In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:21:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.damian(a)btinternet.com writes:
> You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail
> to
> understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject
> is
> in inverse proportion to you arrogance and hostility. Wikipedia is full
> of
> people like you.
>
> This of course will be used as proof that specialists do not understand
> Wikipedia and are therefore unwelcome. >>
You can sit in your padded room and throw your toys around in a temper
tantrum, but that still won't change anything will it.
In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:02:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.damian(a)btinternet.com writes:
> In my experience
> the problem of humanities in Wikipedia is that the methods and training of
>
> the 'experts' is so fundamentally different from that of 'Wikipedians'
> (who
> by and large have no training at all) that disputes nearly always turn
> ugly. >>
>
You are again stating the problem as expert vs pedestrian (untrained at
least).
However I again submit that in Wikipedia, you are not an "expert" because
you have a credential, you are an expert because you behave like an expert.
When challenged to provide a source, you cite your source and other readers
find, that it does actually state what you claim it states.
However it seems to me that you'd perhaps like experts to be able to make
unchallengeable claims without sources.
If I'm wrong in that last sentence, then tell me why being an expert is any
different than being any editor at all.
What is the actual procedure by which, when an expert edits, we see
something different than when anyone edits.
I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes to
our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an expert in that
specific field.
The problem comes, imho, when "experts" add claims that are unsourced, and
when challenged on them, get uppity about it.
The issue is not uncited claims, or challenged claims. All of our articles
have uncited claims and many have challenged and yet-unfulfilled claims.
The issue is how you are proposing these should be treated differently if the
claim comes from an "expert" versus a "non-expert", isn't it?
So address that.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:04:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.damian(a)btinternet.com writes:
> You missed the point again. Sarah is not saying that the *readers* need
> to
> understand the basics. She is saying that the problem is with *editors*. >
> >
And you've missed the point.
The entire thrust of our mission is to make readers into editors.
That is the point of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
You want to maintain the position of academics as a lofty top-level
floating above the rest of society and we want to destroy it to level the field :)
Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged!
But seriously. If readers *can* understand the article, then so can
editors.
Your problem, is not that people can't *understand* it, it's that they
don't *agree* with you.
Fine. Yesterday, I starting fact-tagging an article that had a lot of odd
claims in it. My fellow editor went into a fit of pique and removed most of
the article simply because he didn't want to have to find citations for his
claims.
Good. We do not want, read that again please, we DO NOT WANT, those
academics who refuse to cite their claims. We don't want them. :)
You're not an expert here because you *know*, you're an expert because you
can support your claims. You don't want that. You want to just be an
expert because you know without the need to prove it. These articles aren't a
private playground for a few highbrows, this is a brand-new medium never
before encountered. One in which even the most basic assumptions can be
challenged, and are, and can be removed by anyone, any member of the public
whatsoever, who feels the citations aren't firm or clear, and those who can't put up
with that sort of mosh pit, are left in the dust.
W
Greetings All,
On Wednesday, October 6 from 16:00 to 17:00 UTC and Thursday, October
7th 04:00 to 05:00 UTC, I'll be holding office hour sessions on the
#wikimedia-office IRC channel. Exact times for the session in a range
of time zones follow.
The sessions will be focused on the Mediawiki developer documentation,
along with related topics.
For background reading, please visit:
* http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Zakgreant/MediaWiki_Technical_Documentat…
* http://mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Zakgreant
San Francisco UTC-7 Wed. 09:00-10:00 Wed. 21:00-22:00
New York UTC-4 Wed. 12:00-13:00 Thu. 00:00-01:00
London UTC+1 Wed. 17:00-18:00 Thu. 05:00-06:00
Bern UTC+2 Wed. 18:00-19:00 Thu. 06:00-07:00
New Delhi UTC+5:30 Wed. 21:30-22:30 Thu. 09:30-10:30
Bejing UTC+8 Thu. 00:00-01:00 Thu. 12:00-13:00
Tokyo UTC+9 Thu. 01:00-02:00 Thu. 13:00-14:00
Canberra UTC+10 Thu. 17:00-18:00 Thu. 14:00-15:00
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/ ,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning,
which you can click to accept.
Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on.
--
Zak Greant (Wikimedia Foundation Contractor)
Plans, reports + logs at http://mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Zakgreant
Want to talk about the Mediawiki developer docs?
Catch me on irc://irc.freenode.net#wikimedia-office Wed. from
16:00-17:00 UTC & Thu. from 04:00-05:00 UTC
In a message dated 10/3/2010 9:59:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
> No, "built by the masses" was not the intent. The goal was to build an
> encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in
> this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate. So
> I must say, in response to this remarkable claim: citation needed.
It's self-evident :0
Calling it the "encyclopedia which anyone can edit" implies the "intent"
not goal as you stated, that we desire anyone to actually edit it.
Not just understand that they could and yet they won't and we don't
actually want them to....
Apparently, the project wants the masses to edit it, or are you claiming
that that's just a false slogan to make a marketing point?
W
Hi all,
Zack Exley, the Chief Community Officer [1] of the Wikimedia
Foundation, will
be having office hours this Tuesday (October 5) at 21:00 UTC
(14:00 PT, 17:00 ET, 23:00 CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office.
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning,
which you can click to accept.
Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on.
[1] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Chief_Community_Officer
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony" <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
To: "Peter Damian" <peter.damian(a)btinternet.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>>In my experience by "verifiability", Wikipedians mean "published
somewhere", not "verifiably true".
No the published source must be reliable as well. Otherwise published
sources on holocaust denial could be cited as if factually true (or rather,
verifiable) in Wikipedia.
Geni:
>>However it fundamentally fails to explain why other areas of the
>>humanities such as those covered by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritim…
This is not a humanities subject, nor does it have the problem that Sarah
has been talking about, which is a horde of editors without any training in
the subject being aggressively stupid, to use David's happy phrase.
In a message dated 10/3/2010 5:04:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
> Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an
> arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture
> in
> Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, "this is our encyclopedia, and no
> 'expert' is going to tell us what to do", may seem liberating to some, but
> is preventing the Project from being the truly collaborative one it has
> the
> potential to be. >>
It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but
rather an encyclopedia built *by* the masses, for the masses. That was the
intent. In this, it has succeeded, for better or worse.
It's not the point that "no expert is going to tell us what to do". It's
the point that some "experts" not all or them, nor even most of them, do not
want to be challenged on their own dogma or as slim put it their canon.
They don't want students who are too uppity, but prefer to lecture down from
the position to which they think they are entitled.
In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but
rather based upon your argument and presentation. If you don't want to give
an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well.
Or at least that's the theory. If a student asks "Why" and you respond
"Because I said so", exactly what sort of "Expert" are you? Not a very good
one is my response.
W
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Jay Walsh <Jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> This week the Foundation is excited to be releasing four separate videos shot at the recent Wikimania Conference in Gdansk, Poland. The first video 'Username' is now posted on the WM Commons:
They're good! Very clean-looking and bright.
I think it's a great shame that the Wikipedia logo doesn't appear
throughout, though. And I would argue the Wikipedia global URL ought
to be onscreen at all times too.
I assume there would be no argument if someone wanted to do a remix
with those elements added? If someone agrees with my points, has the
video editing skills and software I sadly lack and would like to do
those versions then I would donate £30 (GBP) to Wikimedia.
I'm assuming that I would be able to provide proof of keeping my
commitment by linking to the donation log:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionHistory/en
User:Bodnotbod