I've started a user help page on Special:CheckUser at [[:meta:Help:CheckUser]]. I've tried to write it neutrally for any MediaWiki installation, not just Wikimedia. Clarifications and additions are welcomed! I've been particularly cautious in my assertions concerning the privacy policy ...
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I've started a user help page on Special:CheckUser at [[:meta:Help:CheckUser]]. I've tried to write it neutrally for any MediaWiki installation, not just Wikimedia. Clarifications and additions are welcomed! I've been particularly cautious in my assertions concerning the privacy policy ...
- d.
Thanks for this. Important point to add would be that only 2 weeks logs are kept for wikipedia.
Ant
PS : I *loved* the "User:Querulous is doing something highly antisocial", with the link below (though, in all fairness, being a dick is not a garantee for being blocked...)
David Gerard wrote:
I've started a user help page on Special:CheckUser at [[:meta:Help:CheckUser]]. I've tried to write it neutrally for any MediaWiki installation, not just Wikimedia. Clarifications and additions are welcomed! I've been particularly cautious in my assertions concerning the privacy policy ...
- d.
by the way, the current proposal is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_CheckUser_Policy
Following somewhat from Jimbo's discussion earlier, a trio of scenarios:
A young student - perhaps in high school - by happenstance hears a lecture on physics. He grasps only a little of it, but what he understands seems exciting. One thing mentioned as very interesting by the lecturer is the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." In a fit of exitement, he goes home and checks Wikipedia to understand this concept.
A freshman is considering majors. He has heard of an English professor who is interesting and hip, and arranges to meet him in his office hours to hear about his class next semester. The professor is doing an intro class on something called "literary theory," and mentions one person in particular - Derrida - as someone who will "blow the student's mind." The student, intrigued, goes to look up Derrida.
A man is finding himself more worried about the current political situation. He is reading the paper more. He happens upon a mention that Bush is not an "End of history" person, a phrase associated in some way with someone named Fukuyama. He goes to Wikipedia, and types in "End of History" to try to understand more about this theory that apparently informs the political discussion.
All three of these people are going to be very, very disappointed. Not because [[Uncertainty principle]], [[Jacques Derrida]], and [[The End of History and the Last Man]] aren't there, or are excessively short, but rather because they are completely incomprehensible to people who are not already familiar with the topics. (And I say this about [[Jacques Derrida]] after spending two hours rewriting the thing)
The problem with all of these articles is that they are not written for generalists. They are written for specialists and semi- specialists. Terms are regularly introduced without definition - in the End of History article, the main definition of the term is a quote from Fukuyama that refers to "the end point of mankind's ideological evolution," and then immediately goes into a bit on Marxism, particularly "historical materialism" and the "historical dialectic," as well as some references to Hegel, none of which are explained.
Obviously these things cannot be explained fully in the article, but they need to be dealt with - a sentence or two, just enough to get the reader through to the next concept without totally losing it.
The Derrida article, in its previous form, lacked sections explaining deconstruction and the Paul de Man controversy. These exist in other articles, to be sure, but they're also major concepts to anyone interested in Derrida, and their exclusion is a shocking omission - anyone looking for general information on Derrida would be misinformed if they did not know these two things. I've fixed that, but still - the article has an overwhelming focus on Derrida's interpretations of Heidegger - a fascinating topic on which books can be written, but not the most important information, nor the most understandable to someone who doesn't know a lot about Heidegger - something I will hazard a guess our Heidegger article isn't that helpful about either.
And then there's the Uncertainty Principle, which is a sea of equations of tremendous use to someone versed in physics and mathematics, but of no use to someone who hears the phrase and wants to know what it's all about. Nowhere in the lead paragraphs is the common formulation that "You can never know, with absolute precision, the position and movement of an electron, and in fact the more you know about one, the less you can possibly know about the other." Nowhere. Yes, I know the UP is more complicated than that. And I'm not saying some, maybe even all of those equations shouldn't stay. But I am saying, that needs to be out there, first and foremost.
Too much of the technical and academic writing in the encyclopedia reads like it was written for an MA paper, with the nuance, depth, and qualification that a professor expects from a student. These articles are not written for professors, nor for grad students - they are written for the uninformed. We cannot write for the uninformed in the language we use for experts.
I don't know what can be done about this - particularly because the bloat Jimbo has identified as going on in articles like [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane Fonda]] goes on in these articles as a sea of academics adds a paragraph or two about their pet interest in the subject, until the article has become unmanagable. But we have to do something - simply put, we're a crappy resource on a number of topics that, in order to maintain a wide level of respect, we need to be a good resource on.
