2012/9/12 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
Wikipedia is just not the right place to settle controversies.
maybe the solution would be simply to make a quick article on wikipedia
explaining the controversies, and giving references to different point of
view.
that was the initial way
I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I
use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the
truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the
articles is a treasure trove.
T
Terry, Eric
You ever open a Sampler box of Godiva or other fine chocolates and find
that are a few that you do not like as well as the rest...
Most are close to heaven, of course ...
Wiki is like that. You pass over the one or two that you do not favor (i.e.
cherry-filled) and savor the rest.
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking
that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come
about in the last ten or so years.
The Model T Ford was also incredible. It was wonderful breakthrough
refer-a-pedia
wiki-ference
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I
use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the
truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
controversial subjects.
harry
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, Wikipedia is good for some things
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
controversial subjects.
I do not think that will happen. The Wikipedia management would not agree.
I do not
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
controversial subjects.
I do not
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as
either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the
user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands.
Exactly. To simplify: Just have signed
I wrote:
If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by
supporters, and one by opponents. Why not?
This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach
a compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and
only one article per topic.
2012/9/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as
either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the
user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands.
in fact I've heard of wikipedia spitrit in the old time :
it was to express reasonable opinion, all reasonable opinions, with
reference data, show controversies, ...
but on some subject I follow I've see that peer-reviewed but non mainstream
point of view get thrown out by ideological non
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by
supporters, and one by opponents. Why not?
This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a
compromise taking into
On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The main problems are that it allows anonymous editing, and it has no respect
for authorities in complicated, specialized subjects. I hope that it is
reformed, or -- if it is not -- that some competing encyclopedia arises.
The rules/policies are absolutely ok when applied by editors with
common sense or for non-controversial articles.
For articles on controversial topics a group of editors will feel that
they have to protect the article from evil POV pushers. They have a
mission: Wikipedia must not expound fringe
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
No, I hope it withers away.
I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking
that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come
about in the last ten or so years.
Obviously
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com, an expert in Wikipedia, wrote
descriptions that seem contradictory to me. First he says the policies are
great, then he says they are not followed:
If you are interested in helping with Wikipedia, do register, but be aware
that it can be an abusive
17 matches
Mail list logo
