One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is.
A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_artic…). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest
innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan…). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on
January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, "CounterPunch has also been
criticized for publishing articles by
authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have
defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&oldid…). Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&oldid…). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&oldid…). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the person I know
of calling it Wikipedia's greatest
innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the
website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikiped…)
Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&old…). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in
my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting
anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog: "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation, far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December 2007, David Gerard).
Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website." (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817)
Sincerely,
Bill Carter
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
> > That's not what wikien-l is for.
> >
> >
>
>
> So, to raise a more important point, which should be more pertinent to
> the purpose of this list, and of more immediate concern to Wikipedia's
> integrity.
>
> I thought I should alert the august and serious readers of this list, to
> the fact that we now have a "Requests for Comment" on the pressing
> question of whether or not we should include Richard Gere's rumoured
> altercation with a Gerbil in his biography.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Gere#Gerbil
>
> I mean, why discuss founders and co-founders when we have other Serius
> Bizniz on the wiki?
Can someone who is not me go there and politely and nonspecifically remind
everyone that AGF and NPA are important, that the community expects editors
to discuss disagreements in a polite and constructive manner, and not resort
to insults or abuse?
My cold and grumpyness reading the stuff there makes me think that I
shouldn't try and leave such a message at the moment, but someone should..
Thanks.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
> David Gerard
>
> Seth Finkelstein is apparently going to try for another hatchet job on
> the subject in the Guardian, after his previous one was severely
> gutted (in case you're wondering why it didn't appear to make sense).
David Gerard is speaking blithering nonsense. I presume he's
talking about my article:
"Sting in the Scorpions tale is the exposure of Wiki's weakness"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/wikipedia-jimmy-wales
It wasn't "gutted". I voluntarily took out one paragraph from
a draft, which discussed an incident involving him arguably abusing his
powers. This was done after another involved Wikipedian made an
extensive calm, rational, and to me convincing, case not to include
the incident, partially on humanitarian grounds.
His (Gerard's) bullying reflected immense discredit on him, and
if anything, added an implication of a cover-up. _Guardian_ editors
should have made clear that any attempted intimidation would not work.
Overall, it was quite a counter-productive performance. And while he
didn't quite manage an "own goal", the community really should be
aware of how poorly his conduct presents The Encyclopedia to those
not already besotted.
I'd also say his comment about "didn't appear to make sense"
says more about him than about my article.
Many factors go into the focus and editing of a column. Do not
think the sun rises because a small rooster crows loudly.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer
Web site - http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
I haven't written anything on wikien-l in a long time, but I've been
following a bit of this thread about Larry Sanger's open letter and
thought I'd propose something.
Wikis are good for purposes other than creating encyclopedias, and it
might be interesting to see if Jimmy and Larry could use a wiki to
resolve their differences.
Currently the way in which the conflict is being expressed is leading
toward more polarization and hostility rather than less. One of the
things we see frequently often on wikis, however, is that people who
have strong disagreements about some topic can nevertheless agree to a
considerable degree on what an article about that topic should say.
The process of reiteratively editing a single article often leads to a
synthesis that multiple parties accept. (In some cases, a mediator or
arbitration committee may need to render a judgment, but this is only
necessary in a minority of cases.)
So here's my proposal, if Jimmy and Larry would agree to it: Why don't
they both start a wiki page in which they both edit and revise a
statement describing the history of Wikipedia and their roles within
it? Rather than do this on Wikipedia, I would suggest doing this on a
private wiki that only they and other parties of their choosing are
allowed to see. If they would both agree to go through this process, I
think they might find it possible to work out something that they can
both accept. And if they can't reach and agreement, they can look for
some independent third parties to mediate.
Right now there is some obvious hostility between them, but I think
they both should have good reason to want to overcome that. They both
played crucial roles in creating what has now become a remarkable
project of great benefit to the world, and they both should feel pride
and satisfaction in what they've accomplished. Watching this conflict
simmer and bubble (as it has now for years) is a bit like watching the
Beatles feuding after the band broke up. I think it would be better
for both parties' reputations, and for their personal happiness as
well, if they could find some way to reconcile, and the current
process doesn't seem to be leading that way.
Just a suggestion.
-------------------------------------------
SHELDON RAMPTON
Research director, Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703
phone: 608-260-9713
Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email:
<http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html>
Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts:
<http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed>
Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the
public agenda:
<http://www.sourcewatch.org>
Support independent, public interest reporting:
<http://www.prwatch.org/donate>
In a message dated 4/10/2009 12:49:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
purple.clouder(a)gmail.com writes:
> A better drive would be to crib
> Wikipedia articles, improve them (outside the bounds of Wikipedia's
> processes, which means the replacement process can do whatever it likes)
> to
> FA status, and then replace them.>>
--------------------
If you mean replace them *outside* the project isn't that something that
Veropedia is supposed to be doing?
