David Gerard wrote:
> Insisting that something completely
> unsourced go in and refusing to provide a source probably isn't in Miss
> Manners either.
Hmm. Maybe not. :-D
Tom Haws
-----Original Message-----
From: TL(a)pipeline.com [mailto:TL@pipeline.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:22 PM
To: Poor, Edmund W
Subject: article of interest
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki_pr.html
I'm sure EVERYONE has seen this article but me, by now. I feel like I
just got a big pat on the back for my 3 1/2 years of work! This writer
is very friendly and has captured the essence of Wikipedia much, MUCH
better than anyone else heretofore. I just wish his article was GFDL'd
so I could incorporate all his descriptions.
Uncle Ed
P.S. A non-Wikipedian sent me the URL
--- Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, if other organisations are the
> legal
> editors, how can we somehow get a benefit over the content
> distributed ?
> Or should we get a benefit ?
Our benefit is that the information will be made available to people
who do not have it today. That is a great benefit, and probably the
most important reason for the Wikipedia's existence.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Prof. Rubenstein wrote two things which I'd like to comment on:
> ... "private ownership of the means of production" is the
> "Marxist" definition of capitalism, and now insists that
> I provide my own "marxist" definition! This list serve
> is not the place for this discussion, which has already
> occurred on the Capitalism talk pages. Suffice to say,
> "private ownership of the means of production" is simply
> not, in no way, the marxist or "a" marxist definition of
> capitalism.
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.
And this mailing list *is* the right place to bring something
like this up. I, for one, would never have noticed this issue if
it hadn't been brought up here.
However, it's tricky, because the exact quoted phrase is not
used by a Marxist writer, but by an American college professor
PARAPHRASING the Marxists. The first reference below is some
lecture notes for a college course. It interprets "individual
ownership" as "private ownership of the means of production".
So the source for this would go something like:
* Professor Windbag of Westwind University at Turbyne, Indiana,
interprets Marxist writings as assailing "private ownership of
the means of production" as one of the chief evils of
Capitalism.
This provides the source: the ol' Windbag.
This clarifies that it's HIS interpretation.
http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/phil332/trmarxII.htm
Oh, and his name is
WILLIAM J. TALBOTT
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Box 353350
University of Washington
Ed Poor
(That wasn't so hard, now, was it? ;-)
>d. wrote:
> > actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > > What would you say the marxist definition of capitalism is?
> >
> > I'd say it's off topic for this list.
>
>
>Well, I didn't self righteously bring it to the list as if someone I
>disagreed with was obviously wrong. As long as we are agreed the issue
>of which side was "correct" or acting in good faith is
>NOT obvious.
> -- Silverback
Well, this perfectly illustrates why I believe the "Capitalism" case is a
perfect test case -- in my opinion, even better than crank theories in
physics which really are relatively easy to deal with.
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. Let's say it is the second, third,
thirtieth, or three-thousandth solution -- basically what Ray Saintonge
wrote. The reason for any disciplinary action is
1) this process is not working -- after a month of deleting the same
material, it becomes a battle of wills
2) to give serious and well-intentioned editors some support and relief.
Both of these characterize the issue at "Capitalism."
And Silverback's own e-mails to this list provide further evidence of the
problem. He continues to insist that something like "private ownership of
the means of production" is the "Marxist" definition of capitalism, and now
insists that I provide my own "marxist" definition! This list serve is not
the place for this discussion, which has already occurred on
the Capitalism talk pages. Suffice to say, "private ownership of the
means of production" is simply not, in no way, the marxist or "a" marxist
definition of capitalism.
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
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
--- The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com> wrote:
> On 3/25/05 5:43 AM, "John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gawab.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Rick wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Because admins are expected to be above ordinary
> users; see [[WP:RFA]]
> > for yourself. People vote on others not only based
> on their suitability
> > for janitorial tasks but also on how polite,
> active, etc. the users are.
> >
> More fundamentally, it's because people are aware
> that in the long run, the
> real disasters and failures of society have come
> when the people in power
> fail to be kept in check.
Thanks for the best laugh I've had so far today.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now, right now, MOST of the propositions we hear about are from
> commercial organisations, who want to make *cash* on the CD rom.
> Right ?
>
> Nothing wrong with this...
>
> But that means readers must pay for the cd rom...
>
> Are those who need more information... those who can pay for the cd
> rom ?
> Or those who can not ?
That's all fine. When people pay $10 for the 2005 English Wikipedia
cd, they are going to make a few copies, and maybe send a copy to
their friend in the third world country.
It's like AOL CDs. There are everywhere. little value, true, but
everywhere nevertheless.
I say if a company wants to press 100 million CDs per year and sell
them, many of these will end up in the hands of people who can't
afford to buy them.
Besides, they would make great presents.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Anthere a écrit:
> Another point recently mentionned... is that some editors think it is
> not the role of the Foundation to distribute content and that
> we should
> let other organisations do it. This will also solve the issue
> of legal
> responsability. On the other hand, if other organisations are
> the legal
> editors, how can we somehow get a benefit over the content
> distributed ?
> Or should we get a benefit ?
Glad you asked. Ten days ago I started working with a Unificationist, non-profit organization that is interested in incorporating much of Wikipedia's content into its own encyclopedia. (They are planning to commission an additional 5,000 or so articles, as well as donating thousands of World & I articles - all of this extra content will be GFDL!)
I have been (tentatively) offered the role of IT Director for this project.
Anyway, the IIFWP (or IRFWP) already has a legal department - and budget - big enough to handle the issue of legal responsibility - for their own selected subset of Wikipedia articles they will publish.
Surely whatever they LEARN while doing this could be passed on to us. They are a very nice bunch of people to work with.
Ed Poor, aka Oncle Edmond
Wikipedia editors:
I just posted a new article on the late George F. Kennan. Aside from this
brief return earlier today, I still no longer intend to return to Wikipedia
as an editor, so I have to announce here on the mailing list that I can be
reached for questions/comments/feedback on this very important article (see,
e.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2005#Mar…)
via this email address. Also, thanks to everyone who posted those kind words
of encouragement on my talk page after my depature.
Thanks for the understanding,
172
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
-------------- Original message --------------
> To the list,
>
> I will be assisting this person in private with his or her grievance.
If you find during the course of this, that it was a personal abuse of administrator power, it should be brought back out in public, on the request for arbitration page. It should be easy to add the evidence to one of the on going cases neutrality is involved in. Neutrality was editing that same page, and should have called another admin to review the evidence, but he did not think he was personally involved in the particulars of what was going on, so did not think there was a conflict of interest.
-- Silverback