Passed to wiken-l, where someone will no doubt find it exciting.
(I threw in the one mathematician I know offhand we have no
illustration of. It came back with one of him in 1974 - looking
hilariously young - under a free license. I can see an evening of
updating articles ahead...)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com>
Date: 18 Apr 2008 02:46
Subject: [Commons-l] CC-BY-SA Photographs of mathematicians
To: commons-l <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
<http://owpdb.mfo.de/>
"The Oberwolfach Photo Collection -
Photographs of Mathematicians from all over the world
"The Oberwolfach Photo Collection is based on Prof. Konrad Jacobs'
(Erlangen) large collection of photographs of mathematicians from all
over the world. In the 1950's Prof. Jacobs started to make copies of
the photographs he had taken and donated these copies to the MFO. In
2005 he transferred his whole collection completely with all rights to
the MFO.
"The Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach gGmbH (MFO) owns
the copyright to most of the images used on this website. Those images
labelled with "Copyright:MFO" can be used under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany."
Note that photos like this <http://owpdb.mfo.de/detail?photoID=9473>
which say "Copyright: George M. Bergman, Berkeley" are NOT CC-BY-SA!
Only ones like this <http://owpdb.mfo.de/detail?photoID=2598> which
say "Copyright: MFO".
Please fwd to mathematics wikiprojects where relevant.
cheers
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Indeed. I've been thinking this exactly for a while, I think Phil nailed it.
Instead of a one-paragraph stub, we end up having one sentence in some list
that's harder to find for editors that wish to find more information on the
subject.
Wizardman
(my first mailing list post, I hope I did this right...)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> A few iterations of the inclusionism/deletionism debate back, we seem
> to have settled on merging articles as a sort of happy medium.
> Increasingly, though, it seems to me that mergism and redirectionism
> is proving more destructive to our content and its growth than
> deletion was.
>
> I'll limit myself to fiction articles, since that's where I've seen
> the worst effects, though I'd love to hear from people who edit in
> other areas. [[List of characters in Gilmore Girls]] was the target of
> a wealth of merges of characters, such that no characters in the show
> have individual articles anymore. And, indeed, the old character
> articles were crappy in-universe messes of the sort we want to clean up.
>
> The problem is that it is easy for any of the major series regular
> characters to have an article written about them. Gilmore Girls was a
> critical darling of a show, actors regularly gave interviews, all
> seasons are on DVD with a decent number of special features that
> provide out-of-universe information. The information is clearly and
> transparently there. The articles could have eventually been improved.
>
> But the articles did not satisfy notability in their old forms, and so
> are now gone. And, worse than gone, they're redirects - which means
> that a newbie user is going to have a much harder time figuring out
> how to go about fixing them. Redlinks at least cry out to be fixed.
> Redirects avoid being fixed. And since the characters now exist in a
> list, incremental improvement is a real challenge. The format of the
> articles doesn't lend itself to expansion into new areas, as it seems
> weird to have only one entry on a list have out-of-universe
> information. Furthermore, the nature of a list os succinctness -
> expanding an entry with a lot of information is unwanted.
>
> Deletion at least left a visible hole in our coverage that anybody
> could see and fix. Redirects, through a combination of unclear
> interface ("How do I fix/make a redirect" is just about the most
> common question asked by my non-wiki using friends when they try to
> edit) and an institutional resistance to un-merging that is almost as
> bad as abusive G4 speedies, redirectionism seems to me to destroy our
> coverage of areas more severely than deletion.
>
> The real culprit here is WP:N, which does not do nearly enough to
> protect articles on topics that obviously could pass its standard of
> notability, but do not yet. The anti-eventualist bias of this
> requiring of multiple independent sources to be cited before an
> article can avoid deletion is appalling. We need to remember that
> articles grow slowly, and that a mediocre start is still a better
> foundation for an article than a redirect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
In the process of investigating a quirky article for unrelated reasons, it
popped up that massive swaths of text in [[Introduction to M-theory]] were
copied verbatim and near-verbatim (rearranged) from the book 'The Turn of
the Century'. This happened at least twice, in this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_M-theory&diff=246…
And more was introduced later with the 'What does M stand for?' section.
