[Foundation-l] Donation of Encyclopedic Entries on Famous Poems

Jeffrey Peters 17peters at cardinalmail.cua.edu
Tue Jun 22 15:02:53 UTC 2010

Dear Ray Saintonge,

Not one bit of those articles constitutes "original research". It is 100%
cited to highly reliable third party sources. They are exact summaries of
thousands of pages of source material. Furthermore, Simple English is about
the use of simple language to convey encyclopedic content, not simple
"material" and stop at anything more complex. We provide material for those
who lack advanced English language skills, but this does not mean they lack
mental faculties. As I said, its language has not yet been simplified, as
that is the end of the process before it is put into mainspace there.

Jeffrey Peters
aka Ottava Rima

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> geni wrote:
> > On 22 June 2010 01:25, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jeffrey Peters wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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_Immortalit
> >> y
> >>
> >>> http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Kubla_Khan
> >>>
> >> Neither article appears to be written in Simple English (or whatever the
> >> Simple English Wikipedia has contrived to mean "Simple English").
> >>
> >> MZMcBride
> >>
> >
> > I assume Ottava is using the pages in question as a holding ground
> > until they can be moved over to en. If you really need to know the
> > details see:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions#Ottava_Rima_banned
> >
> > But the short version is that in an environment full of people with
> > poor social skill's Ottava's approach to interactions has caused
> > problems. Good content editor mind.
> >
> >
> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list