I think Thomas there is some room for an encyclopedia which is written
entirely by experts, and has no room for the input of commoners.
However with Wikipedia online, that room isn't the internet.
But when you buy a print encyclopedia like "Encyclopedia of Creepy Places to
Visit..." you don't want to read along and then encounter "This spooky house
in DesMoines is where you're a fag fag fag six murders occurred."
Wikipedia has changed the internet, but most of the lives of most people are
lived off line.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
I understand your concern. But your understanding of what happened is not
accurate. The edits in question today - the object of the reverts - was
never dealt with in substance on talk. SLR's response today dealt with the
issue I raised yesterday, namely the issue of Yeshua as Jesus' actual
Hebrew name in life. This issue is certainly debatable, and I give
thoughtful consideration to everything SLR has to say on that subject. But
it was not the subject of the edits I made today.
The issue today had to do with how the lede paragraph dealt largely with
the concept of Jesus being an "incarnation of God". Not all Christians
agree with this, and in reality this needs qualification, as being a
Nicene Creed concept not a concept belonging to all of Christianity. I
simply clarified this issue. I also separated Islam from the lede to the
second paragraph. As Islam does not regard Jesus as the object of its
religion, it needs separate treatment.
SLR responded to neither of these issues, and gave no explanation for his
reverts. I don't know why? Did he just assume that I was re-adding the
material we were dealing with yesterday? Reverting without explanation - I
think this kind of action to be ninja behavior, not wikipedian behavior.
Stevertigo
Oscar wrote:
Listen, I'm very sympathetic to your desire to be able to edit
Wikipedia freely, but this isn't just any article. This is the article
on *Jesus*. As in, half the world thinks he saved humanity. As in,
probably one of the articles that get the most attention from the most
committed users, who ruthlessly guards the article. Every single word,
sentence and comma probably have fifteen different sources and have
been hammered out to conform to some sort of consensus. You can't
expect to go in and change the lede of an article like this without
discussing it first. It's just not gonna happen!
I'm not familiar with the article in question, but from looking at the
talk page, the issue you raised had indeed been discussed at length
before (according to Slrubenstein, at least).
If you want to edit articles like [[Jesus]] (or [[George W. Bush]], or
whatever controversial subject you can think of), you have to expect
to be frequently reverted, especially if the issue has been dealt with
previously. Every single edit that makes some substantive change
should be discussed. Seriously, this is *Jesus* we're talking about,
you can't just go in and expect your edits to be accepted. Hash it out
on the talk-page, that's the right place for it, not the mailing-list.
--Oskar
Has anyone uploaded the video of the Obama inauguration yet? Since it's in
the Public Domain, it is appropriate for Commons. I am working on it right
now. However, I'll need to convert it into an open format and find enough
time to upload the big-ass file.
--
Whether you can or can't, any way you are correct. - Henry Ford
In a message dated 1/21/2009 9:01:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedianmarlith(a)gmail.com writes:
Well, they can do what they like. But because of that, Wikipedia will remain
more popular and wider in scope and depth than Brittanica 2.0.>>
--------
What they are saying *now* is that they are going to allow this. Not that
they're not.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
Hah,
I am not defending top or bottom posting here, but merely explaining
why it happens. Several services and programs are programmed by
default to top post, and users don't tend to change those defaults as
that requires extra work. (assuming its even possible)
For those remotely curious... The program I am using is
http://www.google.com/mobile/default/mail.html
On 1/18/09, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz
> <wilhelm(a)nixeagle.org>wrote:
>
>> Gmail mobile hides all quotes.
>>
>> However from a mobile device using google mobile, I am unable to
>> change the setting from top post to anything else. I can't even copy
>> paste my response to the bottom of the mail because I can't "see" the
>> comments, so I have no way to post "under" them.
>
>
> Good thing James is there to fix your posts for you.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
As will surprise none of the Knol nay-sayers here (in which number I
believe I can count myself), Knol hasn't done too great.
'Google Knol six months later: Wikipedia need not worry'
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090119-google-knol-six-months-later-…
"What happened to Knol? Announced by Google in late 2007 and launched
in July 2008, the site was meant to bring more credible (read: not
written by anonymous Wikipedians) "knowledge units" to the web, and it
would allow the authors to cash in on their work. But it's 2009, and
Knol appears to be notable largely for its non-notability...Now the
bad news: no one's reading the site, and it's awash in poor content."
"As for the quality of the content, Google's attempt at monetizing
(both for itself and for its authors) the Knol entries has had a
perverse effect. While it has attracted plenty of detailed commentary
from learned professionals, it's drowning in plenty more that is
basically spam, plagiarism, or a stub, thrown up in the apparent hope
of making some quick cash. (Though because of point number one, that's
not happening, either.)"
"Take "Barack Obama," for instance. A search for his name brings up
809 entries; since most Knol users appear to write their own entries
rather than add to others (for which no compensation is forthcoming),
the proliferation of entries is inevitable. And it's not at all clear
that the best ones are rising to the top."
These two points in particular were foreseen by commentators here, IIRC.
On the plus side, it appears Knol has attracted a few experts. The
article mentions (derisively) an article on _The Art of War_,
http://knol.google.com/k/gary-gagliardi/sun-tzus-the-art-of-war/1xxv8scv3ng…
, but I'm fairly impressed reading through it (it is thorough,
well-written, and to my minimal knowledge of the subject, accurate).
- --
gwern
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkl17gIACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oLxkQCfelJ/2GwwEdWO7tCb69mwC9ph
QeQAnRl3Y3pg0VO4z1GpX9lirq3TUS6T
=Q6OA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I do want to thank everyone who gave input for my BLP question, and a
special nod to Angela who pointed out the archives. I should have
read those first.
Here is a second issue I would like to discuss, if the group is inclined.
Speedy deletion nominations, I would propose there be a paradigm shift
from our current thinking of "Tag immediately and template the user
talk *right after* creation to something like "don't tag untill an
hour has passed". I believe this will be less bity and more
encouraging to our users. To quote something I observed today from
one good editor in reference to our jest over speedy deletions:
"Welcome to wikipedia. You didn't create a good enough article in
your allotted 60 seconds so we deleted it. Dont forget to sign your
posts!"
Even though it was in jest, it is true.
I think perhaps it is time we consider enacting (onwiki discussion to
follow if this is well received) something of a one hour rule to
tagging and templating. We've grown so...
...automated.
Thoughts?
Best,
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkla77MACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtVdYACdGluva0JY2MmTfZkkYixRC+g5
PAAAoJerVDg8COBPdYcdTizmZCUJGAp9
=6sv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----