Sean Barret wrote,
Silly statements that are so very hard to spot that they cannot be rebutted and can only be corrected by rendering them unexpressible are not silly. They may be wrong, but they are not speedy-obliteration candidates.
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
This is not a constructive comment. I am sure everyone else understood I was using a hyperbolic example just to make the point. Anyone who has done serious research in the social sciences or humanities (and this certainly doesn't require a PhD.) can recognize inaccurate assertions that people who have not done serious research probably will not recognize. This is a fact; no one would dispute that someone who has seriously researched physics can tell the difference between a good or bad explanation of the Uncertainty Principle, or the theory of Special Relativity. The same goes for articles on history, politics, culture, and so on.
Moreover, no one has mentioned "unpopular" content and Sean is just waving a red herring to distract us from a serious problem. In one of my own messages -- here or at the project page -- I pointed out that one use of such a committee is to ensure that the content is being presented in an NPOV way, or to ensure that the sources are properly represented. Anyone can assert something and cite a book. But in some cases readers need to know whether the author of that book was published by a university press, a trade press, or a vanity press, or whether the book was written by someone with a PhD. in Biblical Studies or Geology. You might think that disputes revolving around such questions would be easy to resolve, and of course, in many cases, they are. But sometimes they are not, and there is a need for some mechanism to arbitrate content.
Finally, Brian reminds me that I must repeat that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia, accuracy is of the utmost important. Brian should not put in inaccurate content, and then protest its deletion because it is "unpopular."
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
From: "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu
Moreover, no one has mentioned "unpopular" content and Sean is just waving a red herring to distract us from a serious problem. In one of my own messages -- here or at the project page -- I pointed out that one use of such a committee is to ensure that the content is being presented in an NPOV way, or to ensure that the sources are properly represented.
This turns out to be a non-trivial matter; I have run into several editors who, whether willfully or otherwise, do not accurately present the material that they are using as a source. Specifically, they will present a POV, and when challenged for a source, will cite a source. When you actually read the source you find that the information they have entered in the article simply does not match the source they are citing. One would think that this is an easy problem to solve; yet some editors often seem rather insistent on ensuring their POV is heard, regardless of whether or not they have a source that accurately represents it, and are willing to war till the end of time to get their way.
Jay.
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Moreover, no one has mentioned "unpopular" content and Sean is just waving a red herring to distract us from a serious problem. In one of my own messages -- here or at the project page -- I pointed out that one use of such a committee is to ensure that the content is being presented in an NPOV way, or to ensure that the sources are properly represented. Anyone can assert something and cite a book. But in some cases readers need to know whether the author of that book was published by a university press, a trade press, or a vanity press, or whether the book was written by someone with a PhD. in Biblical Studies or Geology. You might think that disputes revolving around such questions would be easy to resolve, and of course, in many cases, they are. But sometimes they are not, and there is a need for some mechanism to arbitrate content.
I fully and totally agree with every bit of this.
And I repeat very very firmly that I will never support _popular voting_ as a substitute for doing this kind of serious work to get things right.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Moreover, no one has mentioned "unpopular" content and Sean is just waving a red herring to distract us from a serious problem.
I fully and totally agree with every bit of this.
--Jimbo
Wow. I am such scum. Let this be a lesson to me.
-- Sean Barrett | Of course, misunderstanding or misrepresentation sean@epoptic.com | is something Sean is well-practiced at. | --Associate Professor Steven L. Rubenstein
Sean Barrett wrote:
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Moreover, no one has mentioned "unpopular" content and Sean is just waving a red herring to distract us from a serious problem.
I fully and totally agree with every bit of this.
--Jimbo
Wow. I am such scum. Let this be a lesson to me.
I sent, under separate cover, an apology for quoting that bit. But for the record, Sean has presented here a highly edited quote of what I wrote. I quoted a very long paragraph from Steven, virtually all of which I agreed with. I made a mistake by leaving in this line.
Someone finding Sean's post here might assume (if they didn't check the history) that I was agreeing with the assessment of Sean's part in this discussion as "waving a red herring". I don't, and I apologize to Sean for inadvertantly also quoting this bit.
I don't appreciate my words being edited down in this fashion, which I feel might confuse people. But nonetheless the blame rests squarely on my shoulders for writing such a dramatic statement without properly checking _every bit of this_. That was wrong of me.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Moreover, no one has mentioned "unpopular" content and Sean is just waving a red herring to distract us from a serious problem.
I fully and totally agree with every bit of this.
--Jimbo
Wow. I am such scum. Let this be a lesson to me.
Someone finding Sean's post here might assume (if they didn't check the history) that I was agreeing with the assessment of Sean's part in this discussion as "waving a red herring". I don't, and I apologize to Sean for inadvertantly also quoting this bit.
It's the mixed metaphor that does it. When people switch from waving red flags to waving red herrings the world has indeed become a more dangerous place. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
It's the mixed metaphor that does it. When people switch from waving red flags to waving red herrings the world has indeed become a more dangerous place. :-)
"And now - you must cut down the mightiest metaphor in the forest - wiiiiiith
A RED HERRING!!!"
<dramatic crescendo>
:-)
Stan
Jimmy Wales wrote:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Moreover, no one has mentioned "unpopular" content and Sean is just waving a red herring to distract us from a serious problem. In one of my own messages -- here or at the project page -- I pointed out that one use of such a committee is to ensure that the content is being presented in an NPOV way, or to ensure that the sources are properly represented. Anyone can assert something and cite a book. But in some cases readers need to know whether the author of that book was published by a university press, a trade press, or a vanity press, or whether the book was written by someone with a PhD. in Biblical Studies or Geology. You might think that disputes revolving around such questions would be easy to resolve, and of course, in many cases, they are. But sometimes they are not, and there is a need for some mechanism to arbitrate content.
I fully and totally agree with every bit of this.
I realize that I made a mistake by agreeing to every bit of a very long paragraph. I do not think Sean is "waving a red herring to distract us from a serious problem" -- I think he has serious and genuine concerns, concerns which I think are not compelling given the nature of the proposal under consideration.
No one _has_ mentioned unpopular content, but nonetheless it is of course very worthwhile to ask the very legitimate question of whether some proposal new rule would lead to the outcome of unpopular content being banned. Sean is right to raise those concerns.
I apologize to Sean.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I apologize to Sean.
I accept without reservation. I overreacted; though I want to claim that the original accusations didn't bother me, they obviously did, and then what I mistook as a swipe from a very unexpected quarter upset me more than it should.
You'd think an arbiter would have thicker skin, wouldn't you? I need to work on my calluses.
Thank you, Jimbo, and I will continue to enthusiastically support Wikipedia in any way I can.
-- Sean Barrett | Follow your dream! Unless it's the one where you're sean@epoptic.com | at work in your underwear during a fire drill.