At 18:05 20/09/2007, you wrote:
>On 20/09/2007, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The sooner that "notability" is consigned to oblivion, the better. Or
> > it would be nice of Jimbo made a decreed, there are too many people
> > wasting too much time discussing a matter which should have been
> > resolved five years ago.
>
>I love this belief that Jimbo can issue an edict and everyone will
>fall into line... and, indeed, that he would be willing to, or that he
>would agree with you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POLICY
"How are policies started?"
"Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers .. "
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
>P.S. Ian and I are discussing different
>issues. Ian's complaint is that controversial articles are
>deleted on the grounds of "non-notability", while I am addressing the
>problem of articles on
>Singaporean topics being deleted on the grounds of "non-notability".
>Perhaps we should create
>another thread about systemic bias and notability? Sorry for hijacking your
>thread, Ian.
No problem, we're both complaining about "non-notability" being used
as an excuse to delete articles, and since notability may also be
subjective, it can be an impossible criteria to assess objectively.
The sooner that "notability" is consigned to oblivion, the better. Or
it would be nice of Jimbo made a decreed, there are too many people
wasting too much time discussing a matter which should have been
resolved five years ago.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
At 11:17 20/09/2007, you wrote:
>2007/9/20, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight(a)gmail.com>:
> > So, Andre, in your opinion, the question should be: "Where do we draw the
> > line?"
> >
> > That's why we need notability criteria that are objective, not subjective.
>
>Yes, but the big problem, as I wrote, is that it's hard or impossible
>to find objective criteria so that you don't have A and B, such that A
>would be 'notable enough', B not 'notable enough', and at the same
>time subjectively one would consider B to be 'higher' in notability
>than A.
The problem is that a tiny number of editors think that THEY are the
sole arbiters of notability. The fact is that many concept are
notable to minority groups, and only the view of their group counts.
Abolish notability and you have no problem.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
>If that's really what he says, then I guess I am at the wrong project.
>I would like Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, that's something else
>than a collection of all possible knowledge. My neighbour's phone
>number has no place in Wikipedia, in my opinion.
Aside from personal information being prohibited on grounds on
privacy, Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor directory, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
However, Wikipedia already includes some telephone numbers such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Telephone_numbers
>Well, unless like me you consider the inclusion of tons of trivial and
>worthless information along with the good stuff a problem.
The problem is who decides what is trivial and worthless. I've
already mentioned that Wikipedia contains articles on all 1000 of the
top 1000 asteroids. I personally consider Asteroid #868,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/868_Lova to be trivial and worthless.
There is a list of the top 1000 asteroids,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%281-1000%29
and a list of notable asteroids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_noteworthy_asteroids
But I see no harm in including all this "worthless" information, and
I suspect that astronomers who specialise in asteroids would consider
it more interesting and worthy than the rest of us.
The information is not misrepresented, and is verifiable. And I am
reassured that Wikipedia is inclusive of such trivia, and perhaps one
day, there will be more information on said asteroid.
Wikipedia still includes more traditional information, and perhaps
many articles that we would both agree to being more notable, and more worthy.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
>Wow this thread has gone off topic! Oh well;
>
>In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor
>contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is
>possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and
>only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble,
>as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions
>which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of
>this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be
>remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying
>may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is
>likely to have arrived at the complete and final truth on any subject
>whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us
>obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow
>true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true.
>This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once
>enlarges the scope of our thinking, and helps us to realize how
>foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which
>has a different temper of mind.
Wise words indeed. Reminds me of the difference between skepticism
and pseudoskeptism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
At 12:21 19/09/2007, you wrote:
>On 18/09/2007, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, unfortunately unless you know the history here (Sagan was
> > monumentally unpopular in his field, as popular as he was to the
> > public), it's easy to be confused.
>
>And Sagan was particularly annoying even by his own standards in this
>set of arguments, I vaguely recall.
>
>It's a single quote from a "mainstream" astronomer; given the
>circumstances surrounding the debate, I think we can safely assume it
>was someone calling Sagan a twerp rather than calling Velikovsky a
>respected scientist! The dangers of contextless quotation...
Yes, context is important. Jastrow noted: "Dr. Velikovsky had his day
when he spotted a major scientific boner in Professor Sagan's
argument" concerning the odds against the collisions in Worlds in
Collision. The "error lay in the assumption that the collisions were
independent of one another.... Dr. Velikovsky pointed out that the
collisions are not independent; in fact, if two bodies orbiting the
sun under the influence of gravity collided once, that encounter
enhances the chance of another, a fact well known in celestial
mechanics. Professor Sagan's calculations, in effect, ignore the law
of gravity. Here Velikovsky was the better astronomer." Robert
Jastrow, "Velikovsky, a Star-Crossed Theoretician of the Cosmos," The
New York Times (December 2,1979), p. 22E.
