G'day Will,
In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:
Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that
can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge.
---
Then why be short?
Quote him.
If you want the
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
snip
Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else, without
injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary.
You start right here, Will...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrida
Crack open one of his
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:01:01PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that
require expert knowledge to understand.
I use such sources all the time for mathematics articles. There's
simply no way to require verifiability but also exclude
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:52 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else,
without
injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary.
I don't think that's the problem, Will. I think most anyone who would
want to summarize Derrida
On Dec 18, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Carl Beckhorn wrote:
This is not a very common issue in mathematics except for certain
philosophical
aspect, and fringe/pseudoscience topics. But I think it would be
more important
in writing about Derrida.
Derrida is perhaps the most thorny example you
On Dec 18, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Carl Beckhorn wrote:
This topic came up on this list a while back, and Jimbo Wales
posted what I thought was a very reasonable opinion at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-April/092995.html
And that's a very good point about NPOV - I've
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:15:10AM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
I am not sure the point applies as well to NOR, where we do actually run
into the problem that we need to have some way of differentiating
between an acceptable interpretation of a source and an unacceptable
one.
The only
In a message dated 12/18/2008 6:12:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
I mean, I agree with you on what you say should be allowed. The
problem is that Wikipedia policy does not agree with us.
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com:
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Please don't! I try and avoid reading about lit crit (I completely
avoid reading actual lit crit), far too many long words used purely to
sound clever.
Not to call Thomas out particularly
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com:
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:48 PM, geni wrote:
And this is one of the reasons why wikipedia policy is what it is.
This fight has been done by others and they have done it better ( eg
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html ). Wikipedia policy is a
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com:
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
What? WP:NOR barely mentions lit crit or anything related to it.
It's
a general policy that applies to literature as much as it does to
I'm a person who likes examples.
Phil, do you have an example article where something is written a certain
way, or is not, and you'd like it to be something different and what?
An example of the problem would really help clarify it for me.
The current policy language was hammered out over
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:55 PM, geni wrote:
Strawman.
Unhelpfully reductionist response that doesn't actually explain itself
and so is worthless.
Blanket denial without at least a line of reasoning behind it is not a
helpful approach to debate.
I don't even understand what you're saying
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:51 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'm a person who likes examples.
Phil, do you have an example article where something is written a
certain
way, or is not, and you'd like it to be something different and what?
The examples I have are more articles that seem to me
[[Chosen (Buffy episode)]] says The core four share a moment talking
about going to the mall after saving the world which causes Giles to
say the earth is definitely doomed, echoing the end of the second
episode of the first season of Buffy. This echoing is transparently
clear - the scenes
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
If nothing else, the list of stuff Carcaroth provided that you wrote
off is a pretty good list of fundamental debates in the question of
how to read sources and what they mean - debates that have
ramifications in all fields. To declare them
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
The only way
to get a decent, NPOV summary of Derrida is to work through hard
sources that require specialist knowledge.
-
Yes.. and?
The only way to get a
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:45:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
that nobody who has actually
read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level
of obvious description
Well then there you go.
You have just recited policy, so go and do
Picking up on a thread from the anti-intellectualism thread, WP:NOR
currently reads Any interpretation of primary source material
requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without
a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make
descriptive claims, the
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:45:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
that nobody who has actually
read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level
of obvious description
Well then
But Derrida is a primary source, so no claims requiring specialist
knowledge are allowed.
Which effectively rules out all uses of Derrida in the Derrida article.
this is dealt with the same way as in politics or religion: we cite
someone for their own viewpoint. for whether it is a complete
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
NOR is a list of things you can't do, not a list of things you can.
Noting that two things are the same when there is no way a reasonable
person could fail to reach the same conclusion after seeing both
sources is not on the list of unacceptable
You can do it as long as anyone reasonable can reach that conclusion
1) is not so much a rule as it is a pragmatic statement about not getting
caught violating the rule, and
I have no problem with that.
2) is heavily subject to the heckler's veto; someone who's either out to
cause trouble
2008/12/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2) is heavily subject to the heckler's veto; someone who's either out to
cause trouble or (more likely) simply too anal and literