I have no idea why Irismeister is sending this to me in particular. Forwarded without comment, hard as it was to resist.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irismeister danjipa@freemail.iris-ward.com Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:54:56 GMT Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
As per your choice of banning me for one year, and our "agreement" concerning such an unwise move, please find attached the text of my first legal action. This was started during the day of my ban. And the fronts of the huge legal battle that has started against your dictatorship are multiple and wide.
Ten individual FTC Consumer Complaint Forms have been filed on behalf of prominent public figures nominally, against each of the offending sysops on the Wikipedia list.
You'll find the scope of the problem by checking the legal records and papers with an attorney of law of your choice, as per rn.ftc.gov policies, or only by waiting patiently for legal papers coming in your own physical mailbox. You will be informed individually and in due time of your rights and of your "space of legal opportunity" with each of the following move in the list.
Let us say, safely, that a lesson in modesty will be gently and legally taught. You no longer have the opportunity to stop the legal action because of your vote on my ban. Finally, a word of wisdom: let us hope that, to the very least, you'll think twice before your next movement as an admin, sysop, or only editor.
We are all real human beings, David, not products of your imagination :O)
Wikipedia.org, a product of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. promotes media violence, violence as a mean to settle intellectual dispute, and violence as a culture - notably in the form of libel, abuse of sysop power, censorship and overt insults. Moreover, Wikipedia.org, a product of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. promotes disinformation, pornography and disgraceful displays of pornographic images under cover from arcane "company policies". Perhaps the long experience of its founder, Mr Jimbo Wales, a former CEO of Bomis and a leader of pornographic industry, explains such disgraceful, offensive company policies. As an author, an editor, user and contributor, and a medical doctor myself, I have repeteadly and publicly informed the founder, sysops, administrators and editors of Wikipedia of their enormous bias, media violence, promotion of disinformation, promotion of media violence, libel and unjustified public insults - all to no avail. My contributions have been censored, and traces! of public dispute have been wiped out. They are available as track records in public repositories, at trusted third parties, complete with the list, addresses and legal files and profiles of offenders.
Dr Dan Jâpa, MD, PhD Second irismeister, danjipa@freemail.iris-ward.com
On Monday, November 29, 2004 11:45 AM, wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org <> wrote:
I have no idea why Irismeister is sending this to me in particular. Forwarded without comment, hard as it was to resist.
[Snip Irismeister screed]
Welcome to the club; several of the Arbitration Committee, myself included, have received similar^Walmost exactly identical such laughable nonsense. I'm paying it no heed, howe'er, except to raise a brief smile.
Yours,
I've has about ten in all over the past year, I got the last one, an binned it as i did with all the others. ~~~~
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:47:42 -0000, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
On Monday, November 29, 2004 11:45 AM, wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org <> wrote:
I have no idea why Irismeister is sending this to me in particular. Forwarded without comment, hard as it was to resist.
[Snip Irismeister screed]
Welcome to the club; several of the Arbitration Committee, myself included, have received similar^Walmost exactly identical such laughable nonsense. I'm paying it no heed, howe'er, except to raise a brief smile.
Yours,
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Mail: james@jdforrester.org | jon@eh.org | csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How does he plan on getting your mailing addresses?
RickK
"James D. Forrester" james@jdforrester.org wrote: On Monday, November 29, 2004 11:45 AM, wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org <> wrote:
I have no idea why Irismeister is sending this to me in particular. Forwarded without comment, hard as it was to resist.
[Snip Irismeister screed]
Welcome to the club; several of the Arbitration Committee, myself included, have received similar^Walmost exactly identical such laughable nonsense. I'm paying it no heed, howe'er, except to raise a brief smile.
Yours,
On Monday, November 29, 2004 18:44, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
[Snip]
How does he plan on getting your mailing addresses?
RickK
No idea, though there are several ways that I can think of (including what must surely be the most obvious, given that I have a domain). However, despite some odd decisions by some US courts, I somewhat doubt that the US Government's FTC branch's jurisdiction extends quite so far without some level of serious sanity checking.
Yours,
The sanity of this governmental agency is disputed.
