Last week a Citizendium participant sent out this message on h-afro-am:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-afro-am&mont...
The whole thing is worth reading, but the gist of it is this paragraph:
"I am withdrawing from Citizendium because of the racist and sexist policy put in place by Larry Sanger, who claims that the disciplines of Ethnic Studies and Gender Studies do not belong in the list of top level categories in Citizendium, or as individual categories at all. Sanger has unilaterally decided that all race and gender topics should be split up under traditional disciplinary headings, so that there will be, for example, a sub-group of "African American Literature," and "African American History," but no category -- at any level -- in African American studies, and he embraces the same tactic of fragmenting other Ethnic Studies and Gender Studies. The fact that his broad strokes of exclusion primarily effect women and minority scholars does not seem to matter to him."
I'm interested to know the reactions of the Wikipedians on this list who've been participating in Citizendium. This persistence of this kind of thing, especially entrenched at the policy level, would probably spell the doom of Citizendium's long-term prospects (which would be unfortunate in my view).
-Sage
What is Citizendium?
On 1/16/07, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Last week a Citizendium participant sent out this message on h-afro-am:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-afro-am&mont...
The whole thing is worth reading, but the gist of it is this paragraph:
"I am withdrawing from Citizendium because of the racist and sexist policy put in place by Larry Sanger, who claims that the disciplines of Ethnic Studies and Gender Studies do not belong in the list of top level categories in Citizendium, or as individual categories at all. Sanger has unilaterally decided that all race and gender topics should be split up under traditional disciplinary headings, so that there will be, for example, a sub-group of "African American Literature," and "African American History," but no category -- at any level -- in African American studies, and he embraces the same tactic of fragmenting other Ethnic Studies and Gender Studies. The fact that his broad strokes of exclusion primarily effect women and minority scholars does not seem to matter to him."
I'm interested to know the reactions of the Wikipedians on this list who've been participating in Citizendium. This persistence of this kind of thing, especially entrenched at the policy level, would probably spell the doom of Citizendium's long-term prospects (which would be unfortunate in my view).
-Sage
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nevermind, I read their site.
On 1/16/07, · Firefoxman enwpmail@gmail.com wrote:
What is Citizendium?
On 1/16/07, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Last week a Citizendium participant sent out this message on h-afro-am:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-afro-am&mont...
The whole thing is worth reading, but the gist of it is this paragraph:
"I am withdrawing from Citizendium because of the racist and sexist policy put in place by Larry Sanger, who claims that the disciplines of Ethnic Studies and Gender Studies do not belong in the list of top level categories in Citizendium, or as individual categories at all. Sanger has unilaterally decided that all race and gender topics should be split up under traditional disciplinary headings, so that there will be, for example, a sub-group of "African American Literature," and "African American History," but no category -- at any level -- in African American studies, and he embraces the same tactic of fragmenting other Ethnic Studies and Gender Studies. The fact that his broad strokes of exclusion primarily effect women and minority scholars does not seem to matter to him."
I'm interested to know the reactions of the Wikipedians on this list who've been participating in Citizendium. This persistence of this kind of thing, especially entrenched at the policy level, would probably spell the doom of Citizendium's long-term prospects (which would be unfortunate in my view).
-Sage
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Firefoxman
On 1/16/07, · Firefoxman enwpmail@gmail.com wrote:
What is Citizendium?
Larry Sanger's fifth yet-to-be-launched attempt to let someone else write an encyclopedia.
If it is a success, I will call myself co-founder of it :)
Mathias
On 1/16/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/16/07, · Firefoxman enwpmail@gmail.com wrote:
What is Citizendium?
Larry Sanger's fifth yet-to-be-launched attempt to let someone else write an encyclopedia.
Fifth? I know about Nupedia, Wikipedia, one whose name I can't remember, and Citizendium, but what one am I missing?
On 1/17/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
Fifth? I know about Nupedia, Wikipedia, one whose name I can't remember, and Citizendium, but what one am I missing?
Encyclopedia of Earth and "Digital Universe Encyclopedia".
