I think we all need to work on developing the ability to recognize a
"bandwagon" when we see it, and take care that the contrarian point of
view is appropriate expressed. For example, note that contrarian is a word
used in financial circles, did we adequately treat the housing boom BEFORE
the sub-prime crisis?
Fred
> "Giving extra weight due to or own suspicions" is common sense, not OR
> in the WP meaning of it. . It will always take research in some sense to
> determine what sources to use and what constitutes proper weight--that
> is not what is meant by NOR. Research on the ground, yes that's OR in
> the NOR sense.
>
> Encyclopedia editing is like journalism--it needs to be informed by the
> facts in the real world. it's not a mechanical process, though some of
> the botmasters for the bots used to make WP pages from public domain
> sources may think otherwise, You need to know what to look for, how to
> recognize it, and how to put it together. NPOV means doing this
> objectively, in recognition of all the particular views, and with
> judgment for what needs to be said about them.
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2007 1:23 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
>> I aspire to more, but did we even satisfy the requirements of NPOV?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> > Even if we gave little weight to such claims that isn't our fault.
>> Giving extra
>> > weight due to or own suspicions or looking at the facts on the
>> ground would almost certainly constitute [[WP:OR|original
>> research]]. Not our job.
>> >
>> > Quoting Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>:
>> >
>> >> -------- Original Message --------
>> >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The hard work of NPOV
>> >> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
>> >> Date: Thu, December 6, 2007 12:15 pm
>> >> To: <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> I was in an evil mood and confess to trolling; there are a lot of
>> good thoughts at http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ besides the sentence
>> I seized on. We have published a "consensus of the most widespread
>> error" from time to time, particularly in the run-up to the Iraq
>> War. (I was one of the parties in error). Especially with current
>> events, it is hard to know when you are doing that as our favored
>> sources, in my case The New York Times, are fostering the error.
>> >>
>> >> It would be interesting to go back and look at the development of
>> those articles and see how much "air time" we gave to the view that
>> there were no weapons on mass destruction. Some modesty is in
>> order. Even some intelligence services were taken in. We can aspire
>> to do better then they, but without good sources on the ground, and
>> willingness to use what they might tell us, which is their failing
>> too, we cannot expect to surpass them.
>> >>
>> >> Fred
>> >>
>> >>> perhaps we should redefine it our goal, as the nearest practical
>> approach to truth the wiki process can obtain, obtained at in a
>> spirit of impartiality. That's what people reasonably expect from
>> us, not a consensus of the most widespread error.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Dec 6, 2007 9:17 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> > http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Please discuss.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > - d.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "If you fail to achieve a correct answer, it is futile to protest
>> that you acted with propriety."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> NPOV is a measure of propriety, not of truth.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Fred
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >>>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
I don't know, Citizendium makes me all itchy inside for some reason.
It seems like it would be completely different than Wikipedia, as if I would be spreading myself too thin, and dedicating myself half to one encyclopedia, half to another.
And then there's the problem of using my real name, which raises more red flags than a professional mailbox-filler. I really, really, really don't want people online to know my real name. Only bad things can come of that.
Also, first reply.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Looking for something mindless to watch as I worked tonight, I pulled
a random animated series DVD off the shelf at the library. ("American
Dad". It appears to be "just like Family Guy, but with
war-on-terrorism jokes". If you like one you'll like the other, and if
one annoys you ditto, but I digress.)
I watched a couple of episodes, got a vague idea what was going on
(and ironed my shirts). Then I sat down, paid a bit more attention,
and watched one without getting distracted.
And the test.
I then read our (characteristically exhaustive) article on that
episode, and came away knowing about twice as much about what had
happened in it as I had by actually watching the damn thing.
I'm not sure if this is a positive or negative sign, but it struck me
as an amusing experiment!
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
All,
I'm pleased to announce that four Wikipedians -- myself (user:phoebe),
Charles Matthews (user:Charles Matthews), Ben Yates (user:Tlogmer) and
SJ Klein (user:sj) -- are writing a book about using and understanding
Wikipedia, tentatively titled "How Wikipedia Works". It will be
published by [[No Starch Press]] in early 2008.