-Snowspinner
On Nov 30, 2004, at 7:57 AM, James D. Forrester wrote:
On Monday, November 29, 2004 18:44, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
[Snip]
How does he plan on getting your mailing addresses?
RickK
No idea, though there are several ways that I can think of (including what must surely be the most obvious, given that I have a domain). However, despite some odd decisions by some US courts, I somewhat doubt that the US Government's FTC branch's jurisdiction extends quite so far without some level of serious sanity checking.
Yours,
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Mail: james@jdforrester.org | jon@eh.org | csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James D. Forrester wrote:
despite some odd decisions by some US courts, I somewhat doubt that the US Government's FTC branch's jurisdiction extends quite so far without some level of serious sanity checking.
Indeed, no, the FTC deals in market regulation. Any supposed wrongdoing by a non-profit that engages in no trade or commerce to speak of would be of interest primarily to the IRS and DOJ or state-level agencies.
Like myself, the FTC would probably be wondering what bizarre idea Irismeister has of what the "T" in "FTC" stands for.
As we become one of the central institutions of global culture, people justifiably feel that their "take" on things ought to be included. Iridology is Irismeister's thing. Despite our banning of Iridology for sustained POV editing and edit warring over the matter we continue to have an article on Iridology which begins as follows:
"'''Iridology''' is a form of [[alternative medicine]] in which patterns, colors and other characteristics of stromal fibers of the [[Iris (anatomy)|iris]] are examined for information about a patient's health. Practitioners match their observations to ''iris charts'' which divide the iris into many zones believed to correspond to specific parts of the [[human body]]. Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and a patient's state of health."
What it doesn't say, as Irismeister would have it, is that iridology is the best thing since sliced bread. He did not achieve his goal of dominating the article with his viewpoint which, while represented, takes its place alongside extensive criticisms. Now, as a professional iridologist, he has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
Fred
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com Reply-To: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:45:26 +0000 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: email from Irismeister
I have no idea why Irismeister is sending this to me in particular. Forwarded without comment, hard as it was to resist.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irismeister danjipa@freemail.iris-ward.com Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:54:56 GMT Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
As per your choice of banning me for one year, and our "agreement" concerning such an unwise move, please find attached the text of my first legal action. This was started during the day of my ban. And the fronts of the huge legal battle that has started against your dictatorship are multiple and wide.
Ten individual FTC Consumer Complaint Forms have been filed on behalf of prominent public figures nominally, against each of the offending sysops on the Wikipedia list.
What is it Socrates said? "The opinion of the many is not important. It is the opinion of the experts in their field which is important." - Obviously he originally said this in Greek, but I did get a native Greek speaker to translate the original sentence for me. It flows better in Greek though.
Why am I quoting this? What the professional iridologist an expert in their field? I don't know this either, but if he was, I would suggest his opinion should probably outweigh that of the majority of non-experts in this field. The question remains: was the debate between experts and experts, or experts and non-experts?
Rebroad
Fred Bauder wrote:
As we become one of the central institutions of global culture, people justifiably feel that their "take" on things ought to be included. Iridology is Irismeister's thing. Despite our banning of Iridology for sustained POV editing and edit warring over the matter we continue to have an article on Iridology which begins as follows:
"'''Iridology''' is a form of [[alternative medicine]] in which patterns, colors and other characteristics of stromal fibers of the [[Iris (anatomy)|iris]] are examined for information about a patient's health. Practitioners match their observations to ''iris charts'' which divide the iris into many zones believed to correspond to specific parts of the [[human body]]. Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and a patient's state of health."
What it doesn't say, as Irismeister would have it, is that iridology is the best thing since sliced bread. He did not achieve his goal of dominating the article with his viewpoint which, while represented, takes its place alongside extensive criticisms. Now, as a professional iridologist, he has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
Fred
R E Broadley (20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk) [041130 17:41]:
Why am I quoting this? What the professional iridologist an expert in their field? I don't know this either, but if he was, I would suggest his opinion should probably outweigh that of the majority of non-experts in this field. The question remains: was the debate between experts and experts, or experts and non-experts?
Irismeister was in fact banned for repeated bad behaviour and personal attacks. The idea being that there are in fact enough knowledgeable people who don't behave badly that there's absolutely no reason to put up with the ones who do. Knowledge is not an excuse for behaving obnoxiously. (It can be remarkably difficult getting this across to some.)
- d.
R E Broadley stated for the record:
What is it Socrates said? "The opinion of the many is not important. It is the opinion of the experts in their field which is important." - Obviously he originally said this in Greek, but I did get a native Greek speaker to translate the original sentence for me. It flows better in Greek though.
Just because something is said in Greek doesn't make it right.
Why am I quoting this? What the professional iridologist an expert in their field? I don't know this either, but if he was, I would suggest his opinion should probably outweigh that of the majority of non-experts in this field. The question remains: was the debate between experts and experts, or experts and non-experts?
The debate was between encyclopedists and a loon who explicitly refused to comply with our rules.
ROFLMAO
Rebroad - take my advice - take a few minutes to read up on what you talk about before you voice your opinion otherwise you risk being thought a troll.
Theresa
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:50:49 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
What is it Socrates said? "The opinion of the many is not important. It is the opinion of the experts in their field which is important." - Obviously he originally said this in Greek, but I did get a native Greek speaker to translate the original sentence for me. It flows better in Greek though.
Why am I quoting this? What the professional iridologist an expert in their field? I don't know this either, but if he was, I would suggest his opinion should probably outweigh that of the majority of non-experts in this field. The question remains: was the debate between experts and experts, or experts and non-experts?
Rebroad
Fred Bauder wrote:
As we become one of the central institutions of global culture, people justifiably feel that their "take" on things ought to be included. Iridology is Irismeister's thing. Despite our banning of Iridology for sustained POV editing and edit warring over the matter we continue to have an article on Iridology which begins as follows:
"'''Iridology''' is a form of [[alternative medicine]] in which patterns, colors and other characteristics of stromal fibers of the [[Iris (anatomy)|iris]] are examined for information about a patient's health. Practitioners match their observations to ''iris charts'' which divide the iris into many zones believed to correspond to specific parts of the [[human body]]. Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and a patient's state of health."
What it doesn't say, as Irismeister would have it, is that iridology is the best thing since sliced bread. He did not achieve his goal of dominating the article with his viewpoint which, while represented, takes its place alongside extensive criticisms. Now, as a professional iridologist, he has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
R E Broadley wrote:
What is it Socrates said? "The opinion of the many is not important. It is the opinion of the experts in their field which is important." - Obviously he originally said this in Greek, but I did get a native Greek speaker to translate the original sentence for me. It flows better in Greek though.
Why am I quoting this? What the professional iridologist an expert in their field? I don't know this either, but if he was, I would suggest his opinion should probably outweigh that of the majority of non-experts in this field. The question remains: was the debate between experts and experts, or experts and non-experts?
Hey nice flame-bait, I like. Three bites in as many minutes. Keep up the good work Rebroad.
-- Tim Starling
R E Broadley wrote:
What is it Socrates said? "The opinion of the many is not important. It is the opinion of the experts in their field which is important." - Obviously he originally said this in Greek, but I did get a native Greek speaker to translate the original sentence for me. It flows better in Greek though.
Why am I quoting this? What the professional iridologist an expert in their field? I don't know this either, but if he was, I would suggest his opinion should probably outweigh that of the majority of non-experts in this field. The question remains: was the debate between experts and experts, or experts and non-experts?
If we accept only the opinion of experts we end up putting ourselves into an elitist box, and that strikes me as very un-wiki. Ultimately, the facts should speak for themselves without regard to who is expressing them.
Proponents of mainstream "science" ofte go to great effort to discredit ideas which appear contrary to their own, and in doing so can manage to make themselves look even more foolish than the people whom they are confronting.. It is not necessary to pepper an article through with "they believe . . " or "the discredited idea that . . .", etc. The first burden of proof in a scientific concept rests with the proponents. If they fail to carry that burden then there is nothing there for the opponents to disprove. For many of these articles a simple piece of boilerplate, perhaps as the second paragraph, should be enough to satisfy NPOV. It could read, "The subject of this article is considered unproven by the wider scientific community. Users relying on the information in this article do so at their own risk."
