>I like your confusing style, but I have to take it in the context of your
less rational appeals.
You are not being intellectually honest here, I find; you are attempting to
exploit my failings in English to your own advantage, grossly distorting my
comments into something they most defintiely are not. I've made myself very
clear what I think about your debating methods.
El_C
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
>
>> I personally think that the co-opting of Wikipedia for commercial and
>> promotional purposes is a real danger to Wikipedia.
>>
>> I am especially concerned about the articles we get about movies,
>> software, games, concert tours, reality TV shows, etc. that are
>> _about to_ be released within the next couple of months, always with
>> the assertion that they are certain to be very notable.
>
> I guess I don't see the where the danger part comes in.
That is why I said it is one of those areas where there is, I fear,
no consensus.
> It seems
> more like a self-correcting phenomenon
No, things do not correct _themselves._ They must be corrected by
_people._ Who must take time and effort that would otherwise be spent
on other things.
> If you really wanted to monitor and be able to VfD things after
> they've proven to be obscure duds, just make a new category of
> "to be released" things, perhaps subcatted by year, then review
> the following year.
"Just?"
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
> I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly
(but only slightly) less obvious.
>--Jimbo
Yes. And it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, in my opinion, to view
this "slightly less obvious" dimension as a total amensty for that
user, as "the same genre," esp. vis-a-vis the distress felt by the
victims.
Another unfortunate and un-contextual current of thought claims
non-Jews (or non-Jimbos) are or stand the risk of being treated more
poorly (unequally). But I maintain that evidence needs to be submitted
with specific examples in order to identify and undertake the
necessary corrections.
At the event, I am only familliar with two offsite hate and/or hit
lists: this one, and the Sollog one. It's crucial, then, to remain
more-or-less grounded to what is actually taking place, as opposed to
abstract ideals.
El_C
steve v vertigosteve at yahoo.com:
> its equally irrational to
> regard Nazi windbags as a direct and imminent
threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Berg
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>We agree its good to keep the moral highground, but my moral
highground *isn't situational --call it "abstract ideals" if you like.
Everyone has ideals, only the most narrow-minded, agenda-driven of
minds consider the basis for these to be limited to... shal we say,
situational isolationism.
The issue isn't with the ideals (abstract or otherwise), but rather,
to whenever there is a risk for these to serve merely as a pretext for
a highly a *selective* approach, one wherein these ideals are
juxtaposed, transposed, and superimposed to any concrete case in an
un-balanced, inaccurate, and un-objective way.
Rationality goes hand in hand with relationality. Unfortunately,
empathy often isn't enough to bring a sympathy which is balanced, be
it for those absorbed in abstract ideals, petty proceduralism, or
both. The forest *and* the tress, in other words. Either one, in
itself, is obviously insufficient and self-defeating.
El_C
> From: Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini(a)comcast.net>
>
> I'm more than a little suprised that no one is angry about the fact
> that
> companies admit to subtle PR-pushing on Wikipedia. ("planting of viral
> information in entries, modification of entries to point to new
> promotional sites or 'leaks' embedded in entries to test diffusion of
> information.") Where's the outrage? Why aren't people upset about
> this?
I personally think that the co-opting of Wikipedia for commercial and
promotional purposes is a real danger to Wikipedia.
I am especially concerned about the articles we get about movies,
software, games, concert tours, reality TV shows, etc. that are
_about to_ be released within the next couple of months, always with
the assertion that they are certain to be very notable.
I have tried to get acceptance of a firm statement of policy about
this into WP:NOT under the rubric of "Wikipedia is not a crystal
ball," but it is one of those areas where there is, I fear, no
consensus. The articles are in most cases seem to be written not
directly by promoters, but by fans who identify with and buy into
everything the promoters say or promise. I recognize that the
existence of tens of thousands of excited fans in the present is a
fact, but it is a generic one; hundreds of movies will come and go
and each of them will be preceded by a wave of publicity that will
carry enthusiasts along with it, always insisting that the particular
wave they happen to be riding is a tsunami.
