> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> >We should teach people to be critical.
> >Far too often people take what they read for granted without any
> >thought or double-checking. We should work to keep featured articles
> >accurate (because they're supposed to be the best). To get rid of
> >other inaccuracies we should look for sources. If we don't have any,
> >people should be naturally untrusting and try to verify the info
> >another way.
> >
> >NO ONE can guarantee absolutely correct info. Look at Britannica.
> >
> Teaching people to be critical is itself a process. In all but the most
> advanced educational systems that is contrary to centuries of
> established habit. Before a person can be effectively critical he needs
> to believe that his opinions matter.
The process isn't helped when most of the education system we have in
this world frown upon any student below postgraduate level from making
any opinion whatsoever. How can we teach a person to be effectively
critical when everyone else is saying you can't have your own opinion
unless you have a PhD (or are working on one), all you can do is
summarize what others have said already.
KTC
--
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite
you. This is the principal difference between a man and a dog.
- Mark Twain
I once registered as a user of Wikipedia, and I know that anything I write there *may* be copied and re-used according to the GFDL. However, I did not sign up for the Pornopedia, Nazipe dia or Spamopedia.
What is written on user pages and user talkpages is also released under the GFDL, and if somebody wants to copy it or quote it, fine (as long as it is attributed)! But there is no reason to automate this process or make it easy for webspammers and other creeps to do so. I do not want my user page to be copied to various Wikipedia mirrors, as happened a while ago with the Nazi copy of Wikipedia. I would be even less happy if I had signed up under my real name. The appearance of a name in such a context may actually be harmful to somebody's reputation.
1. My first suggestion: just *make sure that when the database is copied, user information does not come along with it, including userpages, user talkpages and even the history of a page*. I notice from some of the mirrors out there, that the only contributor visible in the history of an article is the last one before the dump, somebody who may just have corrected a typo. As it doesn't give proper attribution in any case, we may just as well get rid of that too. Just make sure the history page of every downloaded article refers back to Wikipedia, where the full history can be found.
2. Second suggestion: is there any reason why *any* discussion pages need to come with the normal database dump? The nazi 'pedia (which is down now) took these and search-and-replaced "Wikipedia" with its own name everywhere, giving the misleading impression that a lot of Wikipedia users had been active in discussions on a Nazi website. This may be seriously harmful to somebody's reputation if found through a Google search by somebody not familiar with the GFDL and how Wikipedia works. It is probably illegal in some way to do what they did (as Wikipedia will no longer be properly credited) but I just don't see anybody going to court to stop it, and we certainly don't need to facilitate abuse of mirrored discussion pages with consequences for the reputation or privacy of individual users. Again, please *replace all discussion pages in the database dump with a very clear and visible link back to Wikipedia*, not just the miniscule one down at the bottom of every page. Most downloaders
are not going to bother removing that link, as all they want Wikipedia content for, is to get Google hits and drive traffic to their websites.
3. Remove the user namespace from the reach of Google's indexing bots. It should be available to our internal search, but there is no reason it should get hits from Google. Userspace contains all kinds of semi-private conversations and unfinished drafts which are really only of internal use and interest.
I question whether some other type of free but non-commercial license wouldn't be more suitable for user pages, but that may not be realistic for various reasons. But the removal of these pages from the dump really shouldn't require a change in license. It will just force somebody who wants to copy the content to do so manually. The webspammers obviously won't bother with that.
User:Tupsharru
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
I would like to know who, if anyone, can help my IP (64.230.123.119) get
unblocked?
I have apparently been blocked for spreading rumours without them being
documented. I would like, however, to offer the following points.
1. on the issue of the Conservative Party moving the airborn to CFB Trenton
and out of my MPs riding (who has been fighting to bring it here) I noted
that my MPs own party has stolen an issue right out from underneath her.
The following was noted in the edit history: "PLEASE Document rumours before
you put them in. The CPC website doesn't mention moving the airborne to
Trenton anywhere. It's JUST A RUMOUR unless its documented)" I would kindly
ask you, however, check out
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=677&l…
where you will find in the December 13, 2005 video of Talk Politics , at the
32 minute 15 second mark of the video, the Conservative Party's Defence
Critic, Gordon O'Connor, stating that his party wishes to reincarnate the
airborn in CFB Trenton.