A quick approach, I think, is to remember the importance of phrases like "Simply put," "in the popular conception," "at its core," "in layman's terms," and the like - phrases that come before a distillation of ideas. You can qualify these distillations later - "Although this is a simplification of Derrida's thought," or "Although this reading is popular, it is also limited" both spring to mind as the sorts of things that can be said.
But the fact remains, we have apparently completely forgotten the concept of the summary in our writing on Wikipedia.
(And I blame the rush for sources for some of this - I frequently find myself sifting through articles and getting lost in a sea of block quotes from Derrida or Fukuyama. In most cases, if the reader could find Derrida or Fukuyama easy to read and comprehend on their own, they would not be looking them up in an encyclopedia. Citing sources is a tool for referencing and verifying - it cannot interfere with the readability and usability of an article. A meticulously referenced but utterly unreadable article helps nobody.)
-Snowspinner
I remember working on the articles [[reality]], [[truth]], and [[knowledge]], difficult subjects to be sure. What eventually happened was that our philosophical academics decided these subjects were part of [[philosophy]]. Today they are incomprehensible compendiums of philosophical jargon, completely worthless for the ordinary reader.
Fred
On Oct 14, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Snowspinner wrote:
Following somewhat from Jimbo's discussion earlier, a trio of scenarios:
A young student - perhaps in high school - by happenstance hears a lecture on physics. He grasps only a little of it, but what he understands seems exciting. One thing mentioned as very interesting by the lecturer is the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." In a fit of exitement, he goes home and checks Wikipedia to understand this concept.
A freshman is considering majors. He has heard of an English professor who is interesting and hip, and arranges to meet him in his office hours to hear about his class next semester. The professor is doing an intro class on something called "literary theory," and mentions one person in particular - Derrida - as someone who will "blow the student's mind." The student, intrigued, goes to look up Derrida.
A man is finding himself more worried about the current political situation. He is reading the paper more. He happens upon a mention that Bush is not an "End of history" person, a phrase associated in some way with someone named Fukuyama. He goes to Wikipedia, and types in "End of History" to try to understand more about this theory that apparently informs the political discussion.
All three of these people are going to be very, very disappointed. Not because [[Uncertainty principle]], [[Jacques Derrida]], and [[The End of History and the Last Man]] aren't there, or are excessively short, but rather because they are completely incomprehensible to people who are not already familiar with the topics. (And I say this about [[Jacques Derrida]] after spending two hours rewriting the thing)
The problem with all of these articles is that they are not written for generalists. They are written for specialists and semi- specialists. Terms are regularly introduced without definition - in the End of History article, the main definition of the term is a quote from Fukuyama that refers to "the end point of mankind's ideological evolution," and then immediately goes into a bit on Marxism, particularly "historical materialism" and the "historical dialectic," as well as some references to Hegel, none of which are explained.
Obviously these things cannot be explained fully in the article, but they need to be dealt with - a sentence or two, just enough to get the reader through to the next concept without totally losing it.
The Derrida article, in its previous form, lacked sections explaining deconstruction and the Paul de Man controversy. These exist in other articles, to be sure, but they're also major concepts to anyone interested in Derrida, and their exclusion is a shocking omission - anyone looking for general information on Derrida would be misinformed if they did not know these two things. I've fixed that, but still - the article has an overwhelming focus on Derrida's interpretations of Heidegger - a fascinating topic on which books can be written, but not the most important information, nor the most understandable to someone who doesn't know a lot about Heidegger - something I will hazard a guess our Heidegger article isn't that helpful about either.
And then there's the Uncertainty Principle, which is a sea of equations of tremendous use to someone versed in physics and mathematics, but of no use to someone who hears the phrase and wants to know what it's all about. Nowhere in the lead paragraphs is the common formulation that "You can never know, with absolute precision, the position and movement of an electron, and in fact the more you know about one, the less you can possibly know about the other." Nowhere. Yes, I know the UP is more complicated than that. And I'm not saying some, maybe even all of those equations shouldn't stay. But I am saying, that needs to be out there, first and foremost.
Too much of the technical and academic writing in the encyclopedia reads like it was written for an MA paper, with the nuance, depth, and qualification that a professor expects from a student. These articles are not written for professors, nor for grad students - they are written for the uninformed. We cannot write for the uninformed in the language we use for experts.