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On 1/17/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
Fifth? I know about Nupedia, Wikipedia, one whose name I can't remember, and Citizendium, but what one am I missing?
Encyclopedia of Earth and "Digital Universe Encyclopedia".
My memory may be faulty, but wasn't he also have something to do with the Sifter project?
Ec
On 1/16/07, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Last week a Citizendium participant sent out this message on h-afro-am:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-afro-am&mont...
Oh is she still sending that out? It surfaced back in december on her blog:
http://www.freshmonsters.com/kalital/archives/2006/11/racism_and_sexism_at_c...
I'm interested to know the reactions of the Wikipedians on this list who've been participating in Citizendium.
I've been watching it (and sort of trying to stop them from adopting NC lisences but I'm not to concernded).
This persistence of this kind of thing, especially entrenched at the policy level, would probably spell the doom of Citizendium's long-term prospects (which would be unfortunate in my view).
I doubt it. To me it loks like one person went looking for a fight and managed to find one. I still think "wait and see" is the best aproach to Citizendium.
On Jan 16, 2007, at 2:39 PM, geni wrote:
I doubt it. To me it loks like one person went looking for a fight and managed to find one. I still think "wait and see" is the best aproach to Citizendium.
The decision in question is without a doubt a bad one that fundamentally de-emphasizes major academic disciplines in favor of an underinformed view that has no place in a project supposedly devoted to experts.
It points to a fundamental flaw in Citizendium, and one that wouldn't surprise anyone who saw Larry's name attached to it - it's an encyclopedia that favors experts that's run by someone with a view of the academy that is wildly out of step with current senses of what mainstream academic thought is.
Not that Citizendium is a bad idea. Just that Larry Sanger is the wrong person to run it.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 16, 2007, at 2:39 PM, geni wrote:
I doubt it. To me it loks like one person went looking for a fight and managed to find one. I still think "wait and see" is the best aproach to Citizendium.
The decision in question is without a doubt a bad one that fundamentally de-emphasizes major academic disciplines in favor of an underinformed view that has no place in a project supposedly devoted to experts.
It points to a fundamental flaw in Citizendium, and one that wouldn't surprise anyone who saw Larry's name attached to it - it's an encyclopedia that favors experts that's run by someone with a view of the academy that is wildly out of step with current senses of what mainstream academic thought is.
I don't think that's entirely true---academia is not a monolith, and "mainstream academic thought" depends on who you ask. This particular case is more or less a small portion of the debate over "critical theory", which is considered unmitigated bullshit by large sections of academia, but extremely important by other large sections of academia.
-Mark
On 16/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/16/07, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt it. To me it loks like one person went looking for a fight and managed to find one. I still think "wait and see" is the best aproach to Citizendium.
Indeed. I haven't actually managed to write anything there *blush* but it's an active project with a small but enthusiastic community working on it and public access planned to be started this month.
Citizendium aims to outdo Wikipedia, but I wouldn't say it's an enemy or competitor. There's got to be more than one way to do this "free encyclopedia" thing. I fear in ten years time the proprietary general encyclopedias will have insignificant market share, and if there's a really good encyclopedia it's going to have to be Wikipedia or a fork of it. But if it's a fork, at least there's a good one.
'Open content' itself is still unusual and remarkable in itself. Citizendium is working with great focus to get traction and credibility inside academia itself, which will further the reach of the concept.
And the more open content in the world, and the more well-known open content resources in the world, the better for us and everyone.
- d.
You seem to know more about it. Are you saying her accusations are unfounded?
Mgm
On 1/16/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/16/07, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Last week a Citizendium participant sent out this message on h-afro-am:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-afro-am&mont...
Oh is she still sending that out? It surfaced back in december on her blog:
http://www.freshmonsters.com/kalital/archives/2006/11/racism_and_sexism_at_c...
I'm interested to know the reactions of the Wikipedians on this list who've been participating in Citizendium.
I've been watching it (and sort of trying to stop them from adopting NC lisences but I'm not to concernded).
This persistence of this kind of thing, especially entrenched at the policy level, would probably spell the doom of Citizendium's long-term prospects (which would be unfortunate in my view).
