
We could be more generous in seeking out candidates and making
nominations, of course, but that's a different matter. There are many
good users out there who are just waiting for a nomination.
--Michael Snow
Tom Haws wrote,
>steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
> insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be
> enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia? Or
> do you have a different goal, Tom?
I appreciate the response. I believe your frustration is honest, and I think (hope) we all share it. I think that the most sane approach is to realize that Wikipedia simply isn't set up at this time to accomplish the level of editorial control you contemplate. That doesn't mean it isn't an appropriate goal, just that we have to work pragmatically with the system we have at the moment.
Yes, I personally would be even more patient. That may not be the "right" answer, but my attitude is maybe I can 1) learn something from that "original researcher" 2) help him feel good about contributing to Wikipedia, and 3) show him by example how Wikipedia works at its best and what NPOV means. As much as it hurts at times, I simply cannot afford to take excessive ownership in articles.
And so I continue to believe that repeated deletions of the same thing (I personally wouldn't repeat myself over twice except on a talk page) are indeed the beginning of the problem. And I apologize for the flippant tone of my response.
"If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got." "If at first you don't succeed, try a different approach."
Tom Haws
Ed Poor wrote,
>Googling the quoted definition easily shows that several sources
>regard "private ownership of the means of production" as an
>essential part of the "Marxist definition" of Capitalism.
Alas, sometimes the Web is not the best place to do research. I think if
Wikipedia wants to establish itself as an outstanding on-line encyclopedia,
its editors sometimes have to do some off-line research.
In most of the cases Ed is referring to, people are taking sentences by
Marx and Engels out of context. Abolishing the private ownership of
capital is but one element of the communist program -- but that doesn't
mean that they defined capitalism as ownership of the means of
production. Another part of their program was free education for children
-- certainly we don't think that the "Marxist" definition of capitalism is
a system where children are uneducated! Moreover, in the Communist
Manifesto they actually argue that capitalism is destroying private
property! And in various other books by Marx, Marx and Engels, and their
followers, they define capitalism quite differently.
In any event, Ed at least provided an actual source. Now we can have
hopefully fruitful discussion of the usefulness of this source, if there
are better sources, etc. In short, what Ed wrote was verifiable.
Several weeks ago Ultramarine and I asked RJII to provide his source. Now,
wouldn't it have saved everyone a lot of trouble if he just provided it?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Silverback, you couldn't have said it better about adminship. If we were more effective at removing admins we could be more generous about installing them.
Tom
I trust that Sarah is as sincere as I in exploring the meaning of these concepts and their implications for the quality and future of Wikipedia. And I appreciate her effort to elucidate. I take exception to her coining the phrase "popular opinion" and building her talk around it. I don't really want to be in the position of discussing the "validity" of "popular opinion". But the general thrust of her summary is probably at least approximately correct. Namely, that NPOV requires we represent all views fairly. And I suppose "popular opinion" is usually a significant view.
The background from which I come is this: As a Wikipedia *reader*, I expect to find articles that give me a complete picture ("all sides") of a subject I seek to learn about. I have used Wikipedia to learn about Islam, Buddhism, and many other controversial subjects. In fact, the more controversial a subject is, the more I insist within that I must see what Wikipedia has to say. That is because I know that "given enough pens, all biases are level." I trust Wikipedia to feed me more "knowledge" free of spin than any other source. And I say that if we fail to be fair in presenting all human "knowledge", we fail to deliver to that trust.
Tom Haws
-------------- Original message --------------
> And this is the whole point of the "cite sources" and "verifiabilty"
> policies that Silverback disparages. Of course it is possible that I am
> wrong about the Marxist definition -- but if I am wrong, then whomever is
> providing the "marxist" definition should be able to provide a source or
> citation.
>
> For Silverback to disparage these policies, and insinuate that it was
> self-righteous of me to bring this problem to the attention to the list, is
> too absurd. His behavior mimics that of RJII's, and is the kind of
> behavior that has no place here at Wikipedia. Our work must be
> verifiable. If someone asks for a source, provide it. Like RJII,
> Silverback not only scoffs at providing a source, he continues to insist
> that the definition is right, that it is I who has to provide the source,
> that I am self-righteous, that the policy is trivial ...
>
> At what point do we characterize this behavior as trollish?
>
> Steve
I think reasonable summaries are not violations of NOR, and insistance
on cites for something obvious is a bit unfriendly.
However, if it is any consolation, I now understand your frustration
on that page, I think, we would have had a compromise a long time ago,
if not for the unique character of RJII. He is a strangely intransigent moving
target. I'd catagorize him as a POV warrior of the highest degree,
except I usually reserve that for someone who has a recognizable POV.
I assume we each think he's on the other one's side.
I disagree that anything insightful content guidance can come out of the
case. A scientific case would be more helpful, because there is
a more generally accepted concept of the truth being searched for
and what constitutes facts and the most authoritative evidence. Therefore
there is the opportunity to elaborate NOR beyond the every word must
have been used by someone else straightjacket. Pointing out omissions
or flaws that any peer reviewer or scientific literate would acknowledge,
should be allowed. For example, this new study demonstrates this
new variable is important, therefor that older study which did not
account for that variable (by inspection, because no one else has said
it YET) is now called into question. NOR should not ban simple things
like counting, summarizing, drawing conclusions from inspection of
an article, application of simple equations or principles to facts, etc.
-- Silverback
I wish to complain about vamp willow violating blocking policy by
blocking aroberts for 24 hours under the auspices of a 3RR violation
when in fact no 3RR violation has ocurred.
aroberts edited the England page today, and there followed a minor
edit challenge during which aroberts reverted twice and REX reverted
to the contrary three times. The 3RR rule states that NO MORE than
3 reverts should be made by one enity, and yet vamp willow has blocked
aroberts who reverted only twice. Since when is 2 more than 3?
Vamp Willow happens to agree with REX and disagrees with aroberts, so
it looks as if she has acted partially in pursuit if her own POV and
against blocking policy with a misguided interpretation of the three
revert rule.
Not only that , but also the England page has been protected with the
suggestion that differences are resolved on the corresponding talk
page. I have always been happy to discuss the matter on the talk
page and have incorporated information arising from those discussions
into my edits, in the spirit of compromise, but others have reverted
against me with no such explanation. How can I follow the advice to
sort things out on the talk page if I am blocked? Surely protecting
a page and blocking someone from discussing it at the same time is
excessive?
That was an official complaint against vamp willow's incorrect
blocking of aroberts,
I hope this can be resolved ASAP, thanks
--
Aroberts