Hoi,
I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this most
excellent bit of news.
The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in the
field of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a funding
drive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money in
a given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia to
learn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics.
What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists are
asked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us more
linguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will be
interested in the languages that they care for and help it become more
relevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to get
more knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means that
we get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed with
all the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of the
Incubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we should
approve yet another language :)
NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much in
this time frame and we will then do this as a bonus...
Thanks,
GerardM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org>
Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
To: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.org
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.
Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org>
Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project
<reviews(a)linguistlist.org>
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/
The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University,
and donations from subscribers and publishers.
Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org>
================================================================
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html
===========================Directory==============================
1)
Date: 18-Jun-2007
From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35
From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
Dear subscribers,
As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the
"Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking their
donations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in the
English-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on this
at:
http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm.
The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosity
of
our readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiastic
about the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bit
more
leisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started on
the
Wikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purely
organizational one. We will:
*Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials or
pages that need improvement;
*Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identified
as
"in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite any
references or sources," etc;
*Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics or
articles;
*Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia;
*Keep track of our project Wikipedians;
*Keep track of revisions and new entries;
*Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community's
efforts.
We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help us
all
get started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify an
area
needing improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List of
Linguists
page at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. M
Many people are not listed there; others need to have more facts and
information
added. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort,
please
respond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales at
hannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or which
linguistics
entries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw our
campaign
on the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which we
will
share with you soon.
This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. The
end
result will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadth
and
depth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulate
prospective
students to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public on
what
we do. Please consider participating.
Sincerely,
Hannah Morales
Editor, Wikipedia Update Project
Linguistic Field(s): Not Applicable
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831
Hoi,
There is a request for a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. This request has so far
been denied. A lot of words have been used about it. Many people maintain
their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of
others.
In my opinion their are a few roadblocks.
- Ancient Greek is an ancient language - the policy does not allow for
it
- Text in ancient Greek written today about contemporary subjects
require the reconstruction of Ancient Greek.
- it requires the use of existing words for concepts that did
not exist at the time when the language was alive
- neologisms will be needed to describe things that did not
exist at the time when the language was alive
- modern texts will not represent the language as it used to be
- Constructed and by inference reconstructed languages are effectively
not permitted
We can change the policy if there are sufficient arguments, when we agree on
a need.
When a text is written in reconstructed ancient Greek, and when it is
clearly stated that it is NOT the ancient Greek of bygone days, it can be
obvious that it is a great tool to learn skills to read and write ancient
Greek but that it is in itself not Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek as a
language is ancient. I have had a word with people who are involved in the
working group that deals with the ISO-639, I have had a word with someone
from SIL and it is clear that a proposal for a code for "Ancient Greek
reconstructed" will be considered for the ISO-639-3. For the ISO-639-6 a
code is likely to be given because a clear use for this code can be given.
We can apply for a code and as it has a use bigger then Wikipedia alone it
clearly has merit.
With modern texts clearly labelled as distinct from the original language,
it will be obvious that innovations a writers needs for his writing are
legitimate.
This leaves the fact that constructed and reconstructed languages are not
permitted because of the notion that mother tongue users are required. In my
opinion, this has always been only a gesture to those people who are dead
set against any and all constructed languages. In the policies there is
something vague "*it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as
determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language
subcommittee <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee>)."* It
is vague because even though the policy talks about a discussion, it is
killed off immediately by stating "The proposal has a sufficient number of
living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." In my
opinion, this discussion for criteria for the acceptance of constructed or
reconstructed languages has not happened. Proposals for objective criteria
have been ignored.
In essence, to be clear about it:
- We can get a code for reconstructed languages.
- We need to change the policy to allow for reconstructed and
constructed languages
We need to do both in order to move forward.
The proposal for objective criteria for constructed and reconstructed
languages is in a nutshell:
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
- We need full WMF localisation from the start
- The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
encyclopaedia
- The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of
topics
- A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
project
Thanks,
GerardM
Dear All,Sorry for bringing up a possibly old and closed issue, but could
someone explain to me that why was the GFDL with a possible migration to
CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later[1[ chosen as the site license for the Hungarian (and
I guess some others as well, created at the same time) Wikinews?