I doubt it. To me it loks like one person went looking for a fight and managed to find one. I still think "wait and see" is the best aproach to Citizendium.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/16/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to know more about it. Are you saying her accusations are unfounded?
Mgm
No idea. It's not an area I know much about since other than a few skirmishes it isn't something that chemistry has much in the way of dealings with.
However judging by Kali's actions she was looking for a fight and found it. Larry's model is very top down so conflict of this type was very likely to happen at some point.
On 1/16/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/16/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to know more about it. Are you saying her accusations are unfounded?
Mgm
No idea. It's not an area I know much about since other than a few skirmishes it isn't something that chemistry has much in the way of dealings with.
The problem is the categorization of disciplines can be a very controversial issue even if the discipline itself does not come with specific and explicit political or cultural agendas, much less tied up in questions of identity or the ability of individuals to make decisions on account of their cultural heritage.
There is absolutely no easy answer to it. The question of where ethnic/gender studies (and its variants) fall within the organization of knowledge has been something the American academy has been periodically battling with for forty years (Peter Novick's _That Noble Dream_ has some great accounts of how the discipline of History in the US struggled with these issues in the 60s and 70s). The question of disciplinary disputes (what sociologists sometimes call "boundary work") has existed since before Copernicus (the question of whether mathematicians could make statements which impinged on areas of philosophy was a big one in his era). Categorization of knowledge was one of the most radical aspects of the original Encyclopedie, and some scholars (Robert Darnton in particular) have argued that it was in categorizing religion in the same tree as black magic (rather than a source of revealed truth) that really invoked the ire of the Church (rather than the snippy little asides poking fun at the Eucharist).
Which is just to say that while I don't think this is necessarily any example of systemic racism or sexism on Sanger's part (there are legitimate reasons for not considering these fields to be top-level categories, one need not attribute such opinions to philosophies of prejudice), it is an example of what some of the difficulties with an "expert-driven" system will be. The problem is, experts don't even agree on very basic things at times, such as whose knowledge counts as genuine, such as how knowledge should be organized, such as where a discipline stops and ends. No matter what decision is made in these sorts of issues, they will alienate entire disciplines of experts.
I think Wikipedia gets around it, paradoxically enough, by not pretending to have any expert rule, as well as having a relatively democratic categorization system (things can be redundantly categorized). If you don't make the assumption that the material is heavily mediated by experts, then you don't feel quite as bad if it doesn't align with one point of view or the other. Or maybe experts just don't pay a lot of attention to issues like this on Wikipedia for one reason or another.
In any case... it will be interesting to see how Sanger works this out over time. He really can't afford to alienate the entire humanities and if he is perceived as shutting out or, god forbid, segregating ethnic/gender studies he will probably end up doing just about that. (I'm not saying he's doing that, I'm just talking about how he will be perceived.) If he insists on making determinations like this on his own (if that is indeed what he has done), he will likely end up stepping on a lot of toes.
FF
On 1/17/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/16/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/16/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to know more about it. Are you saying her accusations are unfounded?
Mgm
No idea. It's not an area I know much about since other than a few skirmishes it isn't something that chemistry has much in the way of dealings with.
The problem is the categorization of disciplines can be a very controversial issue even if the discipline itself does not come with specific and explicit political or cultural agendas, much less tied up in questions of identity or the ability of individuals to make decisions on account of their cultural heritage.
There is absolutely no easy answer to it. The question of where ethnic/gender studies (and its variants) fall within the organization of knowledge has been something the American academy has been periodically battling with for forty years (Peter Novick's _That Noble Dream_ has some great accounts of how the discipline of History in the US struggled with these issues in the 60s and 70s). The question of disciplinary disputes (what sociologists sometimes call "boundary work") has existed since before Copernicus (the question of whether mathematicians could make statements which impinged on areas of philosophy was a big one in his era). Categorization of knowledge was one of the most radical aspects of the original Encyclopedie, and some scholars (Robert Darnton in particular) have argued that it was in categorizing religion in the same tree as black magic (rather than a source of revealed truth) that really invoked the ire of the Church (rather than the snippy little asides poking fun at the Eucharist).
Which is just to say that while I don't think this is necessarily any example of systemic racism or sexism on Sanger's part (there are legitimate reasons for not considering these fields to be top-level categories, one need not attribute such opinions to philosophies of prejudice), it is an example of what some of the difficulties with an "expert-driven" system will be. The problem is, experts don't even agree on very basic things at times, such as whose knowledge counts as genuine, such as how knowledge should be organized, such as where a discipline stops and ends. No matter what decision is made in these sorts of issues, they will alienate entire disciplines of experts.
I think Wikipedia gets around it, paradoxically enough, by not pretending to have any expert rule, as well as having a relatively democratic categorization system (things can be redundantly categorized). If you don't make the assumption that the material is heavily mediated by experts, then you don't feel quite as bad if it doesn't align with one point of view or the other. Or maybe experts just don't pay a lot of attention to issues like this on Wikipedia for one reason or another.
In any case... it will be interesting to see how Sanger works this out over time. He really can't afford to alienate the entire humanities and if he is perceived as shutting out or, god forbid, segregating ethnic/gender studies he will probably end up doing just about that. (I'm not saying he's doing that, I'm just talking about how he will be perceived.) If he insists on making determinations like this on his own (if that is indeed what he has done), he will likely end up stepping on a lot of toes.
FF
This is a really insightful post. Categorization, and how one categorizes knowledge (any kind of knowledge) is very far from being cut and dried; and how one decides to organize the world does say a great deal about how one perceives it. (Though Geni doesn't see discipline debates affecting chemistry much, I bet that he doesn't think chemistry is a part of alchemy anymore either). People sometimes make their entire academic careers around arguing over classifications, by developing new subdisciplines and branches when the old ones aren't good enough; this seems to be part of what the citizendium conflict is about.
I think Fastfission is right that Wikipedia gets around most controversies by being redundant, allowing people to categorize as they see fit, and by allowing do-overs: nothing has to be permanently decided. Sure, it's inefficient in a lot of ways, but it also (like the whole project) provides a fascinating map of the world and how topics are perceived. It seems like this particular debate in Citizendium comes from taking a much more traditional view of deciding that topics have to go in a particular order, as if the work existed in a hierarchical link structure or was going to be printed.
-- phoebe
Fastfission wrote:
The problem is the categorization of disciplines can be a very
controversial issue even if the discipline itself does not come with specific and explicit political or cultural agendas, much less tied up in questions of identity or the ability of individuals to make decisions on account of their cultural heritage.
IOW categorization itself can introduce biases and POVs.
There is absolutely no easy answer to it. The question of where ethnic/gender studies (and its variants) fall within the organization of knowledge has been something the American academy has been periodically battling with for forty years (Peter Novick's _That Noble Dream_ has some great accounts of how the discipline of History in the US struggled with these issues in the 60s and 70s). The question of disciplinary disputes (what sociologists sometimes call "boundary work") has existed since before Copernicus (the question of whether mathematicians could make statements which impinged on areas of philosophy was a big one in his era). Categorization of knowledge was one of the most radical aspects of the original Encyclopedie, and some scholars (Robert Darnton in particular) have argued that it was in categorizing religion in the same tree as black magic (rather than a source of revealed truth) that really invoked the ire of the Church (rather than the snippy little asides poking fun at the Eucharist).
The problem is older than that. The usual arrangement of the English translation of Aristotle's works puts "Categories" in the very first place.
Which is just to say that while I don't think this is necessarily any example of systemic racism or sexism on Sanger's part (there are legitimate reasons for not considering these fields to be top-level categories, one need not attribute such opinions to philosophies of prejudice), it is an example of what some of the difficulties with an "expert-driven" system will be. The problem is, experts don't even agree on very basic things at times, such as whose knowledge counts as genuine, such as how knowledge should be organized, such as where a discipline stops and ends. No matter what decision is made in these sorts of issues, they will alienate entire disciplines of experts.