I think articles of this kind damage Wikipedia in a way that articles
about generic elementary schools, streets, minor characters in Harry
Potter, etc. do not.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Fine. We'll call it something else. I'm still not sugar coating it just to
save someone's overly inflated ego.
A. Nony Mouse
---------- Forwarded message ----------
- Hide quoted text -
From: A. Nony Mouse <mousyme(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2005 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Hey shithead
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
I send in a good-faith question to the list and you attack me?
Jtkiefer, you're a real work.
Oh, and I have sent emails to the owners of the accounts that were
falsely blocked in Gerard's Spanish Inquisition, apologizing for the messup.
Hopefully some of them will come back.
A. Nony Mouse
On 8/25/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer(a)wordzen.net> wrote:
> One must wonder how this post got through to the mailing list especially
> considering that we've been told that A. Nony Mouse's posts are screened
> before being let through.
>
> -Jtkiefer
>
> A. Nony Mouse wrote:
>
> >I believe this should be added to Yuber's RFAR...
> >
> >A. Nony Mouse
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >From: Yuber <yuber07(a)gmail.com>
> >Date: Aug 19, 2005 5:20 PM
> >Subject: Hey shithead
> >To: mousyme(a)gmail.com
> >
> >
> >How goes it?
> >_______________________________________________
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
>Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>
>>Alphax wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Skyring wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pete, awarding fifteen minutes of eternal fame to whoever coined that
>>>>word "Nazipedia"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>*checks archive*
>>>
>>>On 20/08/2005 16:27, Alphax wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Stormfront Wikipedia" is unnacceptable on the simple grounds of
>>>>trademark infringement. "Stormfrontpedia" would be acceptable.
>>>>"Nazipedia" might get them into trouble in whatever juridstiction their
>>>>servers are located in :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>*wins*
>>>
>>>
>>Sorry, Robert Klein used the term a couple years ago, in one
>>of his periodic announcements of departure from WP, the complaint
>>being that WP was allowing in too much anti-Jewish bias.
>>
I beg your pardon, but who is Robert Klein? I'm not aware of any
Wikipedia contributors by that name, although we do have an article
about [[Robert Klein]], the comedian.
Oh, and RK has had his fifteen minutes already.
--Michael Snow
>?????
[Well before that] "You didn't feel the faintest tinge or twinge of
hypocrisyas you wrote the above," when you uttered that same sentence
*after* having modified my comment space, knowing already then that I was
weary of it here?
-->
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=15157892&ol…<--
Preceded by: "you '*must* cease from editing my comments' space by
inserting your own (esp. without signing). Do you not know that I intend to
bring evidence in your arbitration proceeding which outline my protest of
this pratice on your part (and that you continued to do so, at least once,
despite such explicit protests?) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=15156770&ol…
And long before then... modifying my comment on Talk:Government of
Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGovernment_of_Australia&di…
My protest: "Skyring, your direct modification of my original comments
here is unacceptable and borders on
vandalism."<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGovernment_of_Australia&di…>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGovernment_of_Australia&di…
Following another modification: "Skyring, do not modify talk page comments
-Once again, Skyring breaks my comments without attribution (signing). And
he inserts a lengthy, diversionary, and totally untopical comment.
Goodfaith?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGovernment_of_Australia&di…
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to have had great difficulties staying away from my own comments
and comment space for some reason. Instead of responding normally, entering
a comment bellow my own, you felt *compelled* to modify my comment in a way
that drowned my own narrative with textual redundancy -- and then when I
protest, you do it again. And again. And again. And again. And now you
respond to the obvious and already well-documented with "??????" Uhuh.
El_C
It's pretty tough when I can't even clear my own talk page. Can
someone take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skyring
and see if they can work out what sort of official policy the relevant
admin is following, apart from WP:BLOODYMINDEDNESS?
--
Peter in Canberra