2. Another issue facing this MP is an investogation by the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada related to how her office received and then used
personal information - likely from passport applications. I cited the
Pembroke Observer Newspaper
link(http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=138630&catname=Local+News)
that clearly shows that a Deep River couple has contacted the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada. I will admit that the online article does not have
100% of the article showing, however that is not the point. I was asked to
provide proof and I have. If the administrators are so concerned about
whether my edit was truthful then they can buy a copy of the Pembroke
Observer and see that the edit reflects the truth and that residents have
asked, in the middle of an election, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to
investogate their MP - I would suggest that this worth posting.
Could someone please help. I believe I have tried, very hard, to meet the
standards asked of me - ie providing proof, and yet still they block me.
Please help :)
Sara
>
> From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:48:40 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
>
> And what about the AFD reasoning that it's a term to collect "boylove" and
> "girllove" under one name. Those terms are common
no they aren't.
>and calling them childlove > collectively makes sense (at least to me).
A neologism that "makes sense" is still a neolgoism.
H.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 1/1/06, homey2005(a)sympatico.ca <homey2005(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Point taken. However, the term "white nationalism" is much more firmly
> > established than "childlove". See for instance "The New White Nationalism in
> > America", a scholarly book by Carol M. Swain. And also, white nationalist
> > claim to be different than white supremacists thus a distiction is made
> > (though whether it's a real distinction or just a matter of hiding one's
> > views in order to make them more palatable is an issue).
> >
> > Conversely, there is no distinction between "childlove" and "pedophilia".
> > The former is a pure synonym for the latter and its purpose is not to draw a
> > distinction of some sort but to serve as a euphemism.
> >
> > Homey
> > >
> > > From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
> > > Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:17:10 EST
> > > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
> > >
> > > On 1/1/06, homey2005(a)sympatico.ca <homey2005(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a
> > particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply
> > because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white
> > nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather
> > than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".
> > >
> > > Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
> > > nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
> > > way of dealing with this sort of thing:
> > >
> > > "White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
> > > social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
> > > "White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
> > > that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
> > > including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
> > > heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
> > > racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
> > > intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."
> > >
> > > Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
> > > completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
> > > nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
> > > question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
> > > of thing that MGM is getting at. Other examples include distinctions
> > > like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].
> > >
> > > When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
> > > organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
> > > established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
> > > itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.
> > >
> > > FF
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
And what about the AFD reasoning that it's a term to collect "boylove" and
"girllove" under one name. Those terms are common and calling them childlove
collectively makes sense (at least to me).
Mgm
On 1/1/06, homey2005(a)sympatico.ca <homey2005(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Point taken. However, the term "white nationalism" is much more firmly
> established than "childlove". See for instance "The New White Nationalism in
> America", a scholarly book by Carol M. Swain. And also, white nationalist
> claim to be different than white supremacists thus a distiction is made
> (though whether it's a real distinction or just a matter of hiding one's
> views in order to make them more palatable is an issue).
>
> Conversely, there is no distinction between "childlove" and "pedophilia".
> The former is a pure synonym for the latter and its purpose is not to draw a
> distinction of some sort but to serve as a euphemism.
>
> Homey
> >
> > From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
> > Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:17:10 EST
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
> >
> > On 1/1/06, homey2005(a)sympatico.ca <homey2005(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a
> particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply
> because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white
> nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather
> than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".
> >
> > Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
> > nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
> > way of dealing with this sort of thing:
> >
> > "White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
> > social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
> > "White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
> > that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
> > including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
> > heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
> > racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
> > intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."
> >
> > Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
> > completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
> > nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
> > question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
> > of thing that MGM is getting at. Other examples include distinctions
> > like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].
> >
> > When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
> > organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
> > established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
> > itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.
