Some looney tunes old kook hears strange voices that he understands and
will respond to immediately when he gets time. The old buzzard hears the
call of distant relatives that live in his imagination. But he thinks he
has and understands his priorities.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Gray"
To: "English Wikipedia"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Categories and NPOV
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:12:18 +0100
>
> On 26/06/05, Fastfission wrote:
>
> > I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]]
for
> > some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me
today
> > that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it
would
> > seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one
could
> > include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or
[[Category:Conspiracies]]
> > or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their
actual
> > articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV.
Does
> > the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm
beginning to
> > think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be
> > converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic
> > lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included
> > [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having
[[Category:Satanic
> > lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
> >
> > Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.
>
> I'm not sure how much use this is, but it strikes me as an
> interesting example.
>
> A large number of people consider the Apollo landings to be a hoax
-
> I'm sure you've encountered them. We have many, many pages on the
> Apollo program, the individual flights and associated topics. None
of
> these contain any significant discussion of the hoax theories - at
> least, I haven't seen any.
>
> We also have [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations]], which
discusses
> the various hoax theories, counterarguments, all that sort of
thing.
> *It* is categorised under "Conspiracy theories" & "Hoaxes" (so,
yeah,
> we have both)...
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Your capacity for thought experimetation is impressive. I like my
friendships to be based on admiration, respect, and trust. All BS aside,
you can walk away from me with no fear. You could actually call upon me
for anything you think you may need. I am not as smart as the average
bear, and would never forget that I am at the bottom of the pack (dogs).
Anger, frustration, or jealousy could never rock me from that
understanding.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Bauder"
To: "English Wikipedia"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Conflict arising - what to do?
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 07:00:54 -0600
>
> That's true, but in at least one area, articles which concern the
> Israeli-Palestine conflict, it is not unlikely that one editor may
> be repeatedly reverted by a group of POV editors. Perhaps other
> instances exist.
>
> Fred
>
>
> On Jun 25, 2005, at 10:17 PM, JAY JG wrote:
>
> >> From: Jack Lynch
> >>
> >> I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this,
and
> >> where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a
single
> >> user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious
topic,
> >> chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
> >>
> >> Jack (Sam Spade)
> >>
> >
> > Um, isn't that what every single POV editor claims when a large
> > number of other editors reject his POV edits?
> >
> > Jay.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
You have a completely logical and legitimate point. For example, my
asking for forgiveness relies on no merit just pleading to your sympathy.
You see, when you first meet someone (anywhere that may happen - real or
imagined) you judge them as you would a book by it's cover. I am guilty
of this. But even thick headed people, such as myself, eventually realize
that what is wriiten inside of the book is some of the best damn stuff he
has ever seen. I have nothing to offer in return other than my humble
services -- whatever would amuse you -- be it wearing the mask of a clown
prince or whatever you wish. I am not a venegeful person at all. If you
say no, I really will respect that. In truth, the jokes that only I
understand make me laugh the hardest - never thought I would ever have an
opportunity to meet anyone who would share my sense of humor.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel P. B. Smith"
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Copyright and Britannica Article List
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 07:57:04 -0400
>
> The problem with asking is that, in the words of Admiral Grace
> Hopper, "it is easier to apologize than to get permission."
>
> The problem with asking for permission in a situation like this is
> that the person you are asking has absolutely no reason whatosever
> to say "yes." What's in it for them? It's a foggy situation,
> there's no obvious benefit to them to say "yes." Since you're
> _asking,_ that means _you_ think that the thing being asked for is
> a) not already yours, and b) of _some_ valuable.
>
> Now, it's _not_ a routine request. It's not Stephen King's
> publisher asking to quote song lyrics or whatever is the sort of
> thing that permissions departments handle. Since it's an unusual
> situation, they're not going to be absolutely sure what would be
> the consequences of saying "yes."
>
> And anyone is going to realize that Wikipedia and the EB are
> _rivals_. Maybe not bitter rivals, but probably not even friendly
> rivals.
>
> And it's not clear how much is being given away. If I were a
> midlevel manager in the permissions department at EB and fearful
> or hostile of the GFDL, I'd probably say to myself "Do I know,
> 100% for sure, that giving permission for this might not create a
> legal avalanche of unintended consequences in which WIkipedia
> could claim that the permission extended to the entire content of
> EB? Because if I'm only 99.999% sure of that, I'm not going to say
> 'yes.'"
>
> There are no potential bad consequences of saying "no."
>
> It's like a baseball runner asking the pitcher, "My I have your
> permission to try to steal a base?" What's the pitcher going to
say?
