Hello, I have to conduct some research about the main problems that wikipedia is facing; those being inaccuracy and vandalisim. I have a questionaire which I've attached below. I would appriciate it if anyone who is experienced with these problems were to answer it. You would be of great help.
I do realise that there are a fair amount of questions, thefore please fell free to address only those question that to fell are necessary. Furthermore if you do not have the time to do so, a paragraph describing your opinion of the content on Wikipedia and a vaible method to address the issues of realability and vandalism would be great too
Thanks and regards Dhruv
1) What is your name, your profession and designation? 2) How often do you engage in research and for what purpose? 3) Are you concerned about the authenticity of what you read? If yes why? 4) What form of research do you prefer using the most (books, magazines, journals, internet etc)? 5) Have you ever used a free web-based encyclopedia such as Wikipedia before? 6) If yes a. could you elaborate on the process with which use it to search for information b. Do you use articles from Wikipedia as a source for your citations? c. Please elaborate on your reasons for doing/not-doing so d. Are you aware Wikipedia is a free- to -edit encyclopedia? e. Have you ever edited an article on Wikipedia? f. If yes do you follow the norms suggested by Wikipedia for doing so? g. Do you double check what you learn at Wikipedia? h. If yes, then why do you use Wikipedia in the first place? i. Have you ever come across anomalous/incorrect information on Wikipedia? j. If yes, have you ever thought about doing any thing about it? 7) If no a. Do you have any particular reason for not doing so? Is it linked with the questionable reliability of the articles?
8) In light of the above questions, I’m sure you have come to be aware of some of the flaws that using websites such as Wikipedia entails. Therefore what changes would you recommend to be made on such websites? 9) Further elaborating on the above point, how would you recommend the increase in factuality of the articles on Wikipedia? 10) Would you recommend Wikipedia as a primary source of information to your colleagues? Please specify with a reason?
PS Please leave a name an e-mail address if possible ( for citation purposes)
It would be interesting to know the general context for your project. It would also be good to have some statement about confidentiality of the responses.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:30 AM, dhruvbhalla dhruvbhalla@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I have to conduct some research about the main problems that wikipedia is facing; those being inaccuracy and vandalisim. I have a questionaire which I've attached below. I would appriciate it if anyone who is experienced with these problems were to answer it. You would be of great help.
I do realise that there are a fair amount of questions, thefore please fell free to address only those question that to fell are necessary. Furthermore if you do not have the time to do so, a paragraph describing your opinion of the content on Wikipedia and a vaible method to address the issues of realability and vandalism would be great too
Thanks and regards Dhruv
- What is your name, your profession and designation?
- How often do you engage in research and for what purpose?
- Are you concerned about the authenticity of what you read? If yes why?
- What form of research do you prefer using the most (books, magazines,
journals, internet etc)? 5) Have you ever used a free web-based encyclopedia such as Wikipedia before? 6) If yes a. could you elaborate on the process with which use it to search for information b. Do you use articles from Wikipedia as a source for your citations? c. Please elaborate on your reasons for doing/not-doing so d. Are you aware Wikipedia is a free- to -edit encyclopedia? e. Have you ever edited an article on Wikipedia? f. If yes do you follow the norms suggested by Wikipedia for doing so? g. Do you double check what you learn at Wikipedia? h. If yes, then why do you use Wikipedia in the first place? i. Have you ever come across anomalous/incorrect information on Wikipedia? j. If yes, have you ever thought about doing any thing about it? 7) If no a. Do you have any particular reason for not doing so? Is it linked with the questionable reliability of the articles?
- In light of the above questions, I’m sure you have come to be aware of
some of the flaws that using websites such as Wikipedia entails. Therefore what changes would you recommend to be made on such websites? 9) Further elaborating on the above point, how would you recommend the increase in factuality of the articles on Wikipedia? 10) Would you recommend Wikipedia as a primary source of information to your colleagues? Please specify with a reason?
