In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com 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.
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'm a person who likes examples.
Phil, do you have an example article where something is written a certain
way, or is not, and you'd like it to be something different and what?
An example of the problem would really help clarify it for me.
The current policy language was hammered out over several months of minutely
detailed debate (IIRC).
I fought very hard and long to include primary material whatsoever !
So I'm glad we have it at least, if not fully under my original conception.
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 12:45:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
that nobody who has actually
read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level
of obvious description>>
Well then there you go.
You have just recited policy, so go and do it.
If nobody with an understanding of it, would dispute it, then make it so!
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 think you're over-analyzing the situation with Derida Phil.
On the one hand, you want to create something about Derida, that has never
existed in any form before, it seems.
That would be a forbidden type of OR.
On the other hand, you feel that what sources exist on Derida don't actually
explain Derida.
So who is going to explain Derida? You?
That's not going to be acceptable.
If the most we can do is what a biography of him, and then state that he
also wrote ten books or whatever, than that's how we have to leave it.
Brand new explanations, never before seeing the light of the day, would be
your own original creation.
Right?
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 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
The only way
to get a decent, NPOV summary of Derrida is to work through hard
sources that require specialist knowledge.>>
-----------------------------
Yes.. and?
The only way to get a decent NPOV summary of Quantum Tunneling or Group
Theory is also to work through hard sources that require specialist knowledge.
That's why we have specialists who can do just this.
But as in all things, those specialists must rely on their sources, not on
their own speculations and postulates.
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 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Actually, it is - the observation of similarities is acceptable, but
the act of saying that there is an echo, reference, or other
connection would be decried as OR (and has been, in fact, in past
discussions)>>
I agree with Thomas here that we can make trivial inferences.
To say "this is a cat" and "that is also a cat" and therefore "here are two
cats" is trivial to my mind.
So I'd say you simply suggest the OR criers, review that portion of the
policy.
Notwithstanding the absolutely horrible "plagiarism example" that seems
enshrined in wikispace.
We still have jury nullification, which has worked in most cases.
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 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Explaining this while restricting myself purely to description is
impossible, as the novel works precisely because of implication of
things left unsaid. (Which is par for the course for literary writing)
But it is equally problematic to skip over the problem of Stilson, as
it is a crucial part of the novel.>>
------------------------------
Ender's Game is from 1985.
Doing a google reality check I get six hundred thousand hits for "Ender's
Game" (enquoted).
So (even though I've never heard of it), it seems to have gotten a
substantial appreciation base.
For interpretive claims, we, as expert editors, shouldn't need to rely on
our own words or interpretation or analysis with that level of interest.
There should be several published book reviews that could be cited for that
sort of claim.
Right?
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…)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I've done some research on the network of interlanguage links as a
whole, you can see the results here:
http://wikitools.icm.edu.pl/
I wrote to this list earlier this year about incoherences in the
interlanguage links, but two things have changed since then: the problem
has got more serious, and I've developed a more usable tool to correct it.
A short introduction: let's say that two articles are connected if there
is an interlanguage link from one to the other in at least one
direction. Next, let's say that if A-B and B-C are connected, then A-C
are too. Next, for each group of connected articles, let's check if it
is coherent, ie. if there is at most one article from each language.
It turns out that about 5% of articles belong to incoherent groups. The
largest such group is growing quite fast: it had 48'000 articles in
March 2008, now it has over 76'000! With over 3'000'000 links to check,
it has to be corrected semi-automatically. There are tens of thousands
of other incoherent groups to fix, too.
Right now, you can find some really absurd connections using the
interlanguage links alone, like "en:December" to "en:City", or
"en:Alpine Ibex" to "en:Western culture". The site I've created let's
you see a path connecting given two articles, and suggests a course of
action. The suggestions are a result of a heuristic and should be taken
with a grain of salt, but maybe you'll find them useful.
Regards,
Lukasz Bolikowski
PS. Last time my replies were coming several days after I'd post them.
If I don't respond it's probably because my response is still moderated.
Anyway, I guess http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_synchronization
is the best place to discuss this matter.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkk5SeQACgkQqPt6S1UzhapbQgCeL4zKLmBH9Mp2uA1EFcniXcS/
i0wAn3J/cOERYhZgsaiwTQUXRm/y9+EB
=FIoB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> From: Carl Beckhorn <cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> This is very exciting! The first article appears to be [[SmY]], and
> I don't see any glaring problems with it. The two diagrams could
> use a footnote in each of their long captions, but there are three
> references provided that seem reasonably on this topic. Of course some
> people will complain that it's too technical, but that's an issue to
> take up at WP:PEREN.
>
> - Carl
I'd imagine a simple solution would be to ask if the authors can tone down
the technical language a bit. Something along the lines of "we layman be
not learned enough to understand".
[[User:Lifebaka]]
Jonathan Hughes
In a message dated 12/16/2008 7:27:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
brewhaha(a)edmc.net writes:
Jack: (writing) Sara Pratcher, a.k.a. Suzie Gottaknow in a newspaper gossip
column wrote that she has it from reliable sources that Michael Jackson does
Estradiol.>>
-----------------------
Fails WP:RS
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…)