Wasn't the CC-BY used by the older Wikinewses a deliberate decision to give
Wikinews an extra opennes and connectivity with other news outlets (I
personally see a bigger chance for some newsproducer agreeing to license
their work under either CC-BY or less likely CC-BY-SA than GFDL or even GFDL
with a possible migration)?
Is the current license compatible with Wikipedia (I am thinking that the
added migration clause makes the project incompatible with GFDL sites that
are not also double licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later)?
Thanks,
Bence Damokos
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_clause_for_new_wikis
Wikipedia Invades La Plata Natural History Museum
Saturday, May 2nd, from 10 am, a group of wikipedians - members of
Wikimedia Argentina - will visit the La Plata Natural History Museum
to gather information to flush out and complete articles in the
renowned online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The group will be composed of editors and photographers and will be
led through the museum by tour guides during their visit. The
wikipedians hope to broaden articles which cover the themes that the
museum includes and take photographs of the exhibitions to help
illustrate the text of the encyclopedia. The photographs will not only
be used in the Spanish articles, but also in articles in over 250
languages that are available in Wikipedia. The photographs will be
published with a free license in Wikimedia Commons
(http://commons.wikimedia.org).
The La Plata Natural History Museum is a natural science museum which
houses a vast collection of archeological, anthropological and
ethnographic information. Founded by Francisco Pascisio Moreno in
1884, the museum is unique in its scope in South America with over
3,000,000 objects in its collection and over 130 years of history.
The museum is renowned for its collection of large fossilized mammals
of the pampas from the Cenozoic and Quaternary eras as well as
collections of trilobite fossils of the Cambrian period and graptolite
fossils from the Silurian period in Argentina. Also, Argentina and
Peru archeological and ethnographic collections are on exhibition, as
well as showing the broader landscape of the Americas. There is also
an Egyptian room where an original temple (the temple of Aksha, from
Nubia) is on display. The archeological collection shows cultural
development of Latin America from 12,800 BC through to the Inca empire
and the arrival of the Europeans. More information can be found
online: http://www.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar/museo/
Wikimedia Argentina is a non-profit membership group which has been
recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation as a local chapter of our
country. The Wikimedia Foundation maintains a global projects such as
Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikiversidad, Wikiquotes, etc.
Currently, Wikimedia Argentina is organizing Wikimania 2009, the
international conference of Wikimedia projects to be held in late
August. The city of Buenos Aires was selected for this annual meeting,
which in years prior has taken place in the United States of America,
Germany, Taiwan and Egypt. More information can be found online:
http://www.wikimedia.org.ar
--
Patricio Lorente
Mensajería Instantánea: patricio_lorente(a)jabber.org
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Hi all!
The Wikipedia Usability Initiative conducted a user research study with
SF based Bolt Peters in late March to uncover barriers new editors face.
We are in the process of completing a full report on our methodology,
process and analysis, but wanted to share with you some of the major
themes and findings in the meantime....
Some quotes from our participants that illustrate these findings:
“Usually it’s the most information in the easiest spot to access. It
always looks very well put together….it boggles my mind how many people
can contribute and it still looks like an encyclopedia.” – ‘Galen’
“I like Wikipedia because it’s plain text and nothing flashes” – ‘Claudia’
“Rather than making a mess, I’d rather take some time to figure out how
to do it right."
(later) "There sure is a lot of stuff to read.” – ‘Dan’
“ [I felt] kind of stupid.” – ‘Galen’
“It’d be nice to have a GUI, so you could see what you’re editing.
You’ve made these changes and you’re looking at it, and you don’t know
how it’s going to look on the page. It’s a little clumsy to see how it’s
going to look.” – ‘Bryan’
“[This is] where I’d give up.” – ‘Shaun’
Check out the full post on the foundation blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/24/usability-study-results-sneak-preview/
We would love to hear any initial thoughts, opinions, and reactions. If
you have any similar or dissimilar experiences - either personally or in
your own work/research, we'd love to hear about that too!
Always on your side,
The Usability Team
To follow up on the board's resolution, here is some more information
about the strategy development process we are starting. This is not
necessarily the complete picture, that hasn't been fully laid out yet
and you will hear more about it in coming weeks and months. We will
share progress as we go, and discussion is welcome. I expect the other
members of the Board of Trustees, along with Sue, will be happy to join
in. We spoke briefly about the project at our meeting with the chapter
representatives in Berlin a few weeks ago. They may be able to help
answer basic questions, and I also anticipate that the chapters will be
a good way to relay ideas from the wider community.