I think Wikipedia gets around it, paradoxically enough, by not pretending to have any expert rule, as well as having a relatively democratic categorization system (things can be redundantly categorized). If you don't make the assumption that the material is heavily mediated by experts, then you don't feel quite as bad if it doesn't align with one point of view or the other. Or maybe experts just don't pay a lot of attention to issues like this on Wikipedia for one reason or another.
The premise that "Wikipedia is not paper" may help us on this. We can add redundant categories without having to rewrite or re-arrange large quantities of data. When a library changes its cataloging system it can be many years before everything is upgraded. Some old less important material is never recatalogued.
In any case... it will be interesting to see how Sanger works this out over time. He really can't afford to alienate the entire humanities and if he is perceived as shutting out or, god forbid, segregating ethnic/gender studies he will probably end up doing just about that. (I'm not saying he's doing that, I'm just talking about how he will be perceived.) If he insists on making determinations like this on his own (if that is indeed what he has done), he will likely end up stepping on a lot of toes.
In all fairness didn't the problem lay in his refusal to segregate ethnic and gender studies from their larger supercategories. When you give special status to ethnic studies you bring attention to it. When there is systemic bias recognizing that bias is a first step toward solving the problem, but if you overemphazixe a specific bias there is a risk that you will generate new biases. Bias against African-Americans may be a significant problem in the United States, but other Wikipedians in other countries may see this as a particularly American problem. The ethnic priorities in other countries can be quite different. If America is indeed the great melting pot, what indeed is the point of classifying African-American literature as something separate from plain old American literature.
On 1/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness didn't the problem lay in his refusal to segregate ethnic and gender studies from their larger supercategories. When you give special status to ethnic studies you bring attention to it. When there is systemic bias recognizing that bias is a first step toward solving the problem, but if you overemphazixe a specific bias there is a risk that you will generate new biases. Bias against African-Americans may be a significant problem in the United States, but other Wikipedians in other countries may see this as a particularly American problem. The ethnic priorities in other countries can be quite different. If America is indeed the great melting pot, what indeed is the point of classifying African-American literature as something separate from plain old American literature.
Well, nobody has really called America the great melting pot earnestly for some time now (see [[melting pot]]). Whether the proper response to different cultures is to assimilate them or to preserve them as equals has been a big question in the U.S. for a long time, to say nothing of other countries. It is an intensely politicized question, one you're going to run into these questions in more places than the U.S., and Americans are likely to wince at some of the distinctions made in other countries as well. This is, no doubt, one of the big problems with international, internet-driven problems, is that (as we've all known for a long, long time), categories don't match up across cultures, even within the relatively constrained environment of Western academic culture. Again, this is one reason that the "free for all" style of Wikipedia can probably cope with such things in a way that a more traditional approach would have difficulties with.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
On 1/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If America is indeed the great melting pot, what indeed is the point of classifying African-American literature as something separate from plain old American literature.
Well, nobody has really called America the great melting pot earnestly for some time now (see [[melting pot]]).
What does it say now that Bush used the term in his State of the Union speech? ;-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
On 1/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If America is indeed the great melting pot, what indeed is the point of classifying African-American literature as something separate from plain old American literature.
Well, nobody has really called America the great melting pot earnestly for some time now (see [[melting pot]]).
What does it say now that Bush used the term in his State of the Union speech? ;-)
Eh, so long as nobody calls America a wok...
On 1/16/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote
I've been watching it (and sort of trying to stop them from adopting NC lisences but I'm not to concernded).
CZ more or less completely relies on GFDL-licensed text. Adopting an NC license would be the easiest way of shooting themselves in the foot. And in the head. So, I am not concerned, too :)
Mathias
On 1/16/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
CZ more or less completely relies on GFDL-licensed text. Adopting an NC license would be the easiest way of shooting themselves in the foot. And in the head. So, I am not concerned, too :)
Mathias
Eh it was only for images and completely new stuff so not imposible but eh it would be a pain if we couldn't use some nice images they had. Oh well.
On 1/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Eh it was only for images and completely new stuff so not imposible but eh it would be a pain if we couldn't use some nice images they had. Oh well.
Having different bits under different licenses sounds like a recipe for disaster...
We manage with images. As long as you have a few people who never stop thinking about copyright it can be done.
We manage with images. As long as you have a few people who never stop thinking about copyright it can be done.
Do we? All images have to be released under the GFDL, or something compatible with it (ie. lets you do everything the GFDL lets you do, and more - hardly comparable to some parts of a site being under a NC license, and the rest under GFDL). (NB: Fair use is not a license.)
On 1/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We manage with images. As long as you have a few people who never stop thinking about copyright it can be done.
Do we?
For the most part. On a good day
All images have to be released under the GFDL, or something compatible with it (ie. lets you do everything the GFDL lets you do, and more - hardly comparable to some parts of a site being under a NC license, and the rest under GFDL). (NB: Fair use is not a license.)
False the GFDL lets you release derivative images under the GFDL. Free art, CC-by-SA, CeCILL, GPL, and LGPL ( I really don't understand how images count as source code but that isn't my problem) wont let you release derivatives under the GFDL
I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school and never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts" running anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn. That's all I need and all I will ever need.
I wish Citizendium well, but this latest bit of news comes as no surprise. We'll hear more.
Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam
On 1/16/07, Nina Stratton ninaeliza@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school and never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts" running anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn. That's all I need and all I will ever need.
I wish Citizendium well, but this latest bit of news comes as no surprise. We'll hear more.
Nina
This is one of the hard problems - having "experts" tell us not to be interested in a topic is really bad policy, but sometimes "how do we organize this information" is a much harder problem, often requiring professional help.
It seems like this was just an argument over organization or taxonomy, not content. But I haven't seen good detailed info on it yet...
On 1/17/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
but sometimes "how do we organize this information" is a much harder problem, often requiring professional help.
We get by. The answer appears to be "in as may ways as posible".
Nina Stratton wrote:
I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school and never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts" running anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn. That's all I need and all I will ever need.
You're either incredibly naïve, or the best troll I've seen in a long time.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Nina Stratton wrote:
I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school and never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts" running anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn. That's all I need and all I will ever need.
You're either incredibly naïve, or the best troll I've seen in a long time.
This is offensive. Assume good faith. When a person is open about her personal life that should not be taken as an invitation to find fault. Her positive attitude about herself is more important than her critical view of experts.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Nina Stratton wrote:
I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school and never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts" running anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn. That's all I need and all I will ever need.
You're either incredibly naïve, or the best troll I've seen in a long time.
This is offensive. Assume good faith.
My apologies, but I find playing the age, race, gender and other "sympathy" cards equally so.
When a person is open about her personal life that should not be taken as an invitation to find fault. Her positive attitude about herself is more important than her critical view of experts.
So it's alright so stick your fingers in your ears and shout "It's alright, I have a positive attitude!" as you go around ignoring the advice of "experts", and go around doing as much damage as possible?
On 19/01/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So it's alright so stick your fingers in your ears and shout "It's alright, I have a positive attitude!" as you go around ignoring the advice of "experts", and go around doing as much damage as possible?
Er, what damage??
- d.
On 1/18/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So it's alright so stick your fingers in your ears and shout "It's alright, I have a positive attitude!" as you go around ignoring the advice of "experts", and go around doing as much damage as possible?
I think you're reading things that were never written, Alphax. Be careful with that.
-Matthew
On 1/18/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Nina Stratton wrote:
I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school
and
never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts"
running
anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn.
That's
all I need and all I will ever need.
You're either incredibly naïve, or the best troll I've seen in a long time.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
I'm from the Midwest, so I think I fall into the "incredibly naive" category. Having said that...on reflection I better not say much else.:)
On a side note, I've been invited by my would-have-been alma mater to tour the high school and discuss my life with the principal as "an inspiration to the students". I must be doing something right.
Nina
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nina Stratton wrote:
On 1/18/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Nina Stratton wrote:
I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school
and
never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts"
running
anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn.
That's
all I need and all I will ever need.
You're either incredibly naïve, or the best troll I've seen in a long time.