Keeping things simple can save a lot of flames. Ec
Ray
Thanks for your reply. I've recently heard that one of the things that Wikipedia is not is that it is not a place for "original research". I accepted this once I heard it, but your last sentence now has me wondering if the opinion on this is split.
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
Cheers, Ed
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If we accept only the opinion of experts we end up putting ourselves into an elitist box, and that strikes me as very un-wiki. Ultimately, the facts should speak for themselves without regard to who is expressing them.
Proponents of mainstream "science" ofte go to great effort to discredit ideas which appear contrary to their own, and in doing so can manage to make themselves look even more foolish than the people whom they are confronting.. It is not necessary to pepper an article through with "they believe . . " or "the discredited idea that . . .", etc. The first burden of proof in a scientific concept rests with the proponents. If they fail to carry that burden then there is nothing there for the opponents to disprove. For many of these articles a simple piece of boilerplate, perhaps as the second paragraph, should be enough to satisfy NPOV. It could read, "The subject of this article is considered unproven by the wider scientific community. Users relying on the information in this article do so at their own risk."
Keeping things simple can save a lot of flames. Ec
Original research is banned. Ec may disagree with that policy, and he's welcome to propose a change to that, but that's how the policy stands at present
-- ambi
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Ray
Thanks for your reply. I've recently heard that one of the things that Wikipedia is not is that it is not a place for "original research". I accepted this once I heard it, but your last sentence now has me wondering if the opinion on this is split.
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
Cheers, Ed
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If we accept only the opinion of experts we end up putting ourselves into an elitist box, and that strikes me as very un-wiki. Ultimately, the facts should speak for themselves without regard to who is expressing them.
Proponents of mainstream "science" ofte go to great effort to discredit ideas which appear contrary to their own, and in doing so can manage to make themselves look even more foolish than the people whom they are confronting.. It is not necessary to pepper an article through with "they believe . . " or "the discredited idea that . . .", etc. The first burden of proof in a scientific concept rests with the proponents. If they fail to carry that burden then there is nothing there for the opponents to disprove. For many of these articles a simple piece of boilerplate, perhaps as the second paragraph, should be enough to satisfy NPOV. It could read, "The subject of this article is considered unproven by the wider scientific community. Users relying on the information in this article do so at their own risk."
Keeping things simple can save a lot of flames. Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And where do you get the idea that I was talking about "original research"? Ec
Rebecca wrote:
Original research is banned. Ec may disagree with that policy, and he's welcome to propose a change to that, but that's how the policy stands at present
-- ambi
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Ray
Thanks for your reply. I've recently heard that one of the things that Wikipedia is not is that it is not a place for "original research". I accepted this once I heard it, but your last sentence now has me wondering if the opinion on this is split.
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
Cheers, Ed
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If we accept only the opinion of experts we end up putting ourselves into an elitist box, and that strikes me as very un-wiki. Ultimately, the facts should speak for themselves without regard to who is expressing them.
Proponents of mainstream "science" ofte go to great effort to discredit ideas which appear contrary to their own, and in doing so can manage to make themselves look even more foolish than the people whom they are confronting.. It is not necessary to pepper an article through with "they believe . . " or "the discredited idea that . . .", etc. The first burden of proof in a scientific concept rests with the proponents. If they fail to carry that burden then there is nothing there for the opponents to disprove. For many of these articles a simple piece of boilerplate, perhaps as the second paragraph, should be enough to satisfy NPOV. It could read, "The subject of this article is considered unproven by the wider scientific community. Users relying on the information in this article do so at their own risk."
Keeping things simple can save a lot of flames. Ec
As i understand it, the"no origanal research" means tha you cant just post some idea you have into wikipedia, however if a wikipedian was to post some idea to a website or in a journal or whatever and then some other wikimedian (it is important that it is not the same wikimedian as the one who did the research because that would be self promotion) includes that POV in an article (so long as it is appropriate, labled as just one POV of many, and has where appropriate warnings that the content may be suspect quality) then it is fine.