PS Please leave a name an e-mail address if possible ( for citation purposes)
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Interview-tp22401800p22401800.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm sorry for not mentioning it earlier. I am currently completing the IB ITGS (IT in a global society) course. For it I had written a portfolio piece regarding the problems that using Wikipedia in the academic environment entails. To substantiate the portfolio it is required that i conduct an interview with someone who is directly effected by these issues ( accuracy and reliability). As per confidentiality is concerned, this is not going to be publicly published and I only need limited contact information so that a moderator can judge that the information is genuine. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thank you
David Goodman wrote:
It would be interesting to know the general context for your project. It would also be good to have some statement about confidentiality of the responses.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:30 AM, dhruvbhalla dhruvbhalla@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I have to conduct some research about the main problems that wikipedia is facing; those being inaccuracy and vandalisim. I have a questionaire which I've attached below. I would appriciate it if anyone who is experienced with these problems were to answer it. You would be of great help.
I do realise that there are a fair amount of questions, thefore please fell free to address only those question that to fell are necessary. Furthermore if you do not have the time to do so, a paragraph describing your opinion of the content on Wikipedia and a vaible method to address the issues of realability and vandalism would be great too
Thanks and regards Dhruv
- What is your name, your profession and designation?
- How often do you engage in research and for what purpose?
- Are you concerned about the authenticity of what you read? If yes
why? 4) What form of research do you prefer using the most (books, magazines, journals, internet etc)? 5) Have you ever used a free web-based encyclopedia such as Wikipedia before? 6) If yes a. could you elaborate on the process with which use it to search for information b. Do you use articles from Wikipedia as a source for your citations? c. Please elaborate on your reasons for doing/not-doing so d. Are you aware Wikipedia is a free- to -edit encyclopedia? e. Have you ever edited an article on Wikipedia? f. If yes do you follow the norms suggested by Wikipedia for doing so? g. Do you double check what you learn at Wikipedia? h. If yes, then why do you use Wikipedia in the first place? i. Have you ever come across anomalous/incorrect information on Wikipedia? j. If yes, have you ever thought about doing any thing about it? 7) If no a. Do you have any particular reason for not doing so? Is it linked with the questionable reliability of the articles?
- In light of the above questions, I’m sure you have come to be
aware of some of the flaws that using websites such as Wikipedia entails. Therefore what changes would you recommend to be made on such websites? 9) Further elaborating on the above point, how would you recommend the increase in factuality of the articles on Wikipedia? 10) Would you recommend Wikipedia as a primary source of information to your colleagues? Please specify with a reason?
PS Please leave a name an e-mail address if possible ( for citation purposes)
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Interview-tp22401800p22401800.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm tempted to ask how you managed to get into the International Baccalaureate program, given your inability to clearly and concisely explain what you are doing, but I will presume you're just having a bad day. FYI, not everyone knows what the IB is, so spelling it out in full is helpful.
Unless I am mistaken, this is a high-schooler doing a project.
dhruvbhalla wrote:
I'm sorry for not mentioning it earlier. I am currently completing the IB ITGS (IT in a global society) course. For it I had written a portfolio piece regarding the problems that using Wikipedia in the academic environment entails. To substantiate the portfolio it is required that i conduct an interview with someone who is directly effected by these issues ( accuracy and reliability). As per confidentiality is concerned, this is not going to be publicly published and I only need limited contact information so that a moderator can judge that the information is genuine. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thank you
David Goodman wrote:
It would be interesting to know the general context for your project. It would also be good to have some statement about confidentiality of the responses.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:30 AM, dhruvbhalla dhruvbhalla@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I have to conduct some research about the main problems that wikipedia is facing; those being inaccuracy and vandalisim. I have a questionaire which I've attached below. I would appriciate it if anyone who is experienced with these problems were to answer it. You would be of great help.