This has stood for 8 years in a massive article with plenty of attention,
yet should've raised red flags all over the place (as said its a massive
article, yet it has no sources cited.
How can we protect against these things?
--
-Brock
In a message dated 4/13/2008 10:00:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
joeyyuan(a)cox.net writes:
Wikipedia has a big flaw: neutrality. The core principle of writing from a
"neutral" point of view is contradictory: it has a point of view in itself,
and the point of view is supposedly against points of view.>>
----------------------
If you hate bigots are you a bigot? Or are you a meta-bigot?
"You're a hater, because you hate haters!"
Essentially the same logic applies to your above statement.
"Neutral point-of-view" is not a point-of-view, it is the absence of any
point-of-view.
Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)
Why does everyone keep mentioning "mainstream" points of view? They should
be valued no more than others. If the mainstream points are published in the
media (notice how I didn't say the mainstream media), they should be
included and cited. If not, they should be put there with a {{fact}} tag
until someone finds a reference. The point of view should not be included
based on its popularity.
> From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
>> A big part of the point of NPOV is that if you don't agree with
>> postmodernists like Lyotard (quoted below), you can write carefully and
>> clearly, striving for neutrality as best you can manage, and be
>> satisfied that the result is useful.
>>
>> And if you are in agreement with Lyotard, and regard the pursuit of
>> knowledge as a language game, you can still play. "If there are no
>> rules, there is no game"... and the game we are playing is NPOV.
>>
> Wittgenstein created the idea of a language game to describe what he
> called a "form of life," which he never defines, but which is roughly
> how we see the world around us -- how we use language and its rules to
> allow us to think and talk about the world.
>
> The question is whether there is a universal form of life -- to what
> extent there is a shared seeing. Is there a way of seeing the world
> that is shared by all Europeans? By all human beings? By all living
> beings?
>
> Wittgenstein says no: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand
> him." In other words, your form of life defines what you can
> articulate (and vice versa), and what you can see, what you can think
> about, and what you can know. That might be very limited -- regarding
> some issues, it might only be people within your own culture who can
> see certain things.
>
> This tells us that the idea of a neutral point of view is impossible.
>
> For example, look at our article on [[Girl]]. There is no hint there
> that throughout history and still, the birth of a girl has not been a
> cause for celebration; that they are left to die, and sometimes
> actively killed, or aborted. Now, we could add this to the article --
> that culture X does or did this, culture Y this or that. But the tone
> of the article would never truly reflect that this has been the
> serious position of many societies. No matter how dominant a position
> this was within the world, our article would never reflect it. Anyone
> who tried to create that reflection would be accused of POV pushing.
>
> One of my interests is the way we treat and view animals. There would
> be uproar if I started adding information about the treatment of
> non-human animals to all relevant articles -- and not only that, but
> if I were to change the tone of the articles so they were written as
> if by a Martian who had no preference between the human and the
> non-human.
>
> The way we avoid even the possibility of NPOV is by insisting that the
> POVs we reflect must have been published by reliable sources, and that
> NPOV must reflect the proportion of the POVs as reflected by those
> sources. I support this, because there is no other way to write a
> reliable encyclopedia. But what it means is that any notion of NPOV is
> lost, because the sources we respect reflect the dominant POVs of
> people we regard as educated in our own language, which Wikipedia
> simply repeats.
>
> What we really mean by NPOV is a position that all educated holders of
> the dominant POVs within the English-speaking world can accept as
> valid and responsible. It's a wonderful achievement when an article
> manages to cater to those positions. But it is not neutrality.
>
> Sarah
I believe as long as there are sources for opinions, they are verifiable.
Whether they are reliable or not should not make a difference.
No, it is not neutrality if we cater to the "certain opinions", because the
kind of neutrality you're thinking of ("no" point of view, right) doesn't
exist. It is also not right if we only cater to "certain opinions", either.
We should document all opinions that are published, regardless. If you want
to publish your opinion, you should be able to put an <hr> and put your own
opinion. --Jonas