I'm from the Midwest, so I think I fall into the "incredibly naive" category. Having said that...on reflection I better not say much else.:)
Don't worry, I've said plenty of stupid things too. It's probably easier to count the number of not-stupid things that I've said...
On a side note, I've been invited by my would-have-been alma mater to tour the high school and discuss my life with the principal as "an inspiration to the students". I must be doing something right.
Indeed.
All images have to be released under the GFDL, or something compatible with it (ie. lets you do everything the GFDL lets you do, and more - hardly comparable to some parts of a site being under a NC license, and the rest under GFDL). (NB: Fair use is not a license.)
False the GFDL lets you release derivative images under the GFDL. Free art, CC-by-SA, CeCILL, GPL, and LGPL ( I really don't understand how images count as source code but that isn't my problem) wont let you release derivatives under the GFDL
I don't follow you. Derivatives of what? If the original image is released under GFDL, then you can (and I think must, in most circumstances) release the derivative under GFDL, but multiple licenses doesn't come into it, so it's an irrelevant point...
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't follow you. Derivatives of what?
The image
If the original image is released under GFDL, then you can (and I think must, in most circumstances) release the derivative under GFDL, but multiple licenses doesn't come into it, so it's an irrelevant point...
Yes they do. If an image is under free art you have to release any derivitivies under free art and can't release them under the GFDL. Thus callinging them compatible is false.
Yes they do. If an image is under free art you have to release any derivitivies under free art and can't release them under the GFDL. Thus callinging them compatible is false.
I never said free art was compatible with GFDL. There are licenses which are compatible (I'm no expert, so I'm not going to try and name any), those are the only images that can be on Wikipedia that aren't released (explicitly) until GFDL (excluding fair use).
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Yes they do. If an image is under free art you have to release any derivitivies under free art and can't release them under the GFDL. Thus callinging them compatible is false.
I never said free art was compatible with GFDL. There are licenses which are compatible (I'm no expert, so I'm not going to try and name any), those are the only images that can be on Wikipedia that aren't released (explicitly) until GFDL (excluding fair use).
umm we use Free art images on wikipedia. [[Image:Heckert_GNU_white.svg]] for example.
umm we use Free art images on wikipedia. [[Image:Heckert_GNU_white.svg]] for example.
I've just read the Free Art license. Are we not violating the following section?
"3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK
All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this license."
We are integrating the artwork into Wikipedia, which is not subject to that license...
On 17/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
umm we use Free art images on wikipedia. [[Image:Heckert_GNU_white.svg]] for example.
I've just read the Free Art license. Are we not violating the following section? "3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this license." We are integrating the artwork into Wikipedia, which is not subject to that license...
A work can't claim copyright on another work. "Viral licences" aren't. What they can do is require distribution of a merged work to only be under their conditions. An image on an article page is an aggregation of two separate works, the text and picture.
- d.
A work can't claim copyright on another work. "Viral licences" aren't. What they can do is require distribution of a merged work to only be under their conditions. An image on an article page is an aggregation of two separate works, the text and picture.
There is a difference between restricting what work your work can be incorporated in, and claiming copyright. The free art license isn't saying "if you include this image in your work, then your work is automatically under our license" it's saying "the only work you can include this image in is work released under this license" - they are very different things.
I don't see how the page being an aggregation of two separate works is relevant - the page as a whole is a work, and the Free Art image has been incorporated into it.
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how the page being an aggregation of two separate works is relevant - the page as a whole is a work, and the Free Art image has been incorporated into it.
The problem with the Free Art license is that it says nothing about aggregate/collective works, actually. You'd have to interpret their use of "distribution" to include "aggregation of independent works" (per GDFL) for it to be kosher.
That being said, I would be surprised if they were against aggregations of independent works (it would seriously cut down on the ability to distribute any work), so it could probably be clarified somehow...
FF
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:48:30 -0500, "Sage Ross" ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Last week a Citizendium participant sent out this message on h-afro-am:
Could never happen on Wikipedia. Deleting a list or category of Jewish Anything is "removing people's cultural identity" and speedily overturned.
Guy (JzG)