This guide will be focused on helping readers understand Wikipedia and
helping new editors contribute. We hope to include enough detail to
make it a useful reference for current contributors as well. (Note
that this is a different project from the O'Reilly book that was
discussed earlier on the lists).
We welcome community feedback and ideas, and hope to make this a truly
community-based work. There is a project page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Phoebe/book
We'll add detail there over the coming weeks, and have asked for
feedback in some specific areas. Please do contribute and send us your
thoughts and ideas.
Some details:
* The book will be licensed under the GFDL and an online version will
be available. (No Starch has been a great partner in this and has been
very supportive of open licensing). Where the book reprints on-wiki
documentation, the authors of that documentation will be credited.
* We're primarily focusing on the English Wikipedia, but there will be
brief sections about the sister projects and Wikipedias in other
languages, so we definitely welcome feedback and ideas from those
communities as well.
* A portion of the authors' proceeds will be donated to the Wikimedia
Foundation.
If you have any questions, concerns or ideas, please let me or one of
the other authors know. I'll be updating the project page with
progress information as we get closer to publication.
best,
Phoebe Ayers
phoebe.ayers(a)gmail.com
..,.being a couple of thoughts on the differences of approach in general
terms.
I totally understand the necessity of restricting users like myself from all
editing, including vandalism reversion on a pragmatic level - I can see for
example that some may view quality material as 'vandalism' because they
disagree with it, and they're crazy people. I am interested in the
priorities of users who would disagree with vandalism reversion on a
philosophical level - ie. the "you're not wanted, even if you're helping"
approach. The corollary of that approach is that the activity moves to email
(as it has in my case in a very friendly, happy, useful fashion) - which
seems to me to beg the question, why is that ethically a different activity?
Is it?
Further - a short note on Doc.s discussion of opening some of the Arb
proceedings - my personal feedback would be that there isn't enough on-wiki
communication on record to quickly and easily understand how the arb process
has moved forward, from gathering evidence, to considering it, to reaching
conclusions. I'd say this is evidenced by the number of unanswered questions
/ comments here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Privat…
I appreciate Guy's willingness to engage there, and personally, I would have
sincerely wished to either answer questions from any Arb, or discuss aspects
with them.
The 'select committee' system used in the UK - or the US senate committee
system could have some useful pointers for structures that could help.
Interestingly, here's an example of where a transparent flaw in said system
led to some damage to its reputation, and sympathy for an otherwise very
(very) unsympathetic character;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Galloway.27s_response
And one to file in the 'it's unlikely anyone will read this far' box - does
anyone think that banned users should be able to !vote in things like the
Arb elections?
cheers,
PM.
Phoebe,
Perhaps it's a done deal, but I would also suggest Creative Commons for your book's license.
I assume the reason you're going with the GFDL is that you want to include article snippets in your book. Due to the nature of the book you may be able to do that through simple Fair Use. And there's a chance that Wikipedia may be CC-by-sa by the time the book hits the shelves, and it wouldn't matter at any rate.
There's plenty to consider on both sides, of course, but based on my limited knowledge of the project I wouldn't rule out using CC-by-sa. It's a better license for books.
Mike
user:johnsonmx
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:46:50 -0800
From: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Forthcoming book about Wikipedia, "How Wikipedia
Works" -- feedback wanted
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "English Wikipedia"
<wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<3034369e0712041046x226fa59fl4eaada774d715e56(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
All,
I'm pleased to announce that four Wikipedians -- myself (user:phoebe),
Charles Matthews (user:Charles Matthews), Ben Yates (user:Tlogmer) and
SJ Klein (user:sj) -- are writing a book about using and understanding
Wikipedia, tentatively titled "How Wikipedia Works". It will be
published by [[No Starch Press]] in early 2008.
This guide will be focused on helping readers understand Wikipedia and
helping new editors contribute. We hope to include enough detail to
make it a useful reference for current contributors as well. (Note
that this is a different project from the O'Reilly book that was
discussed earlier on the lists).
We welcome community feedback and ideas, and hope to make this a truly
community-based work. There is a project page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Phoebe/book
We'll add detail there over the coming weeks, and have asked for
feedback in some specific areas. Please do contribute and send us your
thoughts and ideas.