We may speculate that Jastrow was knocking Sagan, but his quote notes
specifically that Velikovsky was better on this point (which is not
the same as suggestion he was a respected scientist).
Jastrow had also noted that Velikovsky was "a man of extraordinary
talents" with "powers of scholarship and intellect", and his theory
as "radical, exciting, and potentially fruitful", and acknowledges
three correct predictions: "Venus is hot; Jupiter emits radio noise;
and the moon's rocks are magnetic" (and then notes seven false predictions).
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
******************************************
__ __ _ _ _ _
/ / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___
\ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \
\ /\ /| | <| |/ /| | | | | __/
\/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___|
.org
Year: 2007 Week: 38 Special edition
******************************************
An independent internal news bulletin
for the members of the Wikimedia community
//////////////////////////////////////////
=== Request for help ===
Dear readers,
Almost two years ago I started with Wikizine. The very first message
send out about it was also a "special edition". That was to present
Wikizine, what it was all about.
http://en.wikizine.org/2005/10/year-2005-week41-special-edition.html
This one now is not to explain what Wikizine is.
Wikizine is not totally unsuccessful. The number of readers has only
go up since its existence, slowly yes, but up nevertheless. The rare
feedback has been positive.
It was my intention to create a platform with Wikizine to bring
together the most relevant information, news, from all Wikimedia
projects and languages. I felt, and still do, that there is a need for
that.
I hoped that after some time a network of reporters of the various
wikis, languages, projects, would form who could bring there news to
the larger community by means of Wikizine. And also that the would
people step up to join me in creating Wikizine.
This largely did not happened. In the last two years some people have
volunteered and helped with making Wikizine. But that where far to
few, who did not a lot and only for a to short time to have any real
impact.
Wikizine was and is still a one man show. I have made all editions
until now of Wikizine. I can not continue like this. It has become
more difficult with every edition for me to bring myself to get the
next one ready. The time it was fun is long gone. The frequency of the
editions has become more and more erratic. And the quality is falling.
I need people who are willing to work substantially on Wikizine. And
not only today but on the long term. Finding news, writing it in the
draft; constructing Wikizine. If you like to help please contact me;
walter AT wikizine.org
Request for help for Wikizine has been send out before, only not so
explicit like now. This is also the first time I send it to
non-Wikizine channels.
The responds the previous times was always nearly zero. I do not
expect anything else this time. Surprise me.
Greetings,
Walter Vermeir
The editor-founder of Wikizine
//////////////////////////////////////////
Editor(s): Walter
Contact: reply or http://report.wikizine.org
Website: http://www.wikizine.org
//////////////////////////////////////////
Wikizine.org makes no guarantee of accuracy,
validity and especially but not limited to,
correct grammar and spelling.
Wikizine.org is published by [[meta:user:Walter]],
and is not a publication of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikizine is a weekly publication as long as there is noteworthy news
(and time)
Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
At 11:46 17/09/2007, you wrote:
>On 17/09/2007, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is questioning that. The
> > article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky
> > Reconsidered)", a "special series of ten issues of the magazine
> > Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
>
>I think the interesting and idiosyncratic assumption that "all
>published books are suitable for an article" kicks in here. Do
>non-English projects make this same assumption? Does it vary between
>fiction and nonfiction? Enquiring minds want to know...
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia,
then I think there is no doubt that there would
be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not
paper, and consequently has decided that if it is
(a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable
sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all
1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few
of which are any more notable pieces of rock than
another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as
a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely
"stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising
every book that was ever published. It already
summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not your typical encyclopedia.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
>When Sagan fell ill, shortly before his death, a wide number of
>professional astronomers and planetary scientists I know refused, some
>rather insultingly, to sign a get-well card someone else was passing
>around at a conference I was at.
Knowing how Velikovsky was treated by astronomers, and Halton Arp was
treated by astronomers (they wouldn't let him play with their toys,
and refused him telescope time), perhaps this says more about astronomers.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
At 20:33 18/09/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
>On 9/18/07, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > I recall Director of NASA's Goddard Space Center,
> > Columbia astronomer and Dartmouth earth
> > scientist, Robert Jastrow, criticizing part of
> > Carl Sagan's assessment of Worlds in Collision,
> > and concluded that "Here Velikovsky was the
> > better astronomer" [The New York Times (December 2, 1979)
>
>I suspect this was intended as a monumental insult to Sagan rather
>than any praise to Velikovsky.
"Velikovsky was the better astronomer" sure reads like praise to me.
I suppose that when Velikovsky earned an Honorary Degree of Doctor of
Arts and Science from the University of Lethbridge in 1974, this was
meant as a monumental insult to everyone at the University.
George Herbert wrote:
>Yeah, unfortunately unless you know the history here (Sagan was
>monumentally unpopular in his field, as popular as he was to the
>public), it's easy to be confused.
But surely not as unpopular as Velikovsky.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com