I do realise that there are a fair amount of questions, thefore please fell free to address only those question that to fell are necessary. Furthermore if you do not have the time to do so, a paragraph describing your opinion of the content on Wikipedia and a vaible method to address the issues of realability and vandalism would be great too
Thanks and regards Dhruv
What is your name, your profession and designation?How often do you engage in research and for what purpose?Are you concerned about the authenticity of what you read? If yeswhy? 4) What form of research do you prefer using the most (books, magazines, journals, internet etc)? 5) Have you ever used a free web-based encyclopedia such as Wikipedia before? 6) If yes a. could you elaborate on the process with which use it to search for information b. Do you use articles from Wikipedia as a source for your citations? c. Please elaborate on your reasons for doing/not-doing so d. Are you aware Wikipedia is a free- to -edit encyclopedia? e. Have you ever edited an article on Wikipedia? f. If yes do you follow the norms suggested by Wikipedia for doing so? g. Do you double check what you learn at Wikipedia? h. If yes, then why do you use Wikipedia in the first place? i. Have you ever come across anomalous/incorrect information on Wikipedia? j. If yes, have you ever thought about doing any thing about it? 7) If no a. Do you have any particular reason for not doing so? Is it linked with the questionable reliability of the articles?
In light of the above questions, I’m sure you have come to beaware of some of the flaws that using websites such as Wikipedia entails. Therefore what changes would you recommend to be made on such websites? 9) Further elaborating on the above point, how would you recommend the increase in factuality of the articles on Wikipedia? 10) Would you recommend Wikipedia as a primary source of information to your colleagues? Please specify with a reason?
PS Please leave a name an e-mail address if possible ( for citation purposes)
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Interview-tp22401800p22401800.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm tempted to ask why, exactly, needed you do this. I'm even more tempted to ask the list moderator to place you on moderation for unjustified personal attacks to a good faith student, who (expectedly) did not come up with quite as professional a project description as a PhD candidate would have.
Really, this was uncalled for.
Michael
(By the way and personal comment: After reading tons of actual IB guidelines and approved IB course materials, ie. documents written by the IB Organization staff or experienced IB teachers, I cannot blame any student for not expressing himself "clearly and concisely" anymore...you're kind of immersed into the opposite)
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM, KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
I'm tempted to ask how you managed to get into the International Baccalaureate program, given your inability to clearly and concisely explain what you are doing, but I will presume you're just having a bad day. FYI, not everyone knows what the IB is, so spelling it out in full is helpful.
Unless I am mistaken, this is a high-schooler doing a project.
dhruvbhalla wrote:
I'm sorry for not mentioning it earlier. I am currently completing the IB ITGS (IT in a global society) course. For it I had written a portfolio piece regarding the problems that using Wikipedia in the academic environment entails. To substantiate the portfolio it is required that i conduct an interview with someone who is directly effected by these issues ( accuracy and reliability). As per confidentiality is concerned, this is not going to be publicly published and I only need limited contact information so that a moderator can judge that the information is genuine. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thank you
David Goodman wrote:
It would be interesting to know the general context for your project. It would also be good to have some statement about confidentiality of the responses.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:30 AM, dhruvbhalla dhruvbhalla@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I have to conduct some research about the main problems that wikipedia is facing; those being inaccuracy and vandalisim. I have a questionaire which I've attached below. I would appriciate it if anyone who is experienced with these problems were to answer it. You would be of great help.
I do realise that there are a fair amount of questions, thefore please fell free to address only those question that to fell are necessary. Furthermore if you do not have the time to do so, a paragraph describing your opinion of the content on Wikipedia and a vaible method to address the issues of realability and vandalism would be great too
Thanks and regards Dhruv
- What is your name, your profession and designation?
- How often do you engage in research and for what purpose?
- Are you concerned about the authenticity of what you read? If yes
why? 4) What form of research do you prefer using the most (books, magazines, journals, internet etc)? 5) Have you ever used a free web-based encyclopedia such as Wikipedia before? 6) If yes a. could you elaborate on the process with which use it to search for information b. Do you use articles from Wikipedia as a source for your citations? c. Please elaborate on your reasons for doing/not-doing so d. Are you aware Wikipedia is a free- to -edit encyclopedia? e. Have you ever edited an article on Wikipedia? f. If yes do you follow the norms suggested by Wikipedia for doing so? g. Do you double check what you learn at Wikipedia? h. If yes, then why do you use Wikipedia in the first place? i. Have you ever come across anomalous/incorrect information on Wikipedia? j. If yes, have you ever thought about doing any thing about it? 7) If no a. Do you have any particular reason for not doing so? Is it linked with the questionable reliability of the articles?