Some details:
* The book will be licensed under the GFDL and an online version will
be available. (No Starch has been a great partner in this and has been
very supportive of open licensing). Where the book reprints on-wiki
documentation, the authors of that documentation will be credited.
* We're primarily focusing on the English Wikipedia, but there will be
brief sections about the sister projects and Wikipedias in other
languages, so we definitely welcome feedback and ideas from those
communities as well.
* A portion of the authors' proceeds will be donated to the Wikimedia
Foundation.
If you have any questions, concerns or ideas, please let me or one of
the other authors know. I'll be updating the project page with
progress information as we get closer to publication.
best,
Phoebe Ayers
phoebe.ayers(a)gmail.com
David Gerard wrote:
> On 04/12/2007, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > A suggestion I've been pondering is to expand [[Wikipedia:Mailing
> > lists]] to list _all_ mailing lists where Wikipedia is the topic,
> > annotated and subsectioned to keep the "unofficial" stuff properly
> > segregated of course. The mailing lists don't have to be public or
open,
> > IMO merely listing their existence and subject matter would be very
> > useful for keeping paranoia levels down.
>
> This strikes me as hard to enforce. The cyberstalking list started as
> a cc: list and was then put on Wikia; anyone who feels they have
> something to say to more than one person without a mob inquiry and
> consequent Orlowskiing would just keep it as a cc: list. I don't see
> it as feasible to regulate cc: lists.
Waitasec... was this list one that I participated in in the distant past?
(I assumed David knows which one I'm speaking about.) If so, does this
mean *I* am part of this secret cabal that dictates how Wikipedia is run?
In that case, do I have spend time thinking about what the cabal does
next... or can I simply continue to spend most of my time working on
articles? Thanks to one very insightful editor (who declined my offer to
be nominated for Adminship because he felt he was not worthy), I've
found a resource that allows me to write rather useful articles on towns
in Ethiopia. In all seriousness, I think my skills would be put to better
use there -- as long as people continue to listen when I voice a concern.
Geoff
Two issues have recently brought the questions of the arbcom mailing
lists to light. 1) The rather vile thread on the RfArb talk - with its
allegations that named individuals have leaked - allegations that by
their nature can neither be substantiated or repudiated. 2) The 'Giano
question' - a very legitimate question of whether if Giano were on
arbcom he'd read posts about himself in the arbcom archives - and what
he'd to with such information. To his credit, Giano's answers showed
great integrity. But this raises the question: if there are posts about
Giano in there, why shouldn't he be able to read them? And for that
matter, if there are posts about me, why shouldn't I?
Strip away the personalities and the bad blood and deeper issues remain.
1) Secrecy breeds paranoia and distrust - and the antidote is always
more transparency.
2) Whilst there's a legitimate debate as to whether too many people have
access to the lists - we're missing a bigger question of access to the
archives. Even if access is restricted to current arbs, that will mean
that anything posted now can be read by dozens of people over the next
few years - some of whom *will* be indiscreet. We here talk of archives
used as "institutional memory" - but knowledge is also power.
3) In most bureaucracies today, individuals have the right to see any
records pertaining to themselves. That right allows the correction of
error - but also focuses the minds of those who would make personal
comments about individuals in backrooms. Comments that may prejudice
minds for years to come.
4) Arbcom certainly has a need to share "privileged" information -
checkuser details and other privacy matters - and that flow of
information needs to be restricted. Arbcom also has a need for internal
deliberation without the background noise of open mailing lists,
however, this type of discussion has no real need to be private.
I suggest the following:
A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable mix of necessarily
confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be
sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee
confidentiality - it should be deleted. It is unacceptable that there
may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject
cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can be (will be, and has
been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive
retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an
expectation of confidentiality.
B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list for discussing
cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through
moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive.
This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs
really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or
private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years
from now.
C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But it should only be
used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly
neccessary commentary. Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight
- to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a
right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed
to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely -
perhaps 12-24 months only.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and destroying the
community's trust. It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to
defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses
the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.
Doc