Jeffrey Peters wrote: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immor… y Neither article appears to be written in Simple English (or whatever the Simple English Wikipedia has contrived to mean "Simple English"). MZMcBride

I would like to ask more writers of quality content on the standard Wikipedia to simplify their material, after returning to the sources to make sure the simplifcation falls within the source material, so that Simple English will have more high quality pages.

Dear List, My name is Jeffrey Peters, a professional researcher who is currently working on my dissertation (dealing with Romantic poetry) and in addition Masters in Classical Lit. I am writing to you today to announce the donation of two fully written pages on two important poems of the English language: Wordsworth's *Ode: Intimations of Immortality* and Coleridge's *Kubla Khan*. Their current pages are almost stub level and contain many errors and problems. Both rewrites/expansions can be found on Simple Wikipedia, a project that is noble and deserves more involvement by the community as a whole: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immor… http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Kubla_Khan The above are works of love, and I dedicated dozens of hours at multiple DC university libraries compiling research that, as far as I can tell, cannot be found elsewhere in such a complete and concise form in print or on the internet. I have provided my time and abilities to produce the page for the betterment of the WMF and Wikipedia as a whole. I do so because of four individuals who have inspired me over the last year: Jimbo Wales (for his dedication to the idea of a free and complete encyclopedia), Samuel Klein (for his dedication to the projects and valiant effort to ensure high quality), Cary Bass (for the massive amount of time he puts in ensuring that volunteers are able to succeed), and Philippe Beaudette (for striving to make the WMF more academic friendly). Previously, I donated the material for Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard but I did not compile one whole page with every aspect but included material in a piecemeal fashion. This did not work as well as I hoped, so I put in the additional effort to ensure that the pages can be considered "complete", though they may need additional minor copyedits to remove any final errors. I hope that my donation today will aid Wikipedia's continuing quest to provide a free and educational encyclopedia, and I hope that the level of effort and critical eye, to an extent that appears unrivaled in any current poetry page (even in my previous works), will attract more people to Wikipedia who shall do the same. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Oh Kubla Khan! Jorge Luis Borges was fond of the palace's story and the poem. Thank you for your hard work.

Dear List, My name is Jeffrey Peters, a professional researcher who is currently working on my dissertation (dealing with Romantic poetry) and in

Masters in Classical Lit. I am writing to you today to announce the donation of two fully written pages on two important poems of the English

Wordsworth's *Ode: Intimations of Immortality* and Coleridge's *Kubla Khan*. Their current pages are almost stub level and contain many errors and problems. Both rewrites/expansions can be found on Simple Wikipedia, a project that is noble and deserves more involvement by the community as

whole:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Kubla_Khan

After taking a quick look at the incomprehensible and opaque dispute that took place, I do agree that adding this material to Simple seems to be an act of self-preservation. The kind of detailed scholarship in them does not accord with my own vision of Simple. While articles on key tidbits of English literature deserve a place in Simple, one must ever be mindful that the potential audience has an even more limited apprehension of English literary history than of the English language. That said, these articles, as worthy as anything that might be found in PMLA, do have a place somewhere in the wiki family, even if the rules against original research may not make them suitable for Wikipedia itself. If we accept as a premise that these articles constitute original research, what is the best place for them? Good original research is only too quickly distorted when subject to multiple edits by different individuals with divergent perspectives until it is refined into the coherence of a Jehovah's Witness tract. Perhaps a new project is needed where the integrity of the original contribution is retained, and future modifications remain the sole right of the oriuginal contributor. These essays would still be available for comment criticism and peer review in associated pages. Sj's thread on citation bias in the medical field struck a chord in me. It makes me wonder how we might be able to do peer review better than the academic establishment. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geni wrote: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immor… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rim… After taking a quick look at the incomprehensible and opaque dispute that took place, I do agree that adding this material to Simple seems to be an act of self-preservation. The kind of detailed scholarship in them does not accord with my own vision of Simple. While articles on key tidbits of English literature deserve a place in Simple, one must ever be mindful that the potential audience has an even more limited apprehension of English literary history than of the English language. That said, these articles, as worthy as anything that might be found in PMLA, do have a place somewhere in the wiki family, even if the rules against original research may not make them suitable for Wikipedia itself. If we accept as a premise that these articles constitute original research, what is the best place for them? Good original research is only too quickly distorted when subject to multiple edits by different individuals with divergent perspectives until it is refined into the coherence of a Jehovah's Witness tract. Perhaps a new project is needed where the integrity of the original contribution is retained, and future modifications remain the sole right of the oriuginal contributor. These essays would still be available for comment criticism and peer review in associated pages. Sj's thread on citation bias in the medical field struck a chord in me. It makes me wonder how we might be able to do peer review better than the academic establishment. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l