Hi all,
Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/…
Their "Conservapedia Commandments" are intetresting too:
# Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
# Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
# Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without
gossip or foul language.
# When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give
appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and
"CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical
basis. See CE.
# As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1]
# Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
I find it bizarre that the CE/AD thing is so important that it rates a
mention in the Commandments. And the "true and verifiable" is a cute
reference to our "verifiable, not true" :)
Steve
What about merely verifying identity as an option? I also think some of the
stuff needs to go, like pseudonyms using WP:DICK or whatever. Why is the ad
hominem even there?
Vincent
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 3/6/2007 4:19:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
andrew.cady(a)gmail.com writes:
Please remember that (if we are to believe the dialogue) Socrates
could have fled, but chose to drink the hemlock out of respect for
the authority of Athenian government. Even where the state murders
to censor critics, its dictates are not to be resisted. That is the
mentality of Plato.
I was citing political science. Machiavelli, viewed in Italy as their
George Washington for his republican values, also said the people decide better
about their rulers than princes when they're properly informed in _The
Discourses_. Moreover, what about my citation of the _Federalist Papers_, which also
criticizes pure democracy?
The United States still does not directly elect its president, though I
believe there's been improvement with the Electoral College since the Y2K
election. However, we didn't even directly elect our senators till the 20th
century. Democracy and freedom are essentially one and the same, but as Madison
also said, we must control the effects of liberty, or freedom, on factions,
essentially "what air is to fire" in _Federalist 10_. Otherwise, the minority
get discriminated against, even down to the individual. Moreover, on
Wikipedia, a majority may be of those who are unwilling or unable to verify
themselves. They could be not only the figments of our imagination but the felons in
society, recently released from prison.
One simple solution, probably more on the accountability topic, would be to
give some sort of notification of verified status. Other checks and balances
also appear in order because of the awkwardness of arguments I've seen,
besides the invasion of privacy. If Wikipedia editing is a community, then its
community values hit you in the face rather than provide fairness. Of course
regional bias also exists.
Vincent
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 3/5/2007 8:10:52 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Given it's Amazon it won't be open and may well be unlawful to create
our own. They probably have a patent covering it.
Many sites use a similar approach, a credit card to only verify identity.
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 3/5/2007 11:34:03 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
william(a)scissor.com writes:
Someone who does extensive work in CS can edit the 99% of CS articles
where the do not have a strong conflict of interest. I have absolutely
asked passionate topic experts, no matter how qualified, to not edit on
their personal pet projects. There are areas where I have strong
expertise that I don't touch for the same reason: I'm a partisan.
<Partisanship's different than experience or knowledge. My example of a
soldier who fought in World War II provides a good example, as well as of a
former slave. You're using slippery slopes to justify unfairness and disrespect.
Vincent>
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 3/5/2007 10:21:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
william(a)scissor.com writes:
Yes, and I think again the journalistic approach is the appropriate one.
Declare any interests that might be worrisome
<Impartial essays do have their place, but there's also a time when they
detract from the subject. Taking both sides does not mean being cowed into
silence.>
Vincent Bartning
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 3/5/2007 9:44:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
nobs03(a)gmail.com writes:
There are various techniques in the Internal Revenue Manual that could be
employed; for example, reviewing the edit contributions of an employee of a
non-profit organization, a reasonable estimate of manhours allocated by that
non-profit organization over a given period of time would meet standards of
proof to establish income from paid editing, as well as the activities of
the employer, not to mention possible conflicts of interest, or violations
of Wikipedia's internal policies.
<Many nonprofits begin for a reason, and experts in the field such as Jerold
Panas, (_Making the Case_), talk about how it should be the cause and not
profit or money that has importance for nonprofits. How would you include
founders who don't even get paid in this witch hunt? What about for-profit
corporations, which I would think is worse since it's just publicity and not a
cause they're more likely after?
Wikipedia itself has backing from a public-benefit charity really, the
Wikimedia Foundation. However, others in the nonprofit industry have talked about
how it's money venture - to show self efficiency or something.
Vincent Bartning>
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
OK, I hope this indents what I'm quoting and responding to. Otherwise, it's
not going to be clear. I'll also put a more-than sign at the end of my
responses.>
In a message dated 3/5/2007 2:47:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
This is a pretty vague definition, but yes, it's the sort of thing I
wouldn't mind seeing expanded. Note that conflicts of interest can be
very subtle, though. If our article on [[autism]] was edited by someone
paid by a company selling autism drugs, that's a pretty clear conflict
of interest. But if it were edited by someone paid by a non-profit
group like [[Cure Autism Now]], there would also be potential conflicts
of interest; in particular, Cure Autism Now finds views that autism
isn't a disease offensive, so would be prone to having those treated in
an exclusively negative light if at all. The mythical independent
editor does not really exist; it's more a matter of degrees. I happen
to think that a conscientious editor accepting money from a source that
might have a conflict of interest is actually low on the list of
problems. A PhD in CS editing CS-related articles in which he has
published extensively is much more in a conflict of interest (since it
is the very rare professor who has no bias in the field, or any interest
in career advancement), but we actually encourage that.
Wikipedia suffers with admins. I notice a new topic on renaming them
"janitors," and I plan to review it. Certainly the poor treatment I received,
getting attacked, having double standards, with an unfair blocking begun by an
18 y/o senior in high school on a power trip whose second language is English,
turns me off and makes me not want to do things for Wikiipedia. However, I
had put good work in an article.
There's certainly a problem. We don't want articles to get worse rather
than better do we? Wikipedia's environment seems to cause editing for the sake
of it rather than for truth, and it encourages changing no matter what the
cost in some cases, not to mention there's a lot of unfairness. In others,
you'd better not touch a cabal's work or someone who has an admin's or admins'
backing, and many do get paid by corporations which actively involve their
legal teams.>
However I also think it would be nice if people disclosed the money they
accepted---along with disclosing other potential conflicts of
interest---so articles could be scrutinized appropriately. We can never
actually force that to happen in all cases, but at the moment our
policies actively discourage it, which hardl
I've been actively avoiding Wikipedia's high placement in search results
lately. In most cases, the work's worth it, but certainly confusion has gone
rampant regarding the difference between personal, unpaid work with
professional, paid work here. I don't see what I want about it either.>
Vincent Bartning
UN: John Wallace Rich
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> Jimbo knew that Essjay made up false credentials when he made the
> comment that they were a pseudonym, and he has not to my knowledge
> retracted that statement.
Since Wikipedia does not currently have a policy stating that users
should be honest on their user pages, Jimbo's statement was
consistent with current policy. The question now is, how should we
deal with that? By bashing Jimbo? Or by fixing the policy?
And once again, for those who missed the point in my previous
comment, saying that users "should be honest" does NOT require anyone
to stop using anonymity, pseudonyms, humor, etc. on their user pages.
It draws a bright line between those practices and falsehoods
intended to deceive.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
| https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------