- In light of the above questions, I’m sure you have come to be
aware of some of the flaws that using websites such as Wikipedia entails. Therefore what changes would you recommend to be made on such websites? 9) Further elaborating on the above point, how would you recommend the increase in factuality of the articles on Wikipedia? 10) Would you recommend Wikipedia as a primary source of information to your colleagues? Please specify with a reason?
PS Please leave a name an e-mail address if possible ( for citation purposes)
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Interview-tp22401800p22401800.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I'm tempted to ask why, exactly, needed you do this.
Okay, this one was scrabled. Somehow I feel you'll manage to understand it, but for clarity's sake: "I'm tempted to ask why, exactly, you needed to do this"
Scrabled?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I'm tempted to ask why, exactly, needed you do this.
Okay, this one was scrabled. Somehow I feel you'll manage to understand it, but for clarity's sake: "I'm tempted to ask why, exactly, you needed to do this"
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/3/10 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Scrabled?
It's a perfectly cromulent word, what are you complaining about?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Scrabled?
I would blame it on the iPhone again if only, alas, I was not sitting in front of a laptop. My checklist for possible excuses gives 'tiredness' as next one in row, so I'll use that one.
Michael
Our unfortunate researcher can probably report that Wikipedians try to embiggen ourselves with obscure in-jokes, that we are terible spellers, and may be indistinguishable from the vandals and trolls.
Heaven help the world if it relies upon us as the keepers of its repository of knowledge.
-Durova
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Scrabled?
I would blame it on the iPhone again if only, alas, I was not sitting in front of a laptop. My checklist for possible excuses gives 'tiredness' as next one in row, so I'll use that one.
Michael
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The criticism was more for the IB educators. There was no personal attack in my comments, and indeed, I attempted to assist and clarify.
Michael Bimmler wrote:
I'm tempted to ask why, exactly, needed you do this. I'm even more tempted to ask the list moderator to place you on moderation for unjustified personal attacks to a good faith student, who (expectedly) did not come up with quite as professional a project description as a PhD candidate would have.
Really, this was uncalled for.
Michael
(By the way and personal comment: After reading tons of actual IB guidelines and approved IB course materials, ie. documents written by the IB Organization staff or experienced IB teachers, I cannot blame any student for not expressing himself "clearly and concisely" anymore...you're kind of immersed into the opposite)
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM, KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
I'm tempted to ask how you managed to get into the International Baccalaureate program, given your inability to clearly and concisely explain what you are doing, but I will presume you're just having a bad day. FYI, not everyone knows what the IB is, so spelling it out in full is helpful.
Unless I am mistaken, this is a high-schooler doing a project.
dhruvbhalla wrote:
I'm sorry for not mentioning it earlier. I am currently completing the IB ITGS (IT in a global society) course. For it I had written a portfolio piece regarding the problems that using Wikipedia in the academic environment entails. To substantiate the portfolio it is required that i conduct an interview with someone who is directly effected by these issues ( accuracy and reliability). As per confidentiality is concerned, this is not going to be publicly published and I only need limited contact information so that a moderator can judge that the information is genuine. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thank you
David Goodman wrote:
It would be interesting to know the general context for your project. It would also be good to have some statement about confidentiality of the responses.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:30 AM, dhruvbhalla dhruvbhalla@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I have to conduct some research about the main problems that wikipedia is facing; those being inaccuracy and vandalisim. I have a questionaire which I've attached below. I would appriciate it if anyone who is experienced with these problems were to answer it. You would be of great help.
