WikiEN-l December 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

157 participants
289 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 153
by zero 0000 21 Dec '06

21 Dec '06

> From: jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> > Message-ID: > <6a8d9d700612180823s701590f2pcfe4bd97a2938ac6(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 12/17/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/17/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 12/17/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Of course that's ok. Original research in that scenario would > be to > > > > say "the consensus among legal scholars is A, but they haven't > > > > considered C, and therefore D is the correct position." > > > > > > > > Original research is about posing new theories, or making new > > > > inferences, or drawing new conclusions that are your own > opinions and > > > > involve some element of analysis or synthesis. Fundamentally, > original > > > > research is introducing your own original thought into > articles. > > > > > > And, of course, drawing your own conclusions and stating that > there is > > > a "legal consensus" on this matter, based on your own research > into > > > what various legal scholars have said, is a prime example of > original > > > research. Quote the scholars, list their names, state that there > are a > > > number of them, but don't introduce your own original thought > that > > > these selected sources have created a "legal consensus". > > > > I was speaking to the particular example given, where there are two > > popular positions on the subject held by lay people, while all > expert > > accounts support only one of those positions. In this context, > where > > all experts who have written on the subject have agreed with the > same > > position, surely it is not original research to say so. > > On the contrary, it surely is. All of the people that this particular > investigator has found, and consider to be legal experts, have one > view, so it's fine to state something like "Legal experts have stated > Y", with a series of footnotes. However, one cannot go from that step > to stating "All legal experts believe that Y", since we have no idea > what *all* legal experts believe, only the statements of the ones we > happen to have surveyed. Even worse would be an insistence that we > must conclude that "the law is Y", since the law is complicated, > malleable, and context specific, and one often has no idea which way > a judge, panel of judges, or jury will rule. I'm happy that my question provoked some useful discussion. "All legal experts believe that Y" would clearly be wrong, as it isn't even verifiable. On the other hand, even though "Legal experts have stated that Y [cite][cite]" is clearly valid, it doesn't properly convey what the sources indicate. There ought to be some way to record that a standard legal database did not provide ANY contrary opinions. Given how much lawyers love to argue with each other, this is a highly unusual situation. Perhaps there is another useful way to look at it: consider the legal database to be "the" source, rather than a collection of sources. Can I say something like "Legal opinions found in the LawIsUs database uniformly favor Y"? (The wording may need tweaking.) Zero. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

7 13

Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 153
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 21 Dec '06

21 Dec '06

Sarah wrote > Charles, anyone in the English-speaking world should be able easily to > fact-check our material, and this is the English-language Wikipedia, > so that has to be our priority. No. that's wrong, which is why I'm arguing the point. Our 'priority' is the encyclopedia mission, and this 'anyone' stuff is getting in the way. >Your argument seems to be that because > everyone in the world can't fact-check it, no one should be able to, > and that we should instead leave the writing and research to > self-selected Wikipiedia "experts," many of whom are anonymous and may > have no expertise at all, or if they do, may not be highly regarded by > other experts in the field. You should notice that of the three places I selected, two (Kerala in India, and Kampala in Uganda) are substantially anglophone places. And what is this "we should instead leave the writing and research to self-selected Wikipiedia "experts," many of whom are anonymous and may have no expertise at all, or if they do, may not be highly regarded by other experts in the field."? I said nothing of the sort. Einstein writes a paper a century ago. In German, in old-fashioned mathematical notation, using concepts that will only later be tidied up by the mathematical physicists such as Minkowski space. We want to do the thing an actual expert would do fluently: not repeat Einstein verbatim, but to state the import in a style that is going to make sense to the reader, and is compatible with the rest of the physics articles. This is likely to take as read elementary algebraic manipulation (if not calculus), and logical moves - for anyone who really wants to check it against the original. (Of course there will be textbook treatments, but there are other fields which are not served as well). The fact is that Joe Public will not usefully be able to fact-check all, in the typical case. Does this matter? Not really. Some subjects just are hierarchically ordered like that. > I agree wholeheartedly that we should make the cream of > reliable-source material globally available, but I strongly disagree > with allowing Wikipedians to insert their own opinions and > interpretations between those sources and our readers. I'm not saying they should be. I'm saying that the 'populist' view is, if taken to extremes, asking for too much verbatim quoting. If readers raise objections to some basic massaging for readability, they can go elsewhere and see if they really like the original sources that much better. The whole point about writing articles in technical areas is that almost everyone would hate treatments that are really faithful to the initial formulations. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

