> Earlier: ... Gender relations falls apart
> when you start imputing misogynistic
> motives that were never there ...
Peter Blaise responds: You almost have it. I think the whole point is
that, after a while, the misogyny, like any habit, is no longer a
conscious effort, but is a seamless and unaware part of their
interchange. The real struggle is trying to bring awareness to what has
become an unaware habit, versus the ardent resistance to that attempted
consciousness raising. Do not confuse consequences with intentions.
Regardless of the intentions, aware or unaware, the effects stand on
their own.
On 30 Aug 2007 at 22:25:05 -0700, "K P" <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I never let reality dictate my actions.
It's kind of rare for somebody to actually *admit* to being unhinged
from reality, so congrats for honesty at least.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Sorry about the [RE: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 177] subject line,
but I feel all inclusive today, and maybe this will stir up the "sort by
author/subject search" a little!:
--
> [Re: Misogyny is the perfect troll]
> Earlier: ... How many editors actually
> check what gender another editor is? ...
Peter Blaise responds: Someone's gender is nobody else's business ...
unless you are looking for someone with whom you can reproduce? If that
is not your purpose, then I suggest we celebrate the beauty and power of
anonymity, and stop demanding that others identify themselves by our own
criteria
--
> [Re: Misogyny is the perfect troll]
> Earlier: ... I think this thread needs to
> end if we continue to get so personal ...
Peter Blaise responds: Isn't that exactly what's being asked about
cleaning up the offensive, denigrating crap that is accepted, even
defended on Wikipedia? On the one hand, when (the generic) "others"
feel uncomfortable, the response is, "Get over it." But, when (the
generic) "I" feel uncomfortable, then "this discussion must come to an
end!"
--
> [Re: Article authorship was: Making damn
> sure image attribution is very clear]
> Earlier: ... Photographers upload their
> original photographs to Wikipedia ...
> Response: ... Of a reality largely not of
> the photographer's creation ...
Peter Blaise responds: Ooops! What's THAT supposed to mean?
A photograph is not "of a reality" any more than anyone's
writing, or dancing, or singing, or painting, or any other creative form
speech is "of a reality". As Magrite painted, "This is not a pipe" -
it's a painting! (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte)
Universally, the photographer gets 100% copyright at the moment
they release their camera's shutter, at the capture of even the latent
image. Not part copyright to the photographer and part copyright to the
creator of the so-called external reality!
Rather than explore if there even IS an external reality, let me
direct us all to review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright and many
other copyright dialogs across the world and through history, especially
about photography, which has been (legally) considered (US
Constitutionally protected) free speech for more than 100 years already!
Why is this news for anyone anymore?
Could someone please write up a brief NPOV summary of recent events?
I haven't kept up with wikien chatter in a few months, and I've been
reluctant to poke back in - all these apparent "rape" allegations
scared me off. I could'nt find the source threads quickly enough and
decided it would better to ask for a polite condensation from people
who know whats going on and can summarise it well.
Thanks,
-stevertigo
On 28 Aug 2007 at 08:43:52 -0500, "Armed Blowfish"
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> Like I said, Wikipaedia is also an attack site. David hardly started that.
> It's ingrained in the culture.
So we shouldn't be linking to it, I guess.
Anyway... say what you want about Wikipedia, but please at least
spell its name right!
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
"David Gerard" wrote
>http://www.gobalakrishnan.com/519/how-to-beat-wikipedia/
>
> (Encyclopedias "suck"? Who is this guy? I do not understand such crazy
> moon language ...)
I'm in love with the guy already. He actually understands that WP is written to a formula, and there is no reason to treat the formula as a big deal.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Someone was commenting or asking about the level of mathematics coverage.
There is now some real competition from the Springer Online Encyclopedia of Mathematics (EoM), at
http://eom.springer.de/
This is based on the old Soviet Encyclopedia, with one round of updates (not integrated), plus new articles being added all the time. The individual articles here would typically be more authoritative than enWP. Apart from a few areas where party hacks may have been involved, the articles were written by experts.
Next, MacTutor (The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive), at
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/index.html
has 6000+ biographies. These have more purely biographical information than WP. I'm not convinced the explanations of what people did are clearer. We tend to get to the point, even at the (gasp) risk of OR in calling old stuff by its contemporary names.
We'd link to either EoM or MacTutor pages routinely.
Others are PlanetMath and MathWorld.
PlanetMath at
http://planetmath.org/
is a GFDL site, and we're on good terms. Their pages have ownership, and are most interested in proofs than WP tends to be. Quite a proportion of their pages have been imported, and there is a project to do that.
MathWorld is an offshoot of Stephen Wolfram, I believe, and Mathematica. It started off listing special functions. Now being exhaustive about the theory of special functions is almost one of those oxymorons (see [[Bateman Manuscript Project]]). I don't think we have much to fear from the comparison, even on that ground. Ir's at
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/
There are various other online resources. I'd be interested in any other opinions. Actually deWP has stuff that sometimes is worth translating. Perhaps ruWP if one looked. I think enWP has the best WP coverage, though. We do have an appreciable expert population.
Strengths of enWP mathematics:
- Good integration, i.e. works well as a piece of hypertext, with useful category structure, history and biography joined in
- We are good at lashing up articles when news breaks, as did with the E8 story this year (mainstream media reports were useless)
- The story is getting up to date (only 25 years behind the frontier, maybe) which gives some edge still on the EoM in some places
Weaknesses:
- Not enough expository writing
- Level of coverage tough for all but advanced undergrads.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
--
"The man whose authority is recent is always stern." -- attributed to
Aeschylus
"... because boys and girls grow up in what are essentially different
cultures ... talk between women and men is cross-cultural communication
..." Deborah Tannen
--
> Earlier: ... can you give us one example
> of a successful online community where
> nobody has the power to ban a user? ...
Peter Blaise responds:
Of course. I speak from experience. Nothing prior corresponds
exactly to the wiki experience, especially the Wikipedia experience.
Most prior Internet collections of otherwise unassociated people
worldwide were about products and activities - such as hikers,
photographers, car enthusiasts, and such. Wikis, and Wikipedia
especially, are full-spectrum democracies, and with no significant
alternative (a monopoly?). As such, I believe that wikis, and
especially Wikipedia, need to be overtly diligent to prevent denial of
access to anyone, and to always be open for everyone. As an effective
monopoly, wikis, and Wikipedia especially, need to bend over backwards,
so to speak, to provide totally-inclusive customer service.
My personal experience is twofold:
--
1 - On http://www.yahoogroups.com/ (was "alt", then mailing
list, then onegroup / egroups / yahoo clubs, then yahoo groups -
evolution over 10 years or more, now splintering into other arena,
including Google Groups "alt" once again), new groups sprang up because
of banning in prior groups, and so, the promise of the new groups was,
as I mentioned:
- free and open to all
- multiple co-moderators
- no banning
You might ask, how do we deal with the inevitable party
crashers?
- spammers
- vandals
- flamers
- extended off-topic posters
Simple.
Delete spam and vandalism, don't waste time banning spammers and
vandals since they move on from an email address or IP rather quickly.
On wikis, having blocks for such that expire in hours is appropriate.
The important thing is that the blocks are brief, and expire
automatically.
Flamers and extended off-topic posters get moderated, where
their posts / contributions get held back for review by the multiple
co-moderators. No one co-moderator decides on their own, and
especially, no single co-moderator who ever got involved in a dispute
with anyone else was allowed to resolve their dispute by expressing
co-moderator powers! That might work on the wiki lists. I'm not sure
how to moderate on the wikis themselves. Any ideas? Is an extension
needed to provide an dialogical alternative to banning?
Eventually one of three things happens:
- a co-moderator volunteers to correspond with the "offender"
off-line, and over time, they resolve the problem, usually a discovering
a misunderstanding,
- the "offender" reconsiders, soothes themselves, and starts
offering appropriate contributions on their own,
- the "offender" goes quiet,
Results? No banning, no ongoing fighting, no overwhelming
distraction from the main purpose of the group, everyone continues to
feel welcome and invited to participate without fear that they might get
irretrievably, irrevocably banned for offending other members or a
whimsical, all-powerful moderator.
Meta-messages, that is, messages-about-the-messages, like this
one, of course, are part and parcel of any community, and are unrelated
to the "offences" as listed above. Meta-messages are never considered
off topic.
Co-moderators also participate, never flaunt their admin /
moderator status, and set examples:
- co-moderators NEVER threaten to use powers, especially never
threatening to stop an argument in which they have participated!
- co-moderators MODERATE other people's arguments, cooling down
the participants, asking expansive questions, injecting lighter
attitudes, sometimes even defusing with humor (never ridicule).
Is it a lot of work? Yes and no. Actually, with no "banning"
work to do and maintain, there's loads more time to actually participate
and moderate! It's more fun for the moderators, and less scary for the
members, especially members who want to raise challenging, even
constitutional issues, who can do so without fear of being severed from
their own community.
What we usually find when resolving problems is:
- someone has taken something personally,
- someone misunderstands another's post, and then they're both
arguing against ghosts that don't really exist,
By keeping such "offenders" inside the community, we keep the
community whole, and everyone grows because of that effort. I know, as
a co-moderator, that I have had to call on previously untapped personal
resources for patience, tolerance, acceptance, and equivalent
consideration. When dialoging off-line with "offenders", I have
generally found that the real problem was someone's inarticulateness
(yes, even my own - it could happen!), or inaccurate translation across
languages. Surprisingly easily resolved. I treasure my relationships
with these people across the globe, sometimes more intensely earned than
my always-friendly relationships with other members of the community!
--
2 - On http://www.mediwiki.org/ where (presumably an
English-as-a-second-language) co-moderator / admin admitted that they
misunderstood an entry on a discussion / talk page, yet they still
whimsically decided to ban AND delete, even removing a contributor's
contact name, address and telephone number, and the user's prior notes
on their own discussion / talk page, as if that information itself were
suddenly spam or vandalism?!? The ban is infinite. The member has no
way to even contact anyone to appeal. Other members who objected to the
co-moderator's behavior were quashed into silence out of fear of being
banned, also. (Note - my previous references here SHOULD have been only
to MediaWiki.org the software, not WikiMedia.org the foundation site -
my typo, their confusing trademarks.) "If banned, appeal to ... " ...
no can do! Once banned, there's no way to contact anyone at the site.
Contact the Foundation site, and they forward the request back to the
software site, and so the request for review simply disappears. As
said, so much for the Wikimedia Foundation's belief in their own wiki
democracy tool!
--
Hey, I have nothing against banning - where the name of the
enterprise is the name of the one doing the banning. Rename it to
Joe'sWiki, or Joe'sList, and then ban away. But if it's a wiki,
Wikipedia, or wiki list, then NO BANNING.
Banning = moderator and friends' blog, rename it as such.
Wiki = come one, come all, and let's figure out how to get
along.
--
> Earlier: ... this strikes me as arguing that
> newspaper editors should not have the
> right to tear up any letters that come in
> from one particular person....
Peter Blaise responds: You know this is not a newspaper, which
is by definition an expression of the publisher and editors. A wiki,
and a wiki support list, is the expression of anyone who visits. The
visitors are the publishers and editors. One visitor should never have
banning powers over other visitors.
--
> Earlier: ... This is the English Wikipedia
> mailing list, and the mods should be able
> to prohibit or curtail discussion that does
> not relate in any way to the English
> Wikipedia ...
Peter Blaise responds: We agree ... somewhat. We're here to
discuss English Wikipedia. Great. Do that. But, as mentioned, I put
it to you that banning is an inappropriate tool for the MODERATING you
desire. As an alternative to banning, I suggest actually MODERATING!
And, I have found that having multiple co-moderators helps, especially
when one co-moderator feels overwhelmed or personally involved in a
conflict. Alternative co-moderators are then much better suited to
resolve the situation without themselves catching on fire.
And, as mentioned, without banning powers, there's way less
incentive for people with hidden agendas to become admins / moderators.
THAT is my penultimate target here - to raise awareness that banning
powers may seem innocent and useful at first blush, but corrupt anyone
who holds them, and draws people with contrary goals.
I suggest that on all wikis and wiki lists that we ban the
banning power and that whole problem will go away, and then
co-moderators can actually develop themselves, and the WHOLE community,
by developing their moderating prowess, instead of lazily solving all
problems by pulling the banning trigger whenever they feel bothered or
inconvenienced.
--
> Earlier: Re: [WikiEN-l] What en:wp
> would look like printed out
> ... A pox on all the deletionists
> who want to reduce this variety ...
Peter Blaise responds: My point EXACTLY about banning. Those who would
ban are deletionists in another incarnation.
--
> Earlier: Re: [WikiEN-l] Misogyny is the
> perfect troll
> ... It's no wonder there are so few women
> in the upper echelons on Wikipedia, imo,
> in a culture that is so damn accepting and
> ignorant of how it makes women outsiders ...
Peter Blaise responds: ... maybe because, historically, women tend to be
community builders, and are not so quick to grab the banning stick? As
Deborah Tannen deduced in her book, "You Just Don't Understand: Men and
Women in Conversation", women tend to build "rapport" with another
person; men tend to seek out the content of the "report" and discard the
other person. We need both - wikis, and especially the Wikipedia, needs
both content and community. Banning powers are interruptive and
destructive of first one, then the other.
--
Thanks for hanging in here, and reading all this, those few who
are interested or have nothing else to do. Again, I'm sorry if I speak
past my close, and if I made this way too long, not having taken the
time to revisit and edit and cull this down to essentials, or just
letting previous posts speak for themselves without redundant
reiteration.
-- Peter Blaise
I just joined Shelfari to connect with other book lovers. Come see the books I love and see if we have any in common. Then pick my next book so I can keep on reading.
Click below to join my group of friends on Shelfari!
http://www.shelfari.com/Register.aspx?ActivityId=5277566&InvitationCode=dbb…
hjdesai123
Shelfari is a free site that lets you share book ratings and reviews with friends and meet people who have similar tastes in books. It also lets you build an online bookshelf, join book clubs, and get good book recommendations from friends. You should check it out.
--------
You have received this email because hjdesai123 (hemanshu.desai(a)gmail.com) directly invited you to join his/her community on Shelfari.
It is against Shelfari's policies to invite people who you don't know directly. Follow this link (http://www.shelfari.com/actions/emailoptout.aspx?email=wikien-l@wikipedia.o…) to prevent future invitations to this address. If you believe you do not know this person, you may view (http://www.shelfari.com/hjdesai123) his/her Shelfari page or report him/her in our feedback (http://www.shelfari.com/Feedback.aspx) section.
Shelfari, 616 1st Ave #300, Seattle, WA 98104