I do realise that there are a fair amount of questions, thefore please fell free to address only those question that to fell are necessary. Furthermore if you do not have the time to do so, a paragraph describing your opinion of the content on Wikipedia and a vaible method to address the issues of realability and vandalism would be great too
Thanks and regards Dhruv
What is your name, your profession and designation?How often do you engage in research and for what purpose?Are you concerned about the authenticity of what you read? If yeswhy? 4) What form of research do you prefer using the most (books, magazines, journals, internet etc)? 5) Have you ever used a free web-based encyclopedia such as Wikipedia before? 6) If yes a. could you elaborate on the process with which use it to search for information b. Do you use articles from Wikipedia as a source for your citations? c. Please elaborate on your reasons for doing/not-doing so d. Are you aware Wikipedia is a free- to -edit encyclopedia? e. Have you ever edited an article on Wikipedia? f. If yes do you follow the norms suggested by Wikipedia for doing so? g. Do you double check what you learn at Wikipedia? h. If yes, then why do you use Wikipedia in the first place? i. Have you ever come across anomalous/incorrect information on Wikipedia? j. If yes, have you ever thought about doing any thing about it? 7) If no a. Do you have any particular reason for not doing so? Is it linked with the questionable reliability of the articles?
In light of the above questions, I’m sure you have come to beaware of some of the flaws that using websites such as Wikipedia entails. Therefore what changes would you recommend to be made on such websites? 9) Further elaborating on the above point, how would you recommend the increase in factuality of the articles on Wikipedia? 10) Would you recommend Wikipedia as a primary source of information to your colleagues? Please specify with a reason?
PS Please leave a name an e-mail address if possible ( for citation purposes)
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Interview-tp22401800p22401800.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Seems like this is written for a target audience of Wikipedia readers, not regular contributors. The sort of volunteer work I do wouldn't fit within this paradigm.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM, KillerChihuahua <puppy@killerchihuahua.com
wrote:
I'm tempted to ask how you managed to get into the International Baccalaureate program, given your inability to clearly and concisely explain what you are doing, but I will presume you're just having a bad day. FYI, not everyone knows what the IB is, so spelling it out in full is helpful.
Unless I am mistaken, this is a high-schooler doing a project.
dhruvbhalla wrote:
I'm sorry for not mentioning it earlier. I am currently completing the IB ITGS (IT in a global society) course.
For
it I had written a portfolio piece regarding the problems that using Wikipedia in the academic environment entails. To substantiate the portfolio it is required that i conduct an interview with someone who is directly effected by these issues ( accuracy and reliability). As per confidentiality is concerned, this is not going to be publicly published and I only need limited contact information so that a moderator can judge that the information is genuine. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thank you
David Goodman wrote:
It would be interesting to know the general context for your project. It would also be good to have some statement about confidentiality of the responses.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:30 AM, dhruvbhalla dhruvbhalla@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello, I have to conduct some research about the main problems that wikipedia is facing; those being inaccuracy and vandalisim. I have a questionaire which I've attached below. I would appriciate it
if
anyone who is experienced with these problems were to answer it. You would be of great help.
I do realise that there are a fair amount of questions, thefore please fell free to address only those question that to fell are necessary. Furthermore if you do not have the time to do so, a paragraph
describing
your opinion of the content on Wikipedia and a vaible method to address the issues of realability and vandalism would be great too
Thanks and regards Dhruv
What is your name, your profession and designation?How often do you engage in research and for what purpose?Are you concerned about the authenticity of what you read? Ifyes
why? 4) What form of research do you prefer using the most (books, magazines, journals, internet etc)? 5) Have you ever used a free web-based encyclopedia such as Wikipedia before? 6) If yes a. could you elaborate on the process with which use it to search for information b. Do you use articles from Wikipedia as a source for your citations? c. Please elaborate on your reasons for doing/not-doing so d. Are you aware Wikipedia is a free- to -edit encyclopedia? e. Have you ever edited an article on Wikipedia? f. If yes do you follow the norms suggested by Wikipedia for doing so? g. Do you double check what you learn at Wikipedia? h. If yes, then why do you use Wikipedia in the first place? i. Have you ever come across anomalous/incorrect information on Wikipedia? j. If yes, have you ever thought about doing any thing about it? 7) If no a. Do you have any particular reason for not doing so? Is it
linked
with the questionable reliability of the articles?
