On 28 Apr 2008 at 12:59:46 -0400, "David Goodman"
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> First and hopefully uncontroversial step: make user and user talk
> space non searchable via google etc. That will at any rate diminish
> the tendency to use Wikipedia as a personal web site.
But my userspace essay "Why BADSITES is bad policy" is #1 in Google
when searching for "badsites"!
--
== 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/
You start off by saying that the editors in homoepathy do not act in good
faith or act tendentiously.
We have user-policies to address blocking users who do not act in good
faith, or act tendentiously.
The situation at homeopathy is that the two extreme sides are so deeply
entrenched that they cannot see each other's position. And those who aren't
deeply entrenched are just trying to keep the bloodshed contained.
I don't think the position of having a strong opinion on the issue is bad
faith, or tendentious. I'm an inclusionist, I don't believe that we are here
to document the "Truth", but rather "What people believe" as part of our
sociological purpose. We document what they think, what they say, what they
write, what they publish. What we document is verifiable, that doesn't mean it
has veracity.
So we get a busload of "scientists" who want articles on herbs to not
mention anything about their homeopathic use, and we get homeopathy practicioners
who want that included in those articles. The scientists want to censor in
the name of science and truth.
We still have this entire idea of "true" that is so deeply embedded that we
cannot shake it. That's the ultimate underlying problem in my opinion.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 12:55:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
Of course not. It's "just" a goal. (And of course here we're
most concerned with innocent people.)>>
---------------------------
We should have no goal of "don't hurt people".
Our goal should be "report what is credible, just and fair regardless of
it's effect on others".
In order to fulfill our project we will hurt people. You cannot report the
world as it is, without hurting people. It's not possible. Avoiding "hurt"
would be reporting the world as it's *not*.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:52:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
There is unquestionably a huge tension between "don't hurt
people" and several of our other core policies.
----------------
We have no policy "don't hurt people". I just said that.
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 12:40:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
Arsenic is all natural
------------------
Actually this made me guffaw.
Uh do we really need to point out that a *chemical element* is "all natural"
?
Red is a color. Red is not Yellow. Yellow is another color. Red and
Yellow are two colors !
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 12:37:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
2)Aim to keep wikipedia content non libelous within the US while
latitude allowed for public figures is ignored. In adition aim to
remove insult. This has the advantage of being fairly easy to define
but technically results in wikipedia being in contempt of the english
courts (of course it already is but separate issue).
3)Aim to make sure that all negative statements about living people
are sourced. Define negative and sourced. For example is "Ian Hislop
has become the most sued man in Britain." a negative statement. The
usual fights over what counts as a source tend to get worse.
----------------------------
2 and 3. We already have definitions for some of this. Fights are not
usually over what "Is" a source, but rather whether source X is a "reliable,
published, third-party source". And yes, we've had [fights] discussions over
each of these words (except source).
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 12:27:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
A commitment to collecting knowledge you
can argue, but Wikipedia as a dump of data has been outright rejected.
-----------------
Right. Replace "Data" with "Knowledge".
Thanks.
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 12:25:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cjcroy(a)gmail.com writes:
one site where the guy told me this was something the
phramaceutical companies didn't want me to know because it would
bankrupt them.>>
-------------------------------------
An example of the sort of counter-argument, but it fails.
To state that "knowledge" must be published in mainstream, academic
journals, and that all else is "not knowledge" is something the community has
addressed and rejected already.
We use reliable, published, third-party sources. That's the basis for
inclusion. Not science.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Our policies should reflect our supposed commitment to collecting the data.
If the data shows that person X is a cad, then that's not our fault, and we
have no moral responsibility to that person. No more than any other
journalistic outlet. "Do no harm" is an unusable mantra because it can be used to
exclude anything negative or even-suspect from an article.
Perhaps someone can come up with a better "nutshell" of what the BLP policy
is really about.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
So says one of our Lords and Masters :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/…
My own view is this: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process works fine when it's case of two or more good-faith contributors engaging in a genuine debate over something where debate is meaningful. The process is hopelessly inadequate to deal with editors who act tendentiously or not in good faith, or in circumstances where there is no meaningful debate to be had (homeopathy).
Do others agree? And if so, what are the fixes?
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
_________________________________________________________________
100’s of prizes to be won at BigSnapSearch.comhttp://www.bigsnapsearch.com