>
> And I think the situation is in every possible way worse if you ask
> for permission in writing, get told "no" in writing, and do it
> anyway. It is really unwise to ask for permission unless you're
> ready to be bound by the answer. In this case, that means getting
> consensus that Wikipedia is ready to be bound by the answer.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in
> August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at
> http:// www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Let's say that:
There is an article about a relatively controversial subject that, for
some reason, has not yet been through any massive edit wars. Maybe the
subject is fairly new, the word in itself is pretty new so no one has
actually written much about it- until now.
There are two people editing this article. You get involved a bit, and
try to create what you feel is a neutral version. This makes one side
immediatelly assume you belong to the Enemy. This person creates a
version that says "some people say this, some people say that" but it
is badly written, the reasoning is strange, it is hard to understand
what he really means. Both sides are getting loud and argumentative,
more concerned with being right than with what is logical and not. The
subject is probably emotional to them. Maybe one side is louder than
the other; maybe not.
You feel that hey - this isn't going to lead anywhere.
What do you do? Do you just leave the article and let them fight? But
then, what happens if all the "good forces" just leave whenever
problem arises? Should you ask someone to try and talk to these
people? Is there a standard way of handling things like this, or is
the only thing to do to stay away and wait until things are so bad
that the article gets locked?
/Habj
I totally agree with Fastfission. There are probably quite a few editors who find themselves peacefully editing when suddenly a nasty POV-pusher comes crashing on the scene overwhelming a perfectly balanced article with biased rubbish.
By the time a POV-pusher has been stopped, a large amount of damage has been done. Often, these edits are not reverted (to keep the peace?) but weaseled down. In other instances, a shouting match develops on the talk page, which then becomes the basis for an RFC. None of this helps the quality of the content.
RFC, however, is completely inadequate. Community response to RFCs is very modest, even (or especially) when controversial articles are being discussed. Only recruiting like-minded editors through their talkpages seems to help. RFC or otherwise, it often leads to no agreement between the litigants, and mediation is sought etc etc. By that time the experienced user is already tired and wants to go back to normal editing.
Jfdwolff
Fastfission wrote:
>Yeah, I don't know. But that seems to fall into the more general
>category of "people who won't discuss", of which there is no quick and
>simple solution that I know of.
>Yes yes, I could take a lot of time filling out an RfC. And then what?
>Move it to another stage of mediation? I don't have time for that --
>it's not how I want to spend my Wikipedia experience. It's probably
>not how anybody wants to. And honestly, it's really not Wikipedia's
>best use of ME -- I'm not a mediator by heart, I'm someone who wants
>to add content by the truckloads and keep POV pushers out. But at the
>same time I believe strongly in due process. So I don't know.
>FF
The problem with asking is that, in the words of Admiral Grace
Hopper, "it is easier to apologize than to get permission."
The problem with asking for permission in a situation like this is
that the person you are asking has absolutely no reason whatosever to
say "yes." What's in it for them? It's a foggy situation, there's no
obvious benefit to them to say "yes." Since you're _asking,_ that
means _you_ think that the thing being asked for is a) not already
yours, and b) of _some_ valuable.
Now, it's _not_ a routine request. It's not Stephen King's publisher
asking to quote song lyrics or whatever is the sort of thing that
permissions departments handle. Since it's an unusual situation,
they're not going to be absolutely sure what would be the
consequences of saying "yes."
And anyone is going to realize that Wikipedia and the EB are
_rivals_. Maybe not bitter rivals, but probably not even friendly
rivals.
And it's not clear how much is being given away. If I were a midlevel
manager in the permissions department at EB and fearful or hostile of
the GFDL, I'd probably say to myself "Do I know, 100% for sure, that
giving permission for this might not create a legal avalanche of
unintended consequences in which WIkipedia could claim that the
permission extended to the entire content of EB? Because if I'm only
99.999% sure of that, I'm not going to say 'yes.'"
There are no potential bad consequences of saying "no."
It's like a baseball runner asking the pitcher, "My I have your
permission to try to steal a base?" What's the pitcher going to say?
And I think the situation is in every possible way worse if you ask
for permission in writing, get told "no" in writing, and do it
anyway. It is really unwise to ask for permission unless you're ready
to be bound by the answer. In this case, that means getting consensus
that Wikipedia is ready to be bound by the answer.