2 1

Woz contributed?
by Ben P. 20 Dec '06

20 Dec '06

"Steve Wozniak 2006-12-20 04:16:53 USD 200.00 200.00" Either him, or someone who used his name. -Ben

5 5

Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute
by Michael Smith 20 Dec '06

20 Dec '06

Greetings, Yesterday, I reported Itaqallah for blatantly falsifying his edit summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93627… Summary was "rv unsourced OR" despite the fact that I included the source very directly: See Also: [[Conquest of Mecca]] Source: Prophet's biography by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93628… Edit summary claims it has been "extensively discussed" on the talk page, no such discussion existed. Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his lying friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and they've jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now. Runedchozo

21 66

Non-stupid WikiEN-l thread - Edition 4 I think
by James Hare 20 Dec '06

20 Dec '06

In light of petty squabbles, I decided to bring back the non-stupid thread fad. - What is your favorite article on Wikipedia, and why? - If there was an article you'd love to see become FA, which one and why? - Favorite pictures? - Favorite anything? --James

11 19

Re: [WikiEN-l] Non-stupid WikiEN-l thread - Edition 4 I think
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 20 Dec '06

20 Dec '06

"James Hare" wrote > - What is your favorite article on Wikipedia, and why? [[List of glaciers]] is cool. I just think having such a list is great. I started it, admittedly, in an atypical moment, but the coolness and increments are due to others. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

6 6

Hello
by Marc Riddell 20 Dec '06

20 Dec '06

Hello, I'm a new kid on the block. I am sending this first email mostly to see what happens when I do, and to find out how the process works. What type of subjects are open for discussion? My only warning is that I am hard science and math challenged - in these areas, I will gladly act as an astounded observer. My education, background and experience is in clinical psychology. My interests are many - my curiosity insatiable. Regards, Marc Riddell, Ph.D.

22 68

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Assume good faith" is no longer policy.
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 19 Dec '06

19 Dec '06

"Steve Bennett" wrote > I frequently interpret AGF as "Assume incompetence". That is, > assume that someone is just clueless, absentminded, ignorant or > something, rather than malicious... I had a case: I moved [[J.C. Snead]] to [[J. C. Snead]], and an editor made an issue of how he'd spent time worrying that this was 'subtle vandalism'. Assuming good faith would have helped him. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

1 0

Begging letters on our blogs?
by David Gerard 18 Dec '06

18 Dec '06

Feed the 'pedia, Let them know it's cup-rattling time ... I've put a note on my blog, as has Kat Walsh: http://reddragdiva.livejournal.com/375133.html http://mindspillage.livejournal.com/11763.html If others could follow suit, that would probably be a good thing. If we're not going to have ads on the site, we need to get the money other ways. Let EVERYONE know we need their pennies! (Note I also suggest that if they're not cashed up, they can give us photos or write stuff!) - d.

3 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Office actions
by dmehkeri＠swi.com 18 Dec '06

18 Dec '06

> > > About a dozen, last time I counted. > > Less than 1% of admins, then... I don't think that suggests anything. > I think it suggests the opposite, in fact. I originally wrote a post about "skewed perspective", but I just used that phrase. Also, my post had "signal to noise ratio". Ugh. I had to trash it, before I start saying things like Non-Notable Good Faith POV Original Research Fair Use Consensus Process. Dan

1 0

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
29
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l December 2006