I don't know what can be done about this - particularly because the bloat Jimbo has identified as going on in articles like [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane Fonda]] goes on in these articles as a sea of academics adds a paragraph or two about their pet interest in the subject, until the article has become unmanagable. But we have to do something - simply put, we're a crappy resource on a number of topics that, in order to maintain a wide level of respect, we need to be a good resource on.
A quick approach, I think, is to remember the importance of phrases like "Simply put," "in the popular conception," "at its core," "in layman's terms," and the like - phrases that come before a distillation of ideas. You can qualify these distillations later - "Although this is a simplification of Derrida's thought," or "Although this reading is popular, it is also limited" both spring to mind as the sorts of things that can be said.
But the fact remains, we have apparently completely forgotten the concept of the summary in our writing on Wikipedia.
(And I blame the rush for sources for some of this - I frequently find myself sifting through articles and getting lost in a sea of block quotes from Derrida or Fukuyama. In most cases, if the reader could find Derrida or Fukuyama easy to read and comprehend on their own, they would not be looking them up in an encyclopedia. Citing sources is a tool for referencing and verifying - it cannot interfere with the readability and usability of an article. A meticulously referenced but utterly unreadable article helps nobody.)
-Snowspinner _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote
I remember working on the articles [[reality]], [[truth]], and [[knowledge]], difficult subjects to be sure. What eventually happened was that our philosophical academics decided these subjects were part of [[philosophy]]. Today they are incomprehensible compendiums of philosophical jargon, completely worthless for the ordinary reader.
[[Reality]] does seem to be a toxic compound of the New Age and the philosophical.
Charles
Snowspinner wrote
All three of these people are going to be very, very disappointed. Not because [[Uncertainty principle]], [[Jacques Derrida]], and [[The End of History and the Last Man]] aren't there, or are excessively short, but rather because they are completely incomprehensible to people who are not already familiar with the topics. (And I say this about [[Jacques Derrida]] after spending two hours rewriting the thing)
Let's talk about Jacques, then.
Sorry to be picky, but you have actually destroyed the short sections after the lead. I had worked quite hard on these. That means that, unlike the favoured style where the reader gets told, told again, then told what they've been told - you think after the lead they should get the full-on biography. Not helpful, in my book.
The Derrida article, in its previous form, lacked sections explaining deconstruction and the Paul de Man controversy.
I'm glad you've not gone overboard on de Man. It's basically gossip, as is the Cambridge degree controversy. The bust-up with Searle could be more illuminating than either (except I don't really have time for Searle ...).
These exist in other articles, to be sure, but they're also major concepts to anyone interested in Derrida, and their exclusion is a shocking omission - anyone looking for general information on Derrida would be misinformed if they did not know these two things.
Right only on the first point, in my view.
<snip>
Too much of the technical and academic writing in the encyclopedia reads like it was written for an MA paper, with the nuance, depth, and qualification that a professor expects from a student. These articles are not written for professors, nor for grad students - they are written for the uninformed. We cannot write for the uninformed in the language we use for experts.
I don't know what can be done about this - particularly because the bloat Jimbo has identified as going on in articles like [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane Fonda]] goes on in these articles as a sea of academics adds a paragraph or two about their pet interest in the subject, until the article has become unmanagable.
Edit.
Part of the trouble with le feu Jacques is that User:Buffyg is camped on the doorstep saying what can be said how. Now, Jacques has undoubtedly been the target of slurs. Slurs have no place in WP. Ergo, the article needs to be closely watched. I pointed out long ago that the French article on Derrida was rather different. But what do they know? (Actually, not in such good shape right now.)
<snip>
You can qualify these distillations later - "Although this is a simplification of Derrida's thought," or "Although this reading is popular, it is also limited" both spring to mind as the sorts of things that can be said.
Yeah, but try shoehorning them in and you get a knee in the academic groin ...
<snip>
Citing sources is a tool for referencing and verifying - it cannot interfere with the readability and usability of an article. A meticulously referenced but utterly unreadable article helps nobody.)
Now you're talking. Agree 100% on that.
Charles
On Oct 14, 2005, at 5:18 PM, charles matthews wrote:
I'm glad you've not gone overboard on de Man. It's basically gossip, as is the Cambridge degree controversy. The bust-up with Searle could be more illuminating than either (except I don't really have time for Searle ...).
Not going to go into the bulk of this here, but I think this is the heart of the disagreement here - yes, the Cambridge degree and the de Man controversy are, from an academic perspective, largely gossip. But they're gossip that has generated a tremendous amount of generalist interest, and it's irresponsible of us not to focus on them.
