<<In a message dated 12/28/2008 7:52:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scream(a)datascreamer.com writes:
Is it really, *our duty* to report it? And at what cost to a living
person? I think that for those marginally notable, an opt out is not an
"extreme step", not as extreme as my first suggestion.
I'll agree, that it is their life, and their choice to make it public.
But must we be the agents of their perpetual embarrassment? Most
especially, if their articles are frequent targets of hatcheting and
libel. Most especially, if the notability is 'marginal'.>>
First, are you saying that all journalists are unethical and immoral?
Secondly, I agree that an opt-out for the "marginally notable" is not as
extreme as an opt-out for everybody.
Third, it's not an issue that we *must* be that agent "of their perpetual
embarrassment", but only that we *can*. Once you allow can, you allow *an*
editor, but not necessarily *all* editors, to be so. I would submit, however,
that deliberately ignoring or whitewashing a bio, because we don't want to
"embarrass" a subject, seems fairly opposed to our supposed purpose. Which is,
to write a biography, not a hagiography.
Fourthly, whether an article is a frequent target of libel is not material,
to how we write it.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
I already, in one of my last posts pointed out that this appears flawed.
The mere fact that a person is speaking about their own work, does not
necessarily make their own words primary.
I.E. I can do a book review, on my book. The fact that I do it on my own
book, doesn't make my review a primary source.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 8:07:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
No. I'm claiming that, due to the current phrasing of NOR, any author
on a specialist topic who has been criticized and has defended
themselves to any extent is in the unfortunate position of having
their defense not be suitable for inclusion under our current policies.
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
Has anyone floated the idea of a second "diff' button on Special:Watchlist
to cover a slightly longer period?
I was just thinking this could do two things: 1.) Make it easier to catch
vandalism, and 2.) Promote review of changes in general.
I don't do much vandalism patrol, but I think one reason pages lose quality
in general is that tracking long watchlists is too difficult. You either
check every edit, or if you don't, then you have to navigate through page
histories which requires a.) several clicks and b.) recalling when you were
last up to date.
If so, a longer one-click option would seem beneficial. Something like 10
or 20 edits, maybe (or even adjustable, like the watchlist's length).
Thoughts?
Mackan79
Are you claiming that every author has at least one critic who states that
they wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense?
That would be a hard proposition to evidence.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:40:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
However, not only is that not true, it is also not relevant, as this
problem exists in a general case that affects every single person who
is notable for work in a specialist field and who has ever been
criticized.
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
If true, then we couldn't and shouldn't even try to summarize what he wrote.
If his writing was deliberately inscrutable nonsense, then we would probably
do better just to quote part of it, showing that, and move on.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:31:13 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cunctator(a)gmail.com writes:
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable
nonsense.
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
My position has always been that quoting can never be original research.
It's source-based research. You, as an author, are not creating the words
you're typing, you're repeating them.
So it's not original.
Now if you use those words to refute a secondary-source argument, then
that's a bit more of a borderline position.
But it's not because you're quoting that it's an issue. Rather, it's
because you are casting a new interpretation up against an older one to try to
dispel it.
That's not really our job here as editors.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 4:01:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
And the concern that quoting the letter
directly is original research is also very real. Interpretation of the
meaning of what someone has said can be very tricky.
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
Sure but in this case, to what you actually refer, is an refutation by him,
of his position on some philosophical point, etc etc.
That's not really about "him" per se, in the same vein that say "I was born
in Topeka" is about him.
If he, as a Topekian, engaged in an long-winded argument with another, about
his activities on the cheerleading squad of Topeka high, then shouldn't we
say, that his long-winded repartee is a secondary source, on the primary
assertion that "I was the most decorated cheerleader in Topeka High history."
If you're going to take the position that any opinion about a
primary-source-assertion is secondary, simply because it is addressing an underlying
original statement-of-fact, than a consistent approach is that this is true, no
matter if the speaker is also the subject themself.
That seems consistent to me, and would remove your quandary.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 2:44:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:27 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> The sole useful alternative view, would be that *both* report and
> counter-report are secondary sources.
> The simple fact that a person is speaking about their own work,
> doesn't make
> their words primary for that, it depends on the context in which
> they are
> speaking.
>
> I.E. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
For the most part, we'd treat anything by Person X as a primary source
for [[Person X]]. I mean, if we want to make an explicit exception for
a category, that's fine, but right now, nothing I can see in NOR even
slightly undermines the idea that an article by Person X is a primary
source for [[Person X]].
-Phil
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:18:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
This is generally speaking both a poor description of primary sources
and of our internal definition of them.>>
Okay and I say "Not !"
Which is as useful a rejoinder isn't it :)
The sole useful alternative view, would be that *both* report and
counter-report are secondary sources.
The simple fact that a person is speaking about their own work, doesn't make
their words primary for that, it depends on the context in which they are
speaking.
I.E. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
On 28 Dec 2008 at 00:44:00 EST, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> What I said is that subjects speaking about themselves have a wide latitude.
> If the New Bedford Post (newspaper) reports that "Britney Spears was born on
> Mars" and Britney in her personal blog reports that "I was not!", we can
> report both, and equally, even though Britney is speaking in-the-first-person.
Don't be silly... we all know that men are from Mars and women are
from Venus. So they should have said Britney was born on *Venus*.
Up Uranus!
--
== 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/