This is a rather unusual endeavor, as it is intended to be the world's
first completely open and collaborative strategy development project. We
aim to draw upon the experiences and knowledge of a wide range of
contributors: Wikimedia volunteers, experts in various fields, the
board, the foundation's staff, and other appropriate advisors that may
be suggested to us. I'm excited about the possibilities in this project.
Anybody who wants to help the Wikimedia projects is invited to
participate. I expect that the primary activity will involve working
groups developing pieces of the strategy on-wiki. That's both because
it's the key tool for open collaboration we're all familiar with, and
because it would be prohibitive in time or expense to coordinate
strategic planning through a set of meetings, as might happen in a
normal organization. All relevant planning outputs will be publicly
available for review, as well as reuse, so hopefully we can produce some
thinking that other groups will also find useful.
We expect the strategic planning project to officially launch in July,
although this is a preliminary kickoff of sorts as well. In the
meantime, Sue is planning to hire a project manager, a research analyst,
and a facilitator to support it. Those jobs will be posted on the
Wikimedia Foundation site sometime during the next week. Between now and
the launch, Sue will be hiring the project team. These positions will
bring skills we already need, and while we want all the staff to have
input, this will be the group designated to work particularly on this
project.
Sue and I will also be working through the structure and framework of
the project: essentially, which strategic questions require the most
focus. You will hear more about this, and I will be asking for your
views, as we begin to make progress.
--Michael Snow
This is the statement on trademarks mentioned earlier. It both states
the approach we want the Wikimedia Foundation to take and directs the
staff to carry it out. It basically sums up what our understanding has
been for a long time, but hadn't really been formally stated anywhere.
The board also voted unanimously to approve this. The statement follows:
The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to enabling our mission through a
wide network of chapters, community members, and organizational partners
who are all able to better achieve their goals by identifying themselves
with the Wikimedia community. Because of these efforts, there is a large
amount of value and goodwill associated with the name and marks.
Trademark law in the United States and internationally requires that the
holder of a mark take affirmative steps to protect the integrity of the
mark. However, because of our commitment to openness and community
empowerment, we wish to do this in a way that allows chapters and
community members to be able to continue to identify themselves with
Wikimedia marks without being unnecessarily restrictive.
Because of this, we ask the Wikimedia staff to take appropriate steps to
register and protect the Wikimedia marks, develop a set of policies and
practices, and develop a strategy to allow uses by the chapters and
community for activities in line with the Wikimedia mission.
--Michael Snow
Says Michael Snow:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia
community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality,
accurate information
++++++
So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board,
but the
Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection of
words
that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to
high-quality, accurate information.
How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean
travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion?
--
Gregory Kohs
> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core
> > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of
> > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to
> > maintaining a neutral point of view.
>
> I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV
> policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the
standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
++++
There are few suggestions more destructive than good ideas misapplied.
Let's look at a few featured pictures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg
Blatantly racist and disrespectful of basic human dignity. Also historic
and very encyclopedic. It illustrates the en:wiki article 'Racism', also
the article on 'Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era (United States)'
and the individual biographies of two politicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:J_accuse.jpg
Certainly not neutral: it accuses the president of France of gross
misconduct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trumpetcallsa.jpg
Again, not neutral. It's a war recruitment poster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Napoleon's_exile_to_Elba3.jpg
Blatant trolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_and_Nebraska_lands10.jpg
Try viewing this from the perspective of the indigenous peoples whose
ancestral lands were being sold.
Those aren't photographs, you might say? Apply the principle only to
photography? Okay, neutralize this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Woody_Guthrie_2.jpg
And although this last one is not hosted on Commons and may never be (due to
German law), think of the historic value here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vote_number_1b.jpg
(shakes head)
-Durova
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:18 AM,
<foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people
> (Gregory Kohs)
> 2. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (David Gerard)
> 3. Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people
> (Thomas Dalton)
> 4. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (Milos Rancic)
> 5. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (David Gerard)
> 6. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (Milos Rancic)
> 7. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (Anthony)
> 8. Re: Anarchopedia changed its license (Jussi-Ville Heiskanen)
> 9. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (Anthony)
> 10. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (David Gerard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:23:16 -0400
> From: Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of
> living people
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <14b1e7be0904220623k556519dai7e02fce4aaab41c1(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Says Michael Snow:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia
> community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality,
> accurate information
>
> ++++++
>
> So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board,
> but the
> Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection
> of
> words
> that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to
> high-quality, accurate information.