In light of the above questions, I’m sure you have come to beaware of some of the flaws that using websites such as Wikipedia entails. Therefore what changes would you recommend to be made on such websites? 9) Further elaborating on the above point, how would you recommend the increase in factuality of the articles on Wikipedia? 10) Would you recommend Wikipedia as a primary source of
information
to your colleagues? Please specify with a reason?
PS Please leave a name an e-mail address if possible ( for citation purposes)
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Interview-tp22401800p22401800.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/3/10 KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com:
I'm tempted to ask how you managed to get into the International Baccalaureate program, given your inability to clearly and concisely explain what you are doing, but I will presume you're just having a bad day. FYI, not everyone knows what the IB is, so spelling it out in full is helpful.
Unless I am mistaken, this is a high-schooler doing a project.
Did it occur to you that the IB is primarily taken by people that aren't native English speakers? You should make allowances.
Unlikely. If he's not English as a primary language, why would he email the EN mailing list?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/10 KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com:
I'm tempted to ask how you managed to get into the International Baccalaureate program, given your inability to clearly and concisely explain what you are doing, but I will presume you're just having a bad day. FYI, not everyone knows what the IB is, so spelling it out in full is helpful.
Unless I am mistaken, this is a high-schooler doing a project.
Did it occur to you that the IB is primarily taken by people that aren't native English speakers? You should make allowances.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm merely stating it is unlikely. The Wikipedia he emailed is EN. The language of the survey is EN. If EN is not his native tongue then at the very least he believes he is proficient.
philippe wrote:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:30 PM, KillerChihuahua wrote:
Unlikely. If he's not English as a primary language, why would he email the EN mailing list?
'cuz it's got the most readers? I'm just guessin' on that....
I'm sorry for causing such a stir. Let me reiterate: The reason for conducting the interview is because I would like the opinion of any regular contributor/reader, on what he or she feels are the major issues ( those on the lines of reliability etc.) facing Wikipedia today. As this piece work requires me to address these issues and propose logical solutions ( to the best of my ability) I choose to use this forum to gain a knowledgeable perspective on how to combat these issues. The 'trivial' questions in the interview were only to help me establish trends in my analysis. As before any help would be appreciated Thanks
2009/3/11 philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:30 PM, KillerChihuahua wrote:
Unlikely. If he's not English as a primary language, why would he email the EN mailing list?
'cuz it's got the most readers? I'm just guessin' on that....
philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
[[en:User:Philippe]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No need to apologize - if anyone has caused a stir it is myself, for being too blunt with my criticism. thank you for taking the time to clarify.
dhruv bhalla wrote:
I'm sorry for causing such a stir. Let me reiterate: The reason for conducting the interview is because I would like the opinion of any regular contributor/reader, on what he or she feels are the major issues ( those on the lines of reliability etc.) facing Wikipedia today. As this piece work requires me to address these issues and propose logical solutions ( to the best of my ability) I choose to use this forum to gain a knowledgeable perspective on how to combat these issues. The 'trivial' questions in the interview were only to help me establish trends in my analysis. As before any help would be appreciated Thanks
2009/3/11 philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:30 PM, KillerChihuahua wrote:
Unlikely. If he's not English as a primary language, why would he email the EN mailing list?
'cuz it's got the most readers? I'm just guessin' on that....
philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
[[en:User:Philippe]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your survey is well constructed for a general readership. Over here at this list most of us live in the belly of the beast. So to get to the heart of the matter, one of the best things Wikipedia could do right now is to adopt a plagiarism policy, or at least a plagiarism guideline. What we have now in that area is at proposal stage, and needs work. This is doable; it just needs to be prioritized.
Beyond that, there are several longstanding trouble spots. Broadly speaking, these deal with topics that are the subject of ongoing real world disputes. Ethnic/nationlist debates form a large part of that, with various religious, political, and (pseudo)science topics rounding out most of the rest. Those areas would be harder to remedy because of the number of editors involved and the entrenched nature of the disputes.
My own proposal in that area is multifaceted, and would probably be disputed or rejected by many fellow Wikipedians. Presenting the analysis in summary form.