--
Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in
August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at http://
www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417
BTW, Henry does have one request for his mentally disabled grandnephew
"Booty Shrub", if you could kindly let me know how to comunicate any
absolute necessary words of wisdom to Booty, he would appreciate it. But
Henry really can't hang on much longer. Young Booty doesn't understand
qmail as well as some. It is safe only one way now. Thank You.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Kissinger"
To: "English Wikipedia"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Copyright and Britannica Article List
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 02:50:10 -0500
>
> Thank You. BTW, It is time for Dear old Henry to rest in the U.N.
up in
> the great beyond. I sense he only has a few more hours.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alphax
> To: "English Wikipedia"
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Copyright and Britannica Article List
> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:12:35 +0930
>
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Martin Richards wrote:
> > > Michael Snow wrote;
> > >>
> > >> It would depend on how Safeway created the list. If Safeway
> > >> sends employees to WalMart stores to write down every item
they
> > >> can find
> > >> that Safeway doesn't offer, that's entirely legitimate because
> > >> there's no copying (in the copyright sense) involved. If
Safeway
> > >> somehow obtains WalMart master internal list of merchandise
and
> > >> takes information from it, then they are copying.
> > >
> > > I am 90% sure these lists were not copied, but generated. So it
> would
> > > be more akin to writing down every item as opposed to copying
an
> > > internal master list. This would would of course have to be
> confirmed
> > > with user:Bogdangiusca who first uploaded the lists.
> > >
> > > thanks Martin (User:Bluemoose)
> > >
> >
> > I don't there there would be an electronic "list of Britannica
> articles"
> > anywhere, unless someone generated it; if a Wikipedian generated
it
> and
> > placed it on Wikipedia, that is clearly a creative work covered
by
> the
> > GFDL. And even more creative work would have gone into
subtracting
> the
> > articles which already exist. Hence I don't think Britannica has
> > anything on us; but if they copied our list and said "here is a
> list of
> > articles we have that Wikipedia doesn't", and didn't will out the
> > correct paperwork, we could do them for GFDL violation :)
> >
> > - --
> > Alphax
> > OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> > There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be
> done,'
> > and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'
-
> C. S.
> > Lewis
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFCvlxq/RxM5Ph0xhMRAuOHAJ9/G0ibSdCWDOoZq00ZeGflGXkErACfVDiS
> > 3Fz3ORZzrH5+POMm85LdY30=
> > =reBR
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Thank You. BTW, It is time for Dear old Henry to rest in the U.N. up in
the great beyond. I sense he only has a few more hours.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alphax
To: "English Wikipedia"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Copyright and Britannica Article List
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:12:35 +0930
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Richards wrote:
> > Michael Snow wrote;
> >>
> >> It would depend on how Safeway created the list. If Safeway
> >> sends employees to WalMart stores to write down every item they
> >> can find
> >> that Safeway doesn't offer, that's entirely legitimate because
> >> there's no copying (in the copyright sense) involved. If Safeway
> >> somehow obtains WalMart master internal list of merchandise and
> >> takes information from it, then they are copying.
> >
> > I am 90% sure these lists were not copied, but generated. So it
would
> > be more akin to writing down every item as opposed to copying an
> > internal master list. This would would of course have to be
confirmed
> > with user:Bogdangiusca who first uploaded the lists.
> >
> > thanks Martin (User:Bluemoose)
> >
>
> I don't there there would be an electronic "list of Britannica
articles"
> anywhere, unless someone generated it; if a Wikipedian generated it
and
> placed it on Wikipedia, that is clearly a creative work covered by
the
> GFDL. And even more creative work would have gone into subtracting
the
> articles which already exist. Hence I don't think Britannica has
> anything on us; but if they copied our list and said "here is a
list of
> articles we have that Wikipedia doesn't", and didn't will out the
> correct paperwork, we could do them for GFDL violation :)
>
> - --
> Alphax
> OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be
done,'
> and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' -
C. S.
> Lewis
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCvlxq/RxM5Ph0xhMRAuOHAJ9/G0ibSdCWDOoZq00ZeGflGXkErACfVDiS
> 3Fz3ORZzrH5+POMm85LdY30=
> =reBR
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Michael Snow wrote;
It would depend on how Safeway created the list. If Safeway sends
employees to WalMart stores to write down every item they can find that
Safeway doesn't offer, that's entirely legitimate because there's no
copying (in the copyright sense) involved. If Safeway somehow obtains
WalMart master internal list of merchandise and takes information from
it, then they are copying.
I am 90% sure these lists were not copied, but generated. So it would be more akin to writing down every item as opposed to copying an internal master list. This would would of course have to be confirmed with user:Bogdangiusca who first uploaded the lists.
thanks
Martin (User:Bluemoose)