If you think about it, everything in every scientific journal is origanal research. It is fine for wikimedia to quote these, but not for wikimedia to be thier origanal publisher.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]] rjs
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Ray
Thanks for your reply. I've recently heard that one of the things that Wikipedia is not is that it is not a place for "original research". I accepted this once I heard it, but your last sentence now has me wondering if the opinion on this is split.
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
Cheers, Ed
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If we accept only the opinion of experts we end up putting ourselves into an elitist box, and that strikes me as very un-wiki. Ultimately, the facts should speak for themselves without regard to who is expressing them.
Proponents of mainstream "science" ofte go to great effort to discredit ideas which appear contrary to their own, and in doing so can manage to make themselves look even more foolish than the people whom they are confronting.. It is not necessary to pepper an article through with "they believe . . " or "the discredited idea that . . .", etc. The first burden of proof in a scientific concept rests with the proponents. If they fail to carry that burden then there is nothing there for the opponents to disprove. For many of these articles a simple piece of boilerplate, perhaps as the second paragraph, should be enough to satisfy NPOV. It could read, "The subject of this article is considered unproven by the wider scientific community. Users relying on the information in this article do so at their own risk."
Keeping things simple can save a lot of flames. Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
'Unproven by the wider scientific community' is not the same thing. Crackpot theories can, and should, be documented on Wikipedia - as long as you're reporting in a NPOV way about someone ELSE's crackpot theory that's documented -- they've written a book, a paper, a website, whatever. And as long as they have an audience bigger than just themselves, anyway.
Wikipedia is not the place to post your OWN crackpot theories, odd philosophy, or whatever.
Basically, an encyclopedia is supposed to be a secondary source.
-Matt
exactly was i was trying to say, but put more elegently.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]] rjs
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:28:23 -0800, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
'Unproven by the wider scientific community' is not the same thing. Crackpot theories can, and should, be documented on Wikipedia - as long as you're reporting in a NPOV way about someone ELSE's crackpot theory that's documented -- they've written a book, a paper, a website, whatever. And as long as they have an audience bigger than just themselves, anyway.
Wikipedia is not the place to post your OWN crackpot theories, odd philosophy, or whatever.
Basically, an encyclopedia is supposed to be a secondary source.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah, but the field in question is diagnosis of disease, of which iridology is just one approach. Almost all experts in diagnosis of disease dismiss iridology.
Fred
From: R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:50:49 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Opinion of the many?
What is it Socrates said? "The opinion of the many is not important. It is the opinion of the experts in their field which is important." - Obviously he originally said this in Greek, but I did get a native Greek speaker to translate the original sentence for me. It flows better in Greek though.
Why am I quoting this? What the professional iridologist an expert in their field? I don't know this either, but if he was, I would suggest his opinion should probably outweigh that of the majority of non-experts in this field. The question remains: was the debate between experts and experts, or experts and non-experts?
Rebroad
Fred Bauder wrote:
As we become one of the central institutions of global culture, people justifiably feel that their "take" on things ought to be included. Iridology is Irismeister's thing. Despite our banning of Iridology for sustained POV editing and edit warring over the matter we continue to have an article on Iridology which begins as follows:
"'''Iridology''' is a form of [[alternative medicine]] in which patterns, colors and other characteristics of stromal fibers of the [[Iris (anatomy)|iris]] are examined for information about a patient's health. Practitioners match their observations to ''iris charts'' which divide the iris into many zones believed to correspond to specific parts of the [[human body]]. Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and a patient's state of health."
What it doesn't say, as Irismeister would have it, is that iridology is the best thing since sliced bread. He did not achieve his goal of dominating the article with his viewpoint which, while represented, takes its place alongside extensive criticisms. Now, as a professional iridologist, he has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Ah, but the field in question is diagnosis of disease, of which iridology is just one approach. Almost all experts in diagnosis of disease dismiss iridology.
This defining of fields is actually an interesting issue that is fairly broad. The one I'm particularly interested in is "mental illness". According to some experts, this belongs within the field "philosophy of mind"; according to other experts, it belongs within the field "psychiatry"; and according to still other experts, it belongs within the field "psychology".
I would caution in general being too rabidly in favor of the scientific establishment (as represented by "experts"), as they seem to make quite a lot of significant errors. If Wikipedia had existed in the 19th century, I would hope we would have covered the debate over racial differences from all sides, rather than strongly taking the "racial science" viewpoint and dismissing other viewpoints as "unscientific". A similar issue might have arisen in the 1930s, when the medical establishment was firmly in favor of systematic forced sterilization of "undesirables", but quite a lot of non-doctors were firmly against it (the New England Journal of Medicine's editorial board even lamented that the US was too religious to be as scientifically progressive as Nazi Germany).
Of course, perhaps that was in the past and science is no longer biased, but as a PhD student in a scientific field who sees the sort of politics and shenanigans that go into deciding what papers get accepted for publication in major journals and conferences, I wouldn't put money on it.
-Mark
Moreover, Wikipedia.org, a product of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. promotes disinformation, pornography and disgraceful displays of pornographic images under cover from arcane "company policies". Perhaps the long experience of its founder, Mr Jimbo Wales, a former CEO of Bomis and a leader of pornographic industry, explains such disgraceful, offensive company policies.
pardon? wikiporn? I must be working in the wrong parts of the 'pedia. Or maybe its all so strange and kinky that i dont realise its a giant database of porn that im editing. Poor me, under the illusion that it was an encyclopedia.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]] rjs
Robin Shannon stated for the record:
pardon? wikiporn? I must be working in the wrong parts of the 'pedia. Or maybe its all so strange and kinky that i dont realise its a giant database of porn that im editing. Poor me, under the illusion that it was an encyclopedia.
/me prefers non-NPOV porn.
On 29 Nov 2004, at 23:10, Robin Shannon wrote:
Moreover, Wikipedia.org, a product of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. promotes disinformation, pornography and disgraceful displays of pornographic images under cover from arcane "company policies". Perhaps the long experience of its founder, Mr Jimbo Wales, a former CEO of Bomis and a leader of pornographic industry, explains such disgraceful, offensive company policies.
pardon? wikiporn? I must be working in the wrong parts of the 'pedia. Or maybe its all so strange and kinky that i dont realise its a giant database of porn that im editing. Poor me, under the illusion that it was an encyclopedia.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]] rjs
The Bellman --
Dangerously, dangerously, there's actually a ''residual'' level of half-truth in what he's writing there -- it's not actually true, but it's not entirely made up either: there are some facts which, if sufficiently stretched and distorted, can be presented by people as disgruntled as irismeister in the above way. Don't get me wrong: I don't agree with irismeister's words. I do however think we should be aware of the full facts, because ignorance of them would make us MORE vulnerable:
* It is true that our relatively liberal standards concerning reporting on controversial sex-related issues could be regarded as "promoting pornography" by some people. : For example: ** The [[Gag (BSDM)]] article, complete with pictures as of this writing, was recently listed on "Do you know..." and as such was recently featured on the title page: :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_%28BDSM%29 :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions ** The [[List of sex positions]] could also be seen as "pornographic" by sufficiently stuffy folks. :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions (NB: Love the in-jokes on the initial big versions of the pictures. Eg. Harry Potter... or Asimov... WHAAHAHAHA! :D ) : The definition of "porn" is rather muddied -- eye of the (perving) beholder, I dare say. If you're getting excited "like that" over it, then it's probably porn to you. Problem is, as fetishists will tell you, all kinds of everyday objects may be porn to some people. Not that I think we should censor ourselves one bit because of such things.
* It is also true that [[Bomis]], which among other things "sells erotic images over the Internet", hosted/supported (and still hosts and supports?) Wikipedia, and that Jimbo "is the majority owner of Bomis" (quoted from [[en:Bomis]]). I've never actually bothered finding out the full story, so I can't tell you lots here. If more clarification is desired, Jimbo himself may be the man to ask. (Yea, I ''could'' probably take out a Bomis subscription and check if ''I'' regard Bomis' content as "porn", but, ohm, err... whatever.)
I wouldn't see the merit in replying to irismeister, but again, it's probably better to be aware, in case such allegations were to hit us from other parties -- which they probably will, sooner or later. In the meantime, maybe I, too, will get back to actual encyclopedia-writing... ;-)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com