On 8/31/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
[Re: Misogyny is the perfect troll] Earlier: ... I think this thread needs to end if we continue to get so personal ...
Peter Blaise responds: Isn't that exactly what's being asked about cleaning up the offensive, denigrating crap that is accepted, even defended on Wikipedia?
On the one hand, when (the generic) "others" feel uncomfortable, the response is, "Get over it." But, when (the generic) "I" feel uncomfortable, then "this discussion must come to an end!"
Nicely said.
[Re: Article authorship was: Making damn sure image attribution is very clear] Earlier: ... Photographers upload their original photographs to Wikipedia ... Response: ... Of a reality largely not of the photographer's creation ...
Peter Blaise responds: Ooops! What's THAT supposed to mean? A photograph is not "of a reality" any more than anyone's writing, or dancing, or singing, or painting, or any other creative form speech is "of a reality". As Magrite painted, "This is not a pipe" - it's a painting! (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte) Universally, the photographer gets 100% copyright at the moment they release their camera's shutter, at the capture of even the latent image. Not part copyright to the photographer and part copyright to the creator of the so-called external reality! Rather than explore if there even IS an external reality, let me direct us all to review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright and many other copyright dialogs across the world and through history, especially about photography, which has been (legally) considered (US Constitutionally protected) free speech for more than 100 years already! Why is this news for anyone anymore?
Because people think that shooting pictures only requires the ownership of a camera--once the technology was invented everyone in the known universe became an artist. This isn't true. It never has been. Artists who took pictures in the 1850s that could readily be reproduced today to better quality are still talked about for their work--the artists are talked about, because they left something of value to human culture, their art work.
And heck, people pay for my pictures, even when they could shoot the same thing, and even though photography is not my genre. But I'm an artist, and people buy art, and technology doesn't make the artist today, any more than it did 25,000 years ago.
But writing facts, distilling information in a non-creative manner from published and established sources is something that a lot of people can do and do well--this is what makes Wikipedia work.
KP
I have seen no articles on wikipedia that could possibly compare for quality of writing with professionally edited nonfiction from an expert writer. All arts are difficult, and non-fiction writing is one of them. Consider the clarity of the writing in, say, the New Yorker and the ability of their authors to convey complicated material in readable prose. Distilling such information is a creative act as much as fiction or photography is.
On 9/2/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
[Re: Article authorship was: Making damn sure image attribution is very clear] Earlier: ... Photographers upload their original photographs to Wikipedia ... Response: ... Of a reality largely not of the photographer's creation ...
Peter Blaise responds: Ooops! What's THAT supposed to mean? A photograph is not "of a reality" any more than anyone's writing, or dancing, or singing, or painting, or any other creative form speech is "of a reality". As Magrite painted, "This is not a pipe" - it's a painting! (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte) Universally, the photographer gets 100% copyright at the moment they release their camera's shutter, at the capture of even the latent image. Not part copyright to the photographer and part copyright to the creator of the so-called external reality! Rather than explore if there even IS an external reality, let me direct us all to review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright and many other copyright dialogs across the world and through history, especially about photography, which has been (legally) considered (US Constitutionally protected) free speech for more than 100 years already! Why is this news for anyone anymore?
Because people think that shooting pictures only requires the ownership of a camera--once the technology was invented everyone in the known universe became an artist. This isn't true. It never has been. Artists who took pictures in the 1850s that could readily be reproduced today to better quality are still talked about for their work--the artists are talked about, because they left something of value to human culture, their art work.
And heck, people pay for my pictures, even when they could shoot the same thing, and even though photography is not my genre. But I'm an artist, and people buy art, and technology doesn't make the artist today, any more than it did 25,000 years ago.
But writing facts, distilling information in a non-creative manner from published and established sources is something that a lot of people can do and do well--this is what makes Wikipedia work.
KP
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 02/09/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen no articles on wikipedia that could possibly compare for quality of writing with professionally edited nonfiction from an expert writer. All arts are difficult, and non-fiction writing is one of them. Consider the clarity of the writing in, say, the New Yorker and the ability of their authors to convey complicated material in readable prose. Distilling such information is a creative act as much as fiction or photography is.
Yes. Wikipedia is distinctly short of good prose writers, as a percentage of contributors.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 02/09/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen no articles on wikipedia that could possibly compare for quality of writing with professionally edited nonfiction from an expert writer. All arts are difficult, and non-fiction writing is one of them. Consider the clarity of the writing in, say, the New Yorker and the ability of their authors to convey complicated material in readable prose. Distilling such information is a creative act as much as fiction or photography is.
Yes. Wikipedia is distinctly short of good prose writers, as a percentage of contributors.
It doesn't help an article whose prose is already good when a string of subsequent editors make their little changes throughout the article without regard to the larger stylistic picture.
Ec
On 02/09/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Yes. Wikipedia is distinctly short of good prose writers, as a percentage of contributors.
It doesn't help an article whose prose is already good when a string of subsequent editors make their little changes throughout the article without regard to the larger stylistic picture.
I'd say having the details is of primary importance. Untangling the sentence structure does come immediate second, though, not third or later.
- d.