In a message dated 8/23/2009 1:59:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bodnotbod(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> Do you think it would be hopelessly superseded by brain implants that
> give us access to all knowledge all of the time? Who's to say that
> that knowledge wouldn't be provided by Wikipedia?>>
>
------------------
You silly goose. Don't you realize that when we all have brain implants
that retain a quintabyte that the internet won't exist at all. We'll be in
constant streaming twitter mode all the time. There won't be "articles" per
se, and you won't get input from a single page, you'll get continuous input
from a million sources simultaneously in twitt-bits.
W.J.
"Complaint Over Doctor Who Posted Inkblot Test"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/24inkblot.html
'The doctor who helped Wikipedia publish the 10 inkblots of the Rorschach test is being investigated by his local doctors’ organization after it received complaints that his actions were unprofessional.
In a letter Wednesday from the group, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, the doctor, James Heilman, who works in an emergency room in Moose Jaw, was notified that two psychologists had filed complaints.
One of them, Andrea Kowaz of the College of Psychologists of British Columbia, complained that by including the inkblots on Wikipedia, Dr. Heilman was violating the test’s secrecy and that if he were a psychologist his behavior would be “viewed as serious misconduct.”
The other letter, from Laurene J. Wilson, a psychologist at Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, echoed the concern about the test’s security but added that Dr. Heilman “shows disrespect to his professional colleagues in psychology and disparages them in the eyes of the public.” '
It would seem we need a maxim to cover cases where editors couldn't win online, so they switched to offline attacks - 'complaints are an extension of editing by other means'?
--
gwern
In a message dated 8/23/2009 6:07:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
> http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=wikihow+enlargement+penis&meta=
> It was there on link six. >>
>
------------------------
It's a bit rough to complain about Wikihow in this regard. It's quite
likely that any "Ads" of this sort come either from vandals or from some kind of
affiliate network. Your link does not work for me. What you should do, if
you want to produce evidence, is actually copy the URL for the exact link.
Google searches change for different people, and over time.
Will
In a message dated 8/24/2009 12:29:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
> The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the blots aren't
> harmful. After all, if the blots really are harmful, and posting them
> really is unethical, then complaining about that should be legitimate.
>
> Besides, in this case, the lack of objection from any professionals was
> used
> as an argument for keeping the blots (although with moving goalposts).
> Well,
> if the charges stick, you might not be able to do that any more...>>
The blots aren't harmful and that was never the argument anyway. It is not
necessary the images themselves, but rather the answer sheet that is the
problem. If I know that calling image 1 a "cockroach" means I likely to be
paranoid, than I won't say that. I'll say um.. it's a ... uh.. butterfly a
cute fuzzy baby butterfly who wants to give me a big kiss.
No one has stated that the lack of object from any professionals was an
argument to keep them. Any wikiPoodle knows that you never have universal
consent on anything. Rather the argument was, that relatively few have
objected, and it seems we see that here as well. He posts the images and *two*
psychologists complain? Two? In all of Saskatchewan?
And at any rate, they've already been mirrored to three dozen sites by now,
so the entire thing is moot.
Will Johnson
Hooray!
Big thanks to the developers and put your tipple of choice on ice.... those
of us blessed with ancient powers of foresight are excited that flagged
revisions is finally enabled on the english wikipedia!
Well the smart money's actually on next tuesday, with the official
announcement 'live' shortly after.....
till next time,
PM.
Steve, news articles *in general* are primary sources.
Here is how you can tell: Is what I'm reading the first time someone has
published what I'm reading?
"So and so was hit by a car today" -- primary source, first time published.
Secondary sources collate multiple primary sources, any multiple primary
sources. When a source uses some primary and some secondary sources, I
personally would still call that secondary.
"Marion Davies claimed in tape interviews that she was born in 1905, but a
search of relevant public records indicates she was born in 1897".
HOWEVER, when we had the discussion years ago about what a "tertiary"
source should be in Wiki-speak, we almost always only referred to encyclopedias
and their ilk, which collate multiple secondary sources. It's hard to come
up with another example of what a tertiary source would be, and I personally
don't like the term, but there you go.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/22/2009 11:24:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bodnotbod(a)gmail.com writes:
> I do sometimes get into the mindset of thinking "everything I do with
> Wikipedia might be a waste of time" because I envision it collapsing,
> dying, being fatally attacked or somesuch.>>
>
------------------------
The "content" of Wikipedia, like malaria, is here to stay. It's been
copied so many times by now, that nothing can eradicate it.
Wikipedia itself however probably won't live more than ten more years at
the most :)
In twenty years, we will live inside the matrix 24-7 with constant
streaming implants so there won't be an "Internet" per se, and computing power will
be distributed all-wetware-all-the-time. After all any million step
computation can be done one step at a time by a million neurons, you don't even
have to be in a waking state. Hey that's gives me an idea!
I'd better get to work right away on building a wetware bot attack plan.
W.J.
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability, in fact
perhaps the ultimate form of it, trouncing secondaries quite roundly, since
they in-fact pick the most notable topics to report out of those!
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/19/2009 2:16:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com writes:
> The thrust of the argument against tertiary sources
> is this: "Third party sources don't provide any evidence of notability
> unless they contain some sort of commentary on their subject matter,
> othewise they are classed as tertiary sources."
Is this new? I searched for "lom metadata" (without quotes) and got:
----
Learning object metadata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
14 Jul 2009 ... ANZ-LOM is a metadata profile developed for the
education sector in Australia and New Zealand. The profile provides
interpretations of ...
[[IEEE 1484.12.1 – 2002 Standard ...]] - [[In Brief]] - [[Technical Details]]
----
I've inserted [[-]]'s around the links at the bottom. They correspond
to sections in the article. Is this new?
Steve
Ever notice that people who get stuck in an intersection are running a red
light? Anybody who wanted to complain would hav a solid ten or fifteen
seconds to catch a crime in the act with a photo that includes a license
plate (maybe two) and a traffic light in the same shot. So, if you cannot
finish crossing an intersection before a light changes, then do not start.