[WikiEN-l] WP and Deep Web, was Re: Age fabrication and original research

[stevertigo]

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Just because one strives for neutrality does not mean that one ever
> achieves it.

Some of don't strive for objective neutrality - some of us strive for
subjective perfection! Take the politicized and the religious, for
example. Objectivity does not necessarily need to be an "-ism" to have
an idealistic conceptualization, but that doesn't mean that
objectivity neutrality is something irrelevant, ignorable, or
dismiss-able (as you say) as just a pipe-dream.

> Am I interpreting your neologism "sourcewallahs" /(sp!)/ correctly?  I'm
> reading it as individuals who randomly attach sources for material
> without regard to its relevance.

No. Sourcewallas would simply have 1) copyright search engine access
2) an open way to communicate privately with random requesters, and 3)
a simple standard methodology for searching for sources that requires
only:
a) the requester submitting the exact search string they want and
b) the sourcewalla returning the exact search results given.
The better search engines should return -- or give the option of
returning -- excised paragraphs in a list form.

By "an open way," I mean a) making oneself available for immediate
contact. ("User is currently online" functionality would be good). By
"communicate privately" I mean we can't expect we can get in the habit
of posting full-page search results in full to talk pages. ("Private
invite-only user talk page" functionality would good, too).

"Sourcewalla" - ie. [[Dabbawala]]. Using "ah" to represent an /a/
sound is not necessary for non-aspirated /h/ final sounds -- as with
the most widely-used late-Semitic name for God.

> One assumes good faith by recognizing that the other may not be
> aware if his own biases.

Yeah, but making someone aware of the fact that they are acting like
an ass in certain part due to those biases is, of course, just a
natural part of honesty and friendship.

> Being too vigorous about shaking the tree of his biases may only > serve to expose one's own biases.

Can't we just agree that there are different ways to shake it, and
that some of these ways are more extroverted than are others?

> In the myth of Adam and Eve Adam would have been unable to
> move forward if Eve had not shaken down that one fruit.

Well, you know they say girls develop faster.

> Shaking the tree too vigorously could have brought a rain of fruit > to drive Adam away ... this is the same effect as going
> all-in prematurely with a good poker hand.

In spite of our tendencies here to speak to the contrary, keep in mind
again that most things have degrees. And going all-in with a good hand
is actually a standard move, when one is short-stacked, and won't get
anything more out of the pot by slow-poking it anyway. Some spectrum
can include both standard and quite unconventional ideas (bluffing, in
this case).

-Stevertigo
"You're made of card..