In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that
Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act
effectively enough against libel?>>
---------------------
The statement was made that this is "common" not rare.
I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel"
Yes I deny that.
But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or
rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and hyperbole
:)
Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, but
*rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some
scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to persist for a
significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are only
libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by the
speaker.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/19/2008 10:59:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
failure.to.communicate(a)gmail.com writes:
We already know the answer to
that<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_co
ntroversy>.
Let's fix this already. We need BLP semi-protection.>>
------------------------------
The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except for the 300,000 biographies of
living people, those you have to make a thousand edits before you can touch,
oh and any article about politics or religion or any other issue that anyone
deems a controversial subject ...
Isn't it a slippery slope to off-side so much based on a few trivial
incidents?
Seems like a rather major change to our purpose.
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…)
In a message dated 12/18/2008 6:12:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
I mean, I agree with you on what you say should be allowed. The
problem is that Wikipedia policy does not agree with us.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derida writes in English.
Are you saying a reasonable, educated person cannot understand Derida
whatsoever?
No possible way, they can even get any grasp on what he is saying?
Is that what you're saying?
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…)
In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:04:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
In fact, I would bet you that if I were to find the one of my
colleagues with whom I most disagree on every point of literary theory
and criticism, and pick at random a Derrida essay neither of us had
read, we could hammer out a summary of it that we both agreed with.
And I would further bet that this would not be possible if I were to
pick two random people out of the aisles of my supermarket.>>
----------------------------
As expert editors, we are allowed to summarize our sources.
A summary is a description of the source.
A summary *of the source* is not a criticism of the source, nor an
interpretation of the source vis-a-vis some other source such as "Here he makes an
obvious allusion to the Iliad although in a post-modern Kakaesque melange...."
Your opinion of what the source is saying is a summary, your opinion of
*why* the source is saying what it's saying is not a summary of that source.
It's an evaluation of the source.
I can give a good summary of an episode of Bewitched. If I then go on to
give detailed critiques and understanding, and interpretations, evaluations,
additional references to other things, etc etc that is not a summary of the
source.
If in "Lady Chatterley's Lover" D.H. Lawrence does not state that "this is a
send-up of middle class values" then we cannot, in a summary say "this is a
send-up of middle class values". We can summarize what the source is saying.
Additional layers, must be left to existing reviewers, not us as editors.
*We* are not experts because we can add additional layers, *we* are experts
because we can find sources which (they) add those layers for us.
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…)
G'day Will,
> In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> writes:
> Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that
>
> can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge.>>
> ---------------
> Then why be short?
> Quote him.
> If you want the general reader to agree on your summary of Derida's
> belief
> on A, then quote Derida discussing A.
I don't know if you've looked at our articles discussing deconstructionism lately, but the absolute *last thing* we need is more impenetrable writing. Quoting Derrida can be likened to pouring oil on troubled fires.
Phil has hinted at it, but the primary reason we should be able to summarise and rephrase the words of humanities experts is that if we don't, our articles won't make any gosh-darned sense ...
Cheers,
--
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula
In a message dated 12/18/2008 1:41:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mark(a)formonelane.net writes:
Phil has hinted at it, but the primary reason we should be able to summarise
and rephrase the words of humanities experts is that if we don't, our
articles won't make any gosh-darned sense ...>>
--------------------
You *can* summarize and rephrase the words of humanities experts.
That isn't the issue.
The issue is whether you can, as an expert editor, create new synthesis and
analysis, never before published.
I suggested quoting, and paraphrasing, would make the article more readable.
I never suggested that it be an article of quotes.
Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else, without
injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary.
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…)
In a message dated 12/17/2008 7:01:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that
require expert knowledge to understand.>>
----------------
I don't concur with that interpretation of what we were trying to convey.
We already have articles that require expert knowledge in order to summarize
sources.
So apparently others, also view the policy a bit looser than you are doing
now.
Summarize the effect of the Chandrasaker limit on the properties of a Black
Hole ?
That requires an expert to understand, or at least a grounding in
Astrophysics that the typical reader wouldn't be able to grasp.
When we write, we write to the typical reader (say tenth grade level or
below), that doesn't mean that all of our editors must also *read* at that level
or *understand* at that level, or consistently with each other.
Which is why we have experts in areas, and our policy specifically states
that an expert in the area of the subject material should agree with your
summary. Not that all readers in the world should.
Novels, fiction in general, is usually not of such a technical nature that
it requires jargon or a great amount of in-depth study to understand what the
novel is saying. The in-depth study would be reserved to understanding what
the novel is *meaning*. The "why", not the "what".
We don't allow physicists to go spinning off into theories about what
broader meaning Black Hole behaviour has on the rest of the cosmos, without a
source. And we don't allow literary critics to expound on the deeper meaning of
Kafka turning into a giant cockroach versus say a giant turtle, without a
source.
We state what occurs, or did occur, without going into deeper issues of why
and what-if.
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…)
In a message dated 12/17/2008 6:58:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
I do not think that the style of having our Derrida article consist
primarily of lengthy quotes from Derrida would pass muster.
-Phil>>
---------------------------------------------
A good article imho is a mixture of quoted and paraphrased material.
Personally I find biographies that have no quotes to be a bit dry. I really like
to hear the subject speaking in their own words in my head, instead of a bunch
of so-called experts talking *about* the subject and not allowing them to
speak themselves.
So a good first stab at it, would be a mixture and then see where the
community takes it after that.
The best defense is a good offense. Be Bold. Just do it. Just say Yes to
Drugs.
That last one just slipped in there, I don't know why.
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…)