I could deal with seeing a lot of biography trimmed out, but the philosophical sections were, honestly, incomprehensible garbage, particularly the Heideggarian sections. The biography section is somewhat superfluous, in that the biography of Derrida is not really the most interesting pint. But I do think a chronological account of his work needs to go towards the front of the article, along with a summary of deconstruction, and then some major controversies. I think the major controversies - de Man and Cambridge - are the sort of thing that, when described in an NPOV manner, make the critics look shoddy. I also think that they're matters that you just kind of have to know about Derrida - even if they're not that important to a mainstream academic understanding of Derrida, they're so well known. As flawed as the NYT obituary was, it does need to be grappled with as the mainstream understanding of Derrida, and if that voice is silenced, that's bad NPOV writing. Better to let the popular understanding weigh in, and then include information on where its limitations are.
-Snowspinner
Snowspinner wrote
Not going to go into the bulk of this here, but I think this is the heart of the disagreement here - yes, the Cambridge degree and the de Man controversy are, from an academic perspective, largely gossip. But they're gossip that has generated a tremendous amount of generalist interest, and it's irresponsible of us not to focus on them.
Agenda slip! Agenda slip!
I mean, 'populist' is _not_ necessarily well written. Jimbo's point about the Gates and Fonda articles was not that that they were arcane and highbrow, but that they were done in such a poor style that you wouldn't want to tread in them, let alone read in them.
_Just adding in 'what everyone knows'_ to an article does not make for good writing. This is entirely clear with celebs. It is trivially easy to research stuff about high-profile people and munge it all together. That's the enemy here.
So, I think 'irresponsible' is off-beam here.
Charles
On Oct 15, 2005, at 4:22 AM, charles matthews wrote:
I mean, 'populist' is _not_ necessarily well written. Jimbo's point about the Gates and Fonda articles was not that that they were arcane and highbrow, but that they were done in such a poor style that you wouldn't want to tread in them, let alone read in them.
Which is why I didn't simply append this to Jimbo's discussion - it is a separate one. This isn't just a matter of writing style - it' a matter of focus. As a general encyclopedia, we need to be targetted at a general audience - that means that, if nothing else, what the New York Times identifies as major events in someone's life are, for our purposes, major events. I'm not saying those are the only ones worth paying attention to - but then, I'd support an article on each of Derrida's publications, so I'm not worried, in the big picture, about crowding out the academic stuff. I don't think Cambridge and de Man should be the main focus of the article at all. I do think they each need their little sections, and that it would be irresponsible of us to exclude them.
-Snowspinner
Snowspinner wrote
Which is why I didn't simply append this to Jimbo's discussion - it is a separate one.
Don't get me wrong - I welcome a chance to talk about content on this list.
So far I have marked my card as
-J. Wales - celeb articles can be awash with facts and factoids but not add up to a good read at all -D. Gerard - The Economist's style rocks
This isn't just a matter of writing style - it' a matter of focus. As a general encyclopedia, we need to be targetted at a general audience - that means that, if nothing else, what the New York Times identifies as major events in someone's life are, for our purposes, major events.
POV! Sorry, for Derrida, some of us really don't accept that he was born again in Yale. That is, he is a European philosopher (the French WP defines him as 'major French philosopher') and I'll take the [[Vincent Descombes]] view over those unreliable rascals at the NYT any day.
I'm not saying those are the only ones worth paying attention to - but then, I'd support an article on each of Derrida's publications, so I'm not worried, in the big picture, about crowding out the academic stuff. I don't think Cambridge and de Man should be the main focus of the article at all. I do think they each need their little sections, and that it would be irresponsible of us to exclude them.
Well, I actually know some of the Cambridge non placets. Do they know from Derrida? Actually, what they know is what they hate about deconstruction. Which is partly disowned by Derrida himself.
Anyway, much of the problem has been caused by the article being over-long, and not too much fun to edit. Perhaps things will improve.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
This isn't just a matter of writing style - it' a matter of focus. As a general encyclopedia, we need to be targetted at a general audience - that means that, if nothing else, what the New York Times identifies as major events in someone's life are, for our purposes, major events.
POV! Sorry, for Derrida, some of us really don't accept that he was born again in Yale. That is, he is a European philosopher (the French WP defines him as 'major French philosopher') and I'll take the [[Vincent Descombes]] view over those unreliable rascals at the NYT any day.
That's certainly an opinion which can be represented. But that presented by the NYT is also a major mainstream opinion on the subject. It can of course be said that European Derrida scholars think the NYT sucks, but simply pretending the NYT's view does not exist and is not held by millions of other people is strange.