1. In Internet communities generally, 5% of the participants will violate the rules no matter what they are. 5% will abide by the rules no matter poorly enforced they are. The other 90% would prefer to abide by the rules if the rules are generally enforced, but will also ignore rules if the rules become meaningless. The key to managing a community is to sway that 90%.
2. Wikipedia's rules are generally enforced, but pockets of activity need more than the usual share of administrative attention. Because these are long term trouble spots and neither the community at large nor the sysop community rewards work there, these areas actually get less than their share of attention. Administrators who intervene are generally disdained: perceived on all sides not as 'trying to help' but as 'engaging in drama'.
3. My proposed solution is to assemble task forces of 12 to 20 neutral administrators, depending on the size of each given dispute, to share the work of patrolling a problem area. By engaging in dialog at talk pages, edit protecting articles as needed, and occasionally handing out short blocks, a sufficiently large group of uninvolved administrators could normalize a problem area by convincing the 90% of editors in the middle that site policies do have meaning and will be enforced.
4. Currently, we do not have enough administrators to implement this solution. English Wikipedia has the lowest ratio of administrators to registered accounts among all Wikipedia's language editions, and that ratio has been dropping steadily for years.
5. English Wikipedia also has no formal system for training potential administrators. We have no 'best practices' guideline for admin coaching, and training is generally deprecated. Because the limited coaching that does occur is often done poorly (geared more toward passing admin candidacy than toward the actual skills and duties of adminship), coaching itself is generally not encouraged or respected within the community. In my view this is nonsensical: English Wikipedia is the only organization of its size that actively deprecates training for positions of responsibility. Our self-selected body of administrators is composed of people who succeeded in training themselves. This demographic skews our consensus discussions on the subject.
6. At some point (which I hope will be quite soon), it will become apparent to more of the community that self-training is not sufficient to meet the site's administrative needs. At that point, serious training will become a community priority. IMO, Wikipedia ought to have about three times as many administrators as it currently does. Because we are understaffed, some of our best volunteers are burning out and quitting. The key is to achieve broader awareness and turn this around. It will take several months--perhaps a year--for the effects of a good recruitment and training program to have an impact on the overall size and stress level of the administrative volunteer pool.
7. As soon as feasible, I would like to run a pilot project with an administrative task force at a long term problem area. The key is to recruit a critical mass of administrator volunteers. At minimum, this means twelve people. Preferably fifteen. Interested administrators are welcome to contact me.
-Durova
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM, dhruv bhalla dhruvbhalla@gmail.comwrote:
I'm sorry for causing such a stir. Let me reiterate: The reason for conducting the interview is because I would like the opinion of any regular contributor/reader, on what he or she feels are the major issues ( those on the lines of reliability etc.) facing Wikipedia today. As this piece work requires me to address these issues and propose logical solutions ( to the best of my ability) I choose to use this forum to gain a knowledgeable perspective on how to combat these issues. The 'trivial' questions in the interview were only to help me establish trends in my analysis. As before any help would be appreciated Thanks
2009/3/11 philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:30 PM, KillerChihuahua wrote:
Unlikely. If he's not English as a primary language, why would he email the EN mailing list?
'cuz it's got the most readers? I'm just guessin' on that....
philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
[[en:User:Philippe]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's possible your mention was conditioned by some specific example, but maybe Durova you could address a bit more directly what you mean by saying that we need a plagiariam policy. Wouldn't that policy be something like "Don't do that?"
How are you seeing the situation in a more complex way?
Will Johnson
That becomes a bit difficult without naming individuals who may not subscribe to this list. There have been problems, though, particularly at DYK. Not everyone understands what plagiarism is, or agrees that avoiding it is important.
-Durova
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:55 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
It's possible your mention was conditioned by some specific example, but maybe Durova you could address a bit more directly what you mean by saying that we need a plagiariam policy. Wouldn't that policy be something like "Don't do that?"
How are you seeing the situation in a more complex way?
Will Johnson
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It is possible to discuss plagiarism without naming individuals.