If you mean replace them back *in* the project, I seem to recall quite
vividly a multi-year battle was started over a certain editor (you know who you
are) doing exactly that. Taking a very large article, working it over in
her own user-space, and then slapping it back in place. *Some* of the other
editors working that article didn't take too kindly to that approach.
The fiasco that came out of that, is one of the reasons I don't edit in
project as much as I once did. It's also *the* reason I no longer watch my
watchlist. I just edit and move on, without looking back.
Will Johnson
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10
or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
In a message dated 4/10/2009 12:13:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com writes:
> I couldn't actually submit the changes without signing
> up for a subscription (at least, a free trial subscription). I think
> the Britannica "editing by the public" move is more or less a gimmick
> to drive subscriptions rather than an effort to seek reader edits.
>
---------------------------
You can get a free and apparently eternal subscription by *being* a content
publisher elsewhere. If you have your own website (as I do), where you publish
your own material, you can submit that to Brittanica and they will approve
you for a free subscription. My went a year, it's up for renewal now. I
haven't renewed it yet.
I have used Brittanica for links, but they are almost becoming obsolete with
the appearance of Google Books, at least in my field. Why link to modern
accumulator when you can link right back to an older, or perhaps even *the*
primary source for some piece of evidence? So I'm a bit ambivalent on whether to
extend my subscription even though free. I just find that I'm not using them.
In addition, a great deal of my recent work, has been on BLPs and Brittanica
just does not cover them to the depth that I need. So generally I just
rewrite them using most primitive sources anyway.
Brittanica is great however for tangential or incidental links in articles
you are writing, but then so is Wikipedia, and I do like that I can make edits
directly to it, but then I can do that in Wikipedia. Brittanica is supposed to
be written by experts, but I tend to find errors and omissions there that are
inexplicable. Generally I find these on articles I worked myself in-depth.
It makes me wonder about the experts.
I'm not sure if I like it enough to continue doing it.
Will Johnson
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
In a message dated 4/10/2009 9:25:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
> Seth Finkelstein is apparently going to try for another hatchet job on
> the subject in the Guardian, after his previous one was severely
> gutted (in case you're wondering why it didn't appear to make sense).
> I'm sure it'll be beautiful.>>
---------------
Do you mean he voluntarily gutted it? Or do you mean he was compelled by
higher-ups to gut it? Is there an archived pre-gut version?
Will
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
There has been a recent intensification in the trend of deleting
software-related articles
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software).
I think this is a useful enterprise, in order to declutter Wikipedia
of dead projects or software with very little information to go about
it.
Among those deletions there have been cases of articles on active
software projects, with large user bases, being deleted on grounds of
lack of notability (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki]]).
In order to assess notability, I'm wondering about the particular
situation of open-source software. OSS benefits from instant
verifiability, in that anyone can download the code and check the
claims in the article. Sure, an editor writing in detail about their
discoveries this way would constitute WP:OR. On the other hand, fact
checking in comparison tables simply requires referencing the
software's documentation, or live demos - see [[Comparison of
JavaScript frameworks]].
Often, the size of developer base, and automatically-generated
statistics about the project longevity and activity can be found on
sites such as Ohloh (example for [[Foswiki]] -
https://www.ohloh.net/projects/foswiki) or GitHub (example for
[[MojoMojo]] - http://github.com/marcusramberg/mojomojo/). Most such
software is not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent,
non-trivial, published works", and most can never be. For example, the
[[Mediawiki]] article does not satisfy these criteria, but nobody
doubts its notability.
Having in mind the above, what do fellow editors think about
open-source software under active development and with a sizable
developer community and user base: can it satisfy [[Wikipedia:Inherent
notability]]?
Best regards,
Dan Dascalescu
([[User:Dandv]])
In a message dated 4/9/2009 2:05:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com writes:
The article was then created again, which made a clear case of speedy
deletion under criterion G4 (recreation of previously deleted material).>>
------------------
Provided the material is the same or "almost" the same.
Or is Bill stating that he re-wrote the article? I'm not clear on that
point.
Will Johnson
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10
or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:21:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
smoddy(a)gmail.com writes:
"Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger
co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that,
although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and
his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered
the founder.</cite>">>
-------------------------
Currently the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention this controversy
whatsoever, and consistently calls Sanger co-founder.
Will Johnson
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)