-Mark
Delirium wrote
That's certainly an opinion which can be represented. But that presented by the NYT is also a major mainstream opinion on the subject. It can of course be said that European Derrida scholars think the NYT sucks, but simply pretending the NYT's view does not exist and is not held by millions of other people is strange.
Point 1 would be that we're talking here about arcane philosophy (and a particularly self-entrenched philosopher), not current affairs. So even one of the major newspapers will only be as good as their hired gun who writes about it. Reporters picking up phones are not going to cut it.
Point 2 is that the NYT obituary probably did aim, as obits do, to be judicious about the newsworthy bits of Derrida. Snowspinner, I take it, likes the idea that we'd do the same. But if the NYT blew it ... it became fairly worthless as an exercise.
Point 3: would be that the article itself probably got into defensive posture when Derrida died, and there was a sudden rush of people essentially defacing it. Yes, it needs to move on, now. Things written on the talk page about being true to his memory or not are rather telling, about that. Wiki is a bit llike one of those materials with memory, though.
Charles
On 10/15/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 2005, at 4:22 AM, charles matthews wrote:
I mean, 'populist' is _not_ necessarily well written. Jimbo's point about the Gates and Fonda articles was not that that they were arcane and highbrow, but that they were done in such a poor style that you wouldn't want to tread in them, let alone read in them.
Which is why I didn't simply append this to Jimbo's discussion - it is a separate one. This isn't just a matter of writing style - it' a matter of focus. As a general encyclopedia, we need to be targetted at a general audience - that means that, if nothing else, what the New York Times identifies as major events in someone's life are, for our purposes, major events. I'm not saying those are the only ones worth paying attention to - but then, I'd support an article on each of Derrida's publications, so I'm not worried, in the big picture, about crowding out the academic stuff. I don't think Cambridge and de Man should be the main focus of the article at all. I do think they each need their little sections, and that it would be irresponsible of us to exclude them.
Is Wikipedia simply a general encyclopedia? I always thought it was more than that. I think the goal is really to include general information and specific information, and let the user navigate easily between the two. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. It's an interesting question.
-Snowspinner
Anthony
On 10/15/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Is Wikipedia simply a general encyclopedia? I always thought it was more than that. I think the goal is really to include general information and specific information, and let the user navigate easily between the two. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. It's an interesting question.
There's room for both. Since wiki is not paper (as we are so often told) there is plenty of room for general articles on general subjects, and specific articles on specific subjects. As a reader, I would probably expect (and want) to find the most general information first, and have the option of looking at specific information if I should so desire. Confronting readers with all available information at once just gets confusing.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
"Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote in message news:f30e42de0510150615x4cf575d0ld1a888b4e65ecb59@mail.gmail.com... On 10/15/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Is Wikipedia simply a general encyclopedia? I always thought it was more than that. I think the goal is really to include general information and specific information, and let the user navigate easily between the two. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. It's an interesting question.
There's room for both. Since wiki is not paper (as we are so often told) there is plenty of room for general articles on general subjects, and specific articles on specific subjects. As a reader, I would probably expect (and want) to find the most general information first, and have the option of looking at specific information if I should so desire. Confronting readers with all available information at once just gets confusing.
I agree with the above, with the proviso (for the avoidance of doubt) that we should not avoid providing specific information in fear of confusing a reader who stumbles upon an article on some arcane subject. We should instead provide clear and obvious pointers to alternative articles which present a simplified view.
Sometimes, it might be suitable to combine the simplified and detailed views into one article, but often that merely makes it too long and complex for ease of navigation.
On the other hand there is the perennial problem of having an article on some abstruse subject nominated for deletion on the grounds that the person who stumbled upon it can't understand it, so it must be "non-notable". We'll just have to deal with that as it arises :-)
On 10/14/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
As flawed as the NYT obituary was, it does need to be grappled with as the mainstream understanding of Derrida, and if that voice is silenced, that's bad NPOV writing. Better to let the popular understanding weigh in, and then include information on where its limitations are.
Well, and frankly, if the New York Times does a better job of covering this aspect than our encyclopedia, then that's a problem. There's no reason our coverage of it couldn't include a line along the lines of, "Most Derrida scholars do not find this to be relevant to the use of his philosophy," or something like that.
What all of these articles need is more attention from people who are less concerned with being specialists in the fields they represent, and understand very clearly what the level of detail and specificity in an encyclopedia should be (versus an academic paper or even an academic lecture). Where these hypothetical legions live, or how to utilize them effectively, I have no idea.
FF