Earlier I had written:
>>> I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article. I like to
>>> think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of
>>> anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me.
Only to be treated with responses like
>> I really see no reason that people will be happy with not getting credit
>> for their work. They'd be either indifferent or unhappy.
and
> I don't see a reason for this either, but that doesn't stop people from
> believing it... Twisted shit, but a lot of people believe it, even a lot
> of non-Christians who were influenced by Christian teachings and ethics.
Y'know, if I weren't so equanimous, I might be a bit insulted to have
my attitude disbelieved and trampled on like this. AGF, remember?
In a message dated 11/14/2008 9:36:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Pure philosophy would have
been published through the existing academic discipline of philosophy,
in any of the journals or scholarly presses that exist, not in self-
published newsletters that are later compiled and published via the
same press as her novels.>>
-----------------
Are you suggesting that a philosopher may not self-publish?
I would think that anyone can self-publish. And the category and subject of
their work can be anything.
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red…p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
In a message dated 11/14/2008 12:42:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
There's a big Randy crowd out there that seems to forget that what she
wrote was fiction.>>
-----------------------------
Fictionalized (or novelized) philosophy was one part of what she wrote.
The other part was pure philosophy and it's real-world applications.
Many people think the only thing she wrote were a few novels.
Will Johnson
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red…p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
== Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
<nowiki>{{speculation}} and {{prophecy}}</nowiki> are not welcome on
wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because they are
not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
[[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is very
small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense, considering
how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
making it happen again.
[http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
[[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the future,
and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for sentences
that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because they
should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
$continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up with so
much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm sure
there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the section
heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than this
to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
This is closer to Ayn's own view.
My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something our
of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done
nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against giving your excess to charity.
In a message dated 11/13/2008 9:06:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
3. To be altruistic, you must make significant sacrifices (it must
significantly cost you) to do what you do.
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red…p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
G'day Andrew,
> 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn :
> > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it
> and
> > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be
> off-loaded. There
> > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other
> words, if
> > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end
> up on
> > another site, unless the article is restricted to history.
> I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line?
> Do
> we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as
> something that is believed to have happened up to and including last
> week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we
> talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers?
> I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small
> set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general
> rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we
> didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very
> well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a
> paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several
> billion years ahead.
I seem to recall WP:CRYSTAL's original purpose was to stop people writing about predicted future events years before they occurred (e.g. [[Playstation 9]]). Actually, most examples I can think of come from computer games, film, or music. Call WP:CRYSTAL just one of many tools to defend against overwhelming geekgasm.
The point was to prevent Wikipedians from making predictions (Playstation 9 will come out in 2017, and it will be AWESOME!!!; Star Wars XVII will come out, and it will SUCK DONKEY BALLS!!!), not to stop us from reporting on others' predictions. So it's entirely appropriate to have an article on [[Heat death of the universe]], [[Global warming]], and even [[2012 London Olympics]]. Indeed, to ask the question --- is it appropriate to talk about global warming, heat death of the universe, whatever --- is to be elevating a badly-written policy above common sense. Again.
--
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula
In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
Even asking
whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever --
to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.>>
---------------
OWN however deals with the feeling by some editors that they have a
priveledged position vis a vis others, in accepting changes to certain articles.
Attribution would only be OWN if OWNing editors prevented anyone else from
making enough changes to subvert their by-line.
I'm not really sensing that attribution would increase or decrease the
current levels of OWNership we already see. It would possibly, however, bring
into the fold, more writers to help fix some of our more sub-standard articles.
One of the benefits that I see in KNOL is attribution.
I contributed greatly, at one time, to our article on Helena Blavatsky. I
have a deal of knowledge about her biography. However I know next to nothing
about her philosophy/theology. So at one time perhaps, my own byline would
wave in her article, but later on, perhaps I'd fall-from-grace if someone
added several paragraphs about her beliefs as well. That's the breaks. My
percentage of her article might fall from 60% to 20%.
It would be a lot more useful for the kind of attribution that the license
(or at least the theory of it) seems to suggest for redistribution. Some
people think naming the top three authors would be sufficient. Some want all of
history. It's not obvious to know who the top three authors are right now.
Will Johnson
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red…p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
Folks,
Apparently the decision whether or not to link even the year in Birth &
Dates is a done deal. There is a bot (Lightbot) dutifully going through and
unlinking (or, if you prefer, delinking) all parts of a Birth & Death Date.
Pity. I still believe there is value in linking at least the year.
Marc Riddell