<<In a message dated 12/27/2008 9:11:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
In the article [[Person A]], Person B's article is a secondary source, and can be summarized freely. But because a primary source cannot be used for claims that are not easily verified by non-specialist readers, Person A's response, which is a primary source for [[Person A]], cannot be used the same way to respond.>>
If this seems what we intended, than all I can say is, it wasn't. Involved hypothetical discussions are hard for me to follow without specific examples. In your example
A: blah blah blah god is dead etc
B: You're full of it
A: No I'm not
All of that is primary source material. Your opinion about a source is a primary source. A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary source. That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a secondary source.
Opinion pieces are all primary material.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
2008/12/28 WJhonson@aol.com:
All of that is primary source material. Your opinion about a source is a primary source. A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary source. That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a secondary source. Opinion pieces are all primary material.
NPOV is paramount. NOR and V are good ways to get there.
- d.
On Dec 28, 2008, at 6:08 AM, David Gerard wrote:
NPOV is paramount. NOR and V are good ways to get there.
Though to be fair, we're not even talking about NOR here - we're talking about three words, inserted over three years ago by an editor who wanted to win a content dispute over on [[animal rights]], that sat undiscussed for two years afterwards until they had been in the policy for so long that they were "consensus." Indeed, no discussion of the "no specialist knowledge" clause that I have ever seen has come to a consensus in favor of it.
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's "consensus."
-Phil
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's "consensus."
Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages?
Carcharoth
On Dec 28, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's "consensus."
Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages?
Yes.
-Phil
On Dec 28, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's "consensus."
Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages?
I'm sorry, I should give a more complete answer here.
Yes, and among the stellar responses created by the people who currently populate our policy talk pages and thus, by default, control our policy formation is that the correct solution is to not cover the criticism of the person in depth either, thus removing the balance problem.
Yes. Apparently the road to a NPOV encyclopedia is now to avoid posting any information whatsoever.
This is what happens when the old-timers leave the policy pages, by the way. The worst of the Taylorized take over.
Which is why I keep bringing these things up on the list - in the hopes that the comparative sanity of the list will wander back to the policy pages and start fixing these messes.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Yes. Apparently the road to a NPOV encyclopedia is now to avoid posting any information whatsoever.
Drastic, but it works. Killing the patient is an established strategy for getting rid of the disease.
This is what happens when the old-timers leave the policy pages, by the way. The worst of the Taylorized take over.
Scientific management requires a higher power to assign tasks, but our masses have rejected intelligent design. Old-timers are too concerned with their rising blood pressure to spend much time being thoughtful with the idiots that write these rules.
Which is why I keep bringing these things up on the list - in the hopes that the comparative sanity of the list will wander back to the policy pages and start fixing these messes.
You're a raving optimist!
Ec
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's "consensus."
Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages?
I'd imagine there'd be a huge argument, with no resolution, and since there's no resolution we have to keep it at status quo, which means to leave the phrase in.
This is one of the classic ways to make a change on a controversial policy about which there is no consensus: Make the change anyway but do something to ensure it stays in for a while--either sneak it in and hope it stays unnoticed, or use delaying tactics. Once it's been in long enough, you've won; it's now status quo and while the change is still controversial, the controversy now means you can't change it back.
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b) clearly original research to declare as spoiler (c) having six different venues to tell you you're wrong and to go away must be because of clever politics on the part of those you disagree with, not because you're actually wrong or anything.
- d.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:51 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b) clearly original research to declare as spoiler (c) having six different venues to tell you you're wrong and to go away must be because of clever politics on the part of those you disagree with, not because you're actually wrong or anything.
Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here...
Carcharoth
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here...
No, it's about a rule abuse which combines the status quo rule with the need for consensus to make changes: you're not supposed to make a change for which there is no consensus, but if you manage to do so anyway, everyone's stuck with it since there's also no consensus for changing it back.
I pointed out that this particular abuse was used to remove spoiler warnings too.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here...
No, it's about a rule abuse which combines the status quo rule with the need for consensus to make changes: you're not supposed to make a change for which there is no consensus, but if you manage to do so anyway, everyone's stuck with it since there's also no consensus for changing it back.