> >
> > FF
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Point taken. However, the term "white nationalism" is much more firmly established than "childlove". See for instance "The New White Nationalism in America", a scholarly book by Carol M. Swain. And also, white nationalist claim to be different than white supremacists thus a distiction is made (though whether it's a real distinction or just a matter of hiding one's views in order to make them more palatable is an issue).
Conversely, there is no distinction between "childlove" and "pedophilia". The former is a pure synonym for the latter and its purpose is not to draw a distinction of some sort but to serve as a euphemism.
Homey
>
> From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:17:10 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
>
> On 1/1/06, homey2005(a)sympatico.ca <homey2005(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".
>
> Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
> nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
> way of dealing with this sort of thing:
>
> "White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
> social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
> "White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
> that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
> including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
> heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
> racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
> intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."
>
> Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
> completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
> nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
> question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
> of thing that MGM is getting at. Other examples include distinctions
> like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].
>
> When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
> organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
> established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
> itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Thanks. Two questions though: It sounds promising,
but would this really make any more difference than a
lawyer's c&d? And how does one identify who is
upstream of Brandt?
David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>:
DMCA notice. Anyone from any country can send one of
these. To him and
two levels of upstream. Possibly as a press release as
well.
http://www.holysmoke.org/ga/ga45.htm
- shows how [[Tilman Hausherr]] has successfully used
DMCA notices sent
from Germany when Scientology-related organisations
played fast and
loose with his photos.
The takedown provisions of the DMCA are a matter of
great concern, but
a
DMCA notice when someone is pretty damned clearly
*ripping off your
stuff* is IMO quite morally sound.
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
On 1/1/06, homey2005(a)sympatico.ca <homey2005(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".
Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
way of dealing with this sort of thing:
"White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
"White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."
Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
of thing that MGM is getting at. Other examples include distinctions
like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].
When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.
FF
> And how exactly is "pedophilia advocacy" not some neologistic term itself?
"Pedophile advocacy" is no more a neologism than "Opposition to the war in Iraq". It's simply the compilation of accepted terms into a descriptive phrase. The neologism in "childlove movement" is the term "childlove" which exists in no standard dictionary and is not used by any mainstream sources. The term "pedophile" is well established as is the word "advocacy".
> "Childlove movement" is the name by which they refer to themselves
That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".
> and subsequently how they are referred to by others.
That statement is based on a false premise. It is simply not the case that a group of people is automatically referred to by the name they give themselves (see my earlier argument about "white nationalists"). Secondly, we have no evidence that this is the case with the pedophile movement. Lexis/Nexis shows no occurances of the term "childlove" in published media reports.
Anyway, another editor has moved the article to "pedophile advocacy" based on consensus in the AFD so now the discussion should shift to the contents of the article itself.
Homey
>
> From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/01 Sun AM 06:28:56 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
>
> And how exactly is "pedophilia advocacy" not some neologistic term itself?
> "Childlove movement" is the name by which they refer to themselves and
> subsequently how they are referred to by others.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 12/31/05, homey2005(a)sympatico.ca <homey2005(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > "Childlove movement" is a POV euphemism for pedophilia advocacy. There is
> > currently and AFD on the article at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Childlove_move…, we have a small number of pedophilia advocates (self-identified on
> > their user pages) who have been editing pedophilia related articles in an
> > attempt to promote their POV.
> >
> > What this means is there may not be "consensus" at the AFD to take action
> > such as deleting, merging or renaming the article. However, I think it's
> > quite clear that the name of the article at least is POV.
> >
> > Just as we would not allow a small group of dedicated anti-Semities to
> > maintain an article title such as "Holohoax" we shouldn't allow a small
> > group of pedophiles to use wikipedia to promote their preferred terminology
> > of "childlover".
> >
> > Any ideas as to how we should handle this? If a small group of dedicated
> > advocates can block consensus that is a serious threat to our NPOV policy.
> >
> > Homey
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Hello folks,
I'm still checking through criminal categories looking for problems. I
found an article that needs more checking than I have time to do now. If
someone has the time and interest, this article needs a fact-check and
more mainstream media sources. I think this person is high risk for
causing us problems is the article is not exactly right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pantone
--Sydney Poore
Go Bengals!