>
> How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean
> travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion?
>
> --
> Gregory Kohs
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:00 +0100
> From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140904220632x64ebbcd0v952ebf9e12a0559e(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/22 Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de>:
>
> > NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by Wikibooks
> > and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) which
> > explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the Disclosure of
> > Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal of NPOV: It
> > tells the reader and participants that the content has a point of view
> > and thus gives the reader and participants to be aware of this and
> > accordingly to adjust their judgement in reading and writing the content.
>
>
> I think the point is to have whatever would be the locally relevant
> version of neutrality. On Wikipedia it's NPOV. On Commons or
> Wikisource, I expect it would be neutrality of subject matter. Etc.
> The key point would be (something like) that Wikimedia projects are
> not for pushing views.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:34:26 +0100
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of
> living people
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0904220634k4eced895s746959d26b1c1f7a(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/22 Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com>:
> > Says Michael Snow:
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia
> > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality,
> > accurate information
> >
> > ++++++
> >
> > So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board,
> > but the
> > Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection
> of
> > words
> > that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to
> > high-quality, accurate information.
>
> Basically, yes. Content has always been the responsibility of the
> community.
>
> > How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the
> mean
> > travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion?
>
> This was far from the only thing they did while in Berlin. Their
> schedule was even more crowded than that of the Chapters'
> representatives, and I found the chapters meeting the most exhausting
> thing I've ever done.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:04:25 +0200
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <846221520904220804q1efb6fadl3cb5fefcfb4e75ba(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the point is to have whatever would be the locally relevant
> > version of neutrality. On Wikipedia it's NPOV. On Commons or
> > Wikisource, I expect it would be neutrality of subject matter. Etc.
> > The key point would be (something like) that Wikimedia projects are
> > not for pushing views.
>
> NPOV transformation to general neutrality will work in the most of the
> cases. A clear example for such transformation is Wikinews. Even
> called as "NPOV", Wikinews neutrality is a different kind of approach
> because it is a journalistic one.
>
> *But*, even neutrality is not always possible. Wikiversity is the case
> because, for example, you are not able to teach/learn about
> impressionist critics of art by applying any kind of neutrality. While
> this is an extreme example, a lot of scientific fields are more or
> less there.
>
> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek
> literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains
> relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there
> were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque
> connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their
> prefaces.
>
> There should be a way how to protect projects' integrity, but it is
> not insisting on NPOV or neutrality if it is not possible.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:20:44 +0100
> From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140904220820w47c05490t50145f4cd3bac21d(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/22 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>:
>
> > NPOV transformation to general neutrality will work in the most of the
> > cases. A clear example for such transformation is Wikinews. Even
> > called as "NPOV", Wikinews neutrality is a different kind of approach
> > because it is a journalistic one.
>
>
> And even then, some of the most interesting original content is
> interviews, which are all about the subjective POV of the interviewee.
>
>
> > And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
> > the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
> > countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek
> > literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains
> > relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there
> > were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque
> > connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their
> > prefaces.
>
>
> I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ...
> could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your
> first sentence?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:37:04 +0200
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <846221520904220937wcb0380bn7fd369bd5354861a(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
> >> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
> >> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek
> >> literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains
> >> relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there
> >> were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque
> >> connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their
> >> prefaces.>
> >
> > I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ...
> > could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your
> > first sentence?
>
> I wanted to say that if neutrality is forced in a field which is not
> possible to present neutrally, you'll get bizarre explanations why
> some course or book is neutral. (As young revolutionary authorities
> demanded connection between any field of knowledge and Marxism.)
>
> Even further... Book in elementary algebra may be written well
> according to the NPOV (but, not by following neutrality!) because NPOV
> has clause which is related to the "common knowledge". But, if you try
> to make a book with a specific approach to a number of micro and macro
> dimensions in the Universe, by using NPOV or neutrality, you would get
> a book which is not useful:
>
> If A, B, C and D are some logical structures, statement "A x B = C" is
> not a neutral statement. If there is some other approach which has
> statement that "A x B = D", the author of the book will have to
> mention and explain that as well. And this is a kind of a recursive
> process.