I pointed out that this particular abuse was used to remove spoiler warnings too.
Yes, and I was pointing out that David and others should stick to the topic of the thread. As you said, you did (just), but then my post wasn't in reply to your post. It was a reply to David's post. I go as off-topic as anyone, but I've seen what happens when threads get hijacked to discussing spoilers...
Carcharoth
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here...
No, it's about a rule abuse which combines the status quo rule with the
need
for consensus to make changes: you're not supposed to make a change for
which
there is no consensus, but if you manage to do so anyway, everyone's
stuck with
it since there's also no consensus for changing it back.
I pointed out that this particular abuse was used to remove spoiler
warnings
too.
Yes, and I was pointing out that David and others should stick to the topic of the thread. As you said, you did (just), but then my post wasn't in reply to your post. It was a reply to David's post. I go as off-topic as anyone, but I've seen what happens when threads get hijacked to discussing spoilers...
Carcharoth
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 Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:30 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense.
What's that sound of ghostly laughter I hear?
Carcharoth
On Dec 28, 2008, at 8:30 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense.
Were this true, it would indeed be a problem.
However, not only is that not true, it is also not relevant, as this problem exists in a general case that affects every single person who is notable for work in a specialist field and who has ever been criticized.
-Phil
On Dec 28, 2008, at 8:30 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense.
Getting away from Derrida, the journal Critical Inquiry, one of the top journals in the humanities, for quite a while published debate between scholars on past articles in almost every issue, and still does so from time to time.
I would be very surprised to find more than a handful of authors published in Critical Inquiry who do not meet WP:N (although, to be fair, one of that handful would be me, as I co-authored one contribution to these debates some time ago). So let's take a single example. I'll even use a different one from the one I just posted to the talk page of NOR, so as to change things up a bit.
In the Winter 1988 issue of CI, two responses to an article by Frank Lentricchia appeared, as well as arejoinder by Lentricchia. We have a stub on Lentricchia. The two critiques of his work, then, would be signifiant criticisms, and a NPOV article ought to discuss them. And as secondary sources, they can be summarized freely, even in the numerous technical portions that arise.
Lentricchia's response, however, would be considered a primary source, and thus the technical portions cannot be summarized without secondary sources, of which, on this particular exchange, there are few.
There are dozens of near-identical situations in the 30 years of publication of this one journal in one field.
This is not about Derrida. Not even a little bit.
-Phil
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, David Gerard wrote:
clearly original research to declare as spoiler
I can't believe you're still saying this.
It is, of course, an example of exactly the kind of specious objections that still had to be addressed and added to the "controversy". A spoiler warning is a statement about content and as such, is exempt from the original research rules, in the same way that it's not original research to declare "this article is subject to BLP" (without a reliable source which says that the article is subject to Wikipiedia's BLP policy) or "this article may contain unverified claims" (without a reliable source which says that the article contains unverified claims).
Or to use a recent example, *your own* claim that we should have quality warnings on Wikipedia.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-October/095845.html
Pray tell, how is a spoiler warning original research and a quality warning not?
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b) clearly original research to declare as spoiler (c) having six different venues to tell you you're wrong and to go away must be because of clever politics on the part of those you disagree with, not because you're actually wrong or anything.
That was actually one of those rare instances where a mailing list campaign worked. Too bad that one otherwise sane Wikipedian has been infected by chronic wiki-tetanus over this.
Ec
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should
be a
lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b) clearly original research to declare as spoiler (c) having six different venues to tell you you're wrong and to go away must be because of clever politics on the part of those you disagree with, not because you're actually wrong or anything.
That was actually one of those rare instances where a mailing list campaign worked. Too bad that one otherwise sane Wikipedian has been infected by chronic wiki-tetanus over this.
Please don't get judgemental with Ken on this.
He's correct - a few people, without raising a proper consensus, bullied this through.
I also disagree with the new standard - Spoiler warnings have been a normal part of most internet plot discussions for 20+ years.
The decision to use them was a reasonable default. A decision not to use them, supported by proper consensus, would have been fine. Several people here on the list decided that they had a minimum critical mass to be BOLD rather than submitting it to a proper consensus discussion, and got away with it.
If I were a prick, or had cared more about it, I could have shot the BOLD move down at the time. What was being done was perfectly legitimately bulk undoable under standing policy consensus, and there were a few more lurkers willing to participate in undoing it if someone "known" started it off, as opposed to just Ken tilting at windmills.
I decided not to because: A) I judged that it would be more disruptive to the community than the issue was fundamentally worth, and B) I judged that there was probably at least a 40% chance that consensus would develop to support the move eventually. C) A few well known Wikipedians getting away with a minor instance of bullying was probably not that serious a problem.
Of these, I have only come to change my mind on C - I think that the community was lessened by letting it happen, because it emboldened a bunch of people who really *don't* share the ultimate end goals we do of making an encyclopedia to go fuck with us using the same logic. In retrospect, I would probably not have fought the auto-revert campaign approach, but I should have thrown a fit about this on policy boards and hauled a bunch of you up to Arbcom for abuse of process.
It's water under the bridge now, but Ken's ongoing griping is the least symptom of the ongoing ripples this event had in our community. That few of you noticed how it emboldened the bad apples is extremely unfortunate and shortsighted.
You weren't evil, but what you did was, and the truly evil people noticed. My trying to walk the tightrope ended up helping enable evildoers on Wikipedia, and that still bothers the hell out of me.
George Herbert wrote:
Please don't get judgemental with Ken on this...
I also disagree with the new standard - Spoiler warnings have been a normal part of most internet plot discussions for 20+ years. The decision to use them was a reasonable default...
It's water under the bridge now, but Ken's ongoing griping is the least symptom of the ongoing ripples this event had in our community...
You weren't evil, but what you did was...
Agreed on all points.
Nobody except Ken cared enough to fight hard on the pro-spoiler-warning side, and the wiki is incrementally poorer as a result.
2008/12/30 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
encyclopedia to go fuck with us using the same logic. In retrospect, I would probably not have fought the auto-revert campaign approach, but I should have thrown a fit about this on policy boards and hauled a bunch of you up to Arbcom for abuse of process.
Where were you in the arbcom cases (plural), then, if you objected at the time?
- d.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:02 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/30 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
encyclopedia to go fuck with us using the same logic. In retrospect, I would probably not have fought the auto-revert campaign approach, but I should have thrown a fit about this on policy boards and hauled a bunch
of
you up to Arbcom for abuse of process.
Where were you in the arbcom cases (plural), then, if you objected at the time?
Busy elsewhere, and low bandwidth, and making a judgement call that the issue being settled was more important than it being settled right.
The one time I tried to do everything I thought I needed to on the project, my work and social life suffered and I made one of my major admin errors that blew up in my face. There's too much to do, and too little life to do it in unless you work for the Foundation fulltime or are retired. I have to pick my battles.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's "consensus."
Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages?
Carcharoth
Have you tried just removing the ridiculous clause that creates this 'paradox'? Or, better yet, just using the source anyway? Sometimes after all the squabbling over the years that makes it seem like a deadlocked controversy, all it really takes is standing up and pointing out when somethings just dumb. And doing the not dumb thing. And that makes policy. IAR is there for a reason... not to be silly, or meta, but because sometimes, when something keeps us from improving the encyclopedia for long enough we get fed up with it, we have a way to just step over it (the encyclopedia being the product of our core project values, not interplay between clauses of policy that gets progressively more wonky every year).
There is no conflict between the policies. There's a conflict with whats written. That is not the same thing.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/30 Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com:
Have you tried just removing the ridiculous clause that creates this 'paradox'?
Indeed. It got edit-warred back by someone so dedicated they got 3RRed for it.
- d.
On Dec 28, 2008, at 12:55 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
All of that is primary source material. Your opinion about a source is a primary source.
A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary source. That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a secondary source.
Opinion pieces are all primary material.
This is generally speaking both a poor description of primary sources and of our internal definition of them.
-Phil