Durova referred to a proposed guideline, and that is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism
Closely related is the concept of close paraphrasing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing
From July 2005 to June 2008, Wikipedia:Plagiarism was a redirect (the
destination has varied). Since June 2008, is has been a proposed guideline, with people either of the opinion that it is not needed at all because the relevant stuff is covered elsewhere (with at least one attempt to turn the page back into a redirect), or people agreeing that something separate is needed to address the complexities of such matters.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
That becomes a bit difficult without naming individuals who may not subscribe to this list. There have been problems, though, particularly at DYK. Not everyone understands what plagiarism is, or agrees that avoiding it is important.
-Durova
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:55 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
It's possible your mention was conditioned by some specific example, but maybe Durova you could address a bit more directly what you mean by saying that we need a plagiariam policy. Wouldn't that policy be something like "Don't do that?"
How are you seeing the situation in a more complex way?
Will Johnson
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In the category of academic fraud, there is fudging data, misquoting sources, and poorly attributing sources. Polemics concerning what data means is different. So is judgement on which statistics to use. Start with the mean, median, or mode problem; avoid saying "average".
In the category of academic fraud, there is fudging data, misquoting sources, and poorly attributing sources. Polemics concerning what data means is different. So is judgement on which statistics to use. Start with the mean, median, or mode problem; avoid saying "average".
There is a trial underway:
"Use of quotation marks. The committee asserted that quotations around "mixed blood" and "full blood" Indians in Churchill's work implies the Allotment Act contains these terms verbatim, and because the Act does not expressly contain this language, this constitutes academic misconduct. Cheyfitz disagreed and stated quotation marks serve many purposes, and the use of quotations here does not necessarily imply these words were used in the Act."
What use of quotation marks in everyday literature does not mean you are quoting someone verbatim? (I hav used them to distinguish pronunciation from spelling in alt.usage.english, and to denote strings in computer code, and that is about all). When you are explaining what someone else means, then you enclose it in square brackets. That is what newspapers here do, anyway.
"Ghost writing. The committee found research misconduct on Churchill's part where he ghost wrote the Rebecca Robbins essay "from the ground up" and then cited that essay in his own work. Cheyfitz opined there is nothing wrong in this because another professional (Robins) signed off on the essay and applied her authority to it, so she stands behind those ideas as if she wrote it herself. There was no coercion or deception involved, and no basis for research misconduct allegations. Likewise, Churchill's work on the Indian Arts and Crafts Act did not constitute research misconduct."
Why was her voice a good or necessary choice? She probably should hav at least mentioned his name, in some fashion. I asked someone to solicit my rent overpayment back once, and she insisted on putting it in her own words, which did the trick.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plagiarism
In the category of academic fraud, there is fudging data, misquoting sources, and poorly attributing sources. Polemics concerning what data means is different. So is judgement on which statistics to use. Start with the mean, median, or mode problem; avoid saying "average".
There is a trial underway:
http://www.theracetothebottom.org/ward-churchill/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
From http://www.theracetothebottom.org/ward-churchill/
"Use of quotation marks. The committee asserted that quotations around "mixed blood" and "full blood" Indians in Churchill's work implies the Allotment Act contains these terms verbatim, and because the Act does not expressly contain this language, this constitutes academic misconduct. Cheyfitz disagreed and stated quotation marks serve many purposes, and the use of quotations here does not necessarily imply these words were used in the Act."
What use of quotation marks in everyday literature does not mean you are quoting someone verbatim? (I hav used them to distinguish pronunciation from spelling in alt.usage.english, and to denote strings in computer code, and that is about all). When you are explaining what someone else means, then you enclose it in square brackets. That is what newspapers here do, anyway.
One might call this a 'fake choice', omitting a variety of literary devices such as scare quotes; or so the 'putative interlocutor' I use rhetorically in this email would say. This writer would refer you to the multiple usages in [[scare quotes]], just as a start.
I see nothing wrong with dhruvbhalla's questions. The only way it could be more clear is if it were an HTML form. The difficulty for it will be coming up with an estimate for the fatality rate (rate of non-response).