>
> We may rationally say that we won't demand from contributors to do
> that. But, then, the approach is not according to NPOV or neutrality.
>
> There are other important principles, too, like verifiability and NOR.
> Both of them may be applied fully to Wikibooks if we say that we
> really don't want OR in books. At Wikiversity, NOR may be applied for
> sources. It is not reasonable to apply those principles for didactic
> methods because didactics of teaching and learning on Internet is not
> well developed. And it is not possible to implement those principles
> for the process of teaching and learning: course in any applied
> science must have OR during the process (and OR is not verifiable).
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:46:13 -0400
> From: Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <71cd4dd90904220946n7d544ee9ld3417e0281c15a15(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher <
> brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > 2009/4/21 Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>:
> > > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core
> > > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of
> > > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to
> > > maintaining a neutral point of view.
> >
> > I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV
> > policy.
>
>
> Should commons allow images which are biased?
>
> More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the
> standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:57:10 +0300
> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Anarchopedia changed its license
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <49EF4C66.1060806(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Crazy Lover wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
> >
> >
>
> Just by the way, completely inconsequentially to anarchopedia;
> the foundational proponent of Agorism was a genuinely awesome
> dude, and whoever got to know him in real life, was blessed.
>
> I somehow think Konkin would have grokked wikipedia, if he'd
> lived to see it flourish.
>
> SEK3 was the kind of guy wikipedia articles talk pages could
> sorely need more of. Defending courteus disagreement in
> discourse, even when odious in the subject matter to many.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:57:53 -0400
> From: Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <71cd4dd90904220957k5e6a5b5vc2bb12df8ce04f5b(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher <
> > brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/4/21 Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>:
> >> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core
> >> > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of
> >> > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to
> >> > maintaining a neutral point of view.
> >>
> >> I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV
> >> policy.
> >
> >
> > Should commons allow images which are biased?
> >
> > More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to
> the
> > standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
> >
>
> Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
>
> 1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
> 2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
> 3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
> subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work
> to
> avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
> 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special
> consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime
> or
> tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an
> overriding and justifiable need to see.
> 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to,
> alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
> 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images'
> content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
> any
> way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
> 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for
> information or participation.
> 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek
> to influence coverage.
> 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
>
> 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to
> photos made for commons?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:18:35 +0100
> From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140904221018xb7dd0fan9e4a80a9f2c5886b(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/22 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
> >>> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
> >>> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek
> >>> literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains
> >>> relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there
> >>> were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque
> >>> connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their
> >>> prefaces.>
>
> >> I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ...
> >> could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your
> >> first sentence?
>
> > I wanted to say that if neutrality is forced in a field which is not
> > possible to present neutrally, you'll get bizarre explanations why
> > some course or book is neutral. (As young revolutionary authorities
> > demanded connection between any field of knowledge and Marxism.)
>
>
> Yes, that makes sense :-)
>
>
> > Even further... Book in elementary algebra may be written well
> > according to the NPOV (but, not by following neutrality!) because NPOV
> > has clause which is related to the "common knowledge". But, if you try
> > to make a book with a specific approach to a number of micro and macro
> > dimensions in the Universe, by using NPOV or neutrality, you would get
> > a book which is not useful:
>
>
> en:wp has experienced this - the arbcom finally had to say "no,
> peer-reviewed journals are more reliable sources on global warming
> than Rush Limbaugh radio transcripts or Michael Crichton novels, and
> fifty faith-based science advocates don't get to vote the UK's top
> climate scientist off the island. Don't be bloody stupid." In a few
> more words than that.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 61, Issue 44
> ********************************************
>
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
Hi all,
I know it's still a couple of months out, but I've lost track. Are we
electing two people or three people to the Board this summer? Will all
of the community seats be open? (it looks like the terms of Kat and
Ting will be up in July; and Frieda still needs to be replaced).
Perhaps someone who knows what's going on can update
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections with the upcoming
election plans :) I'm also curious how the terms will be staggered
between the community/chapter/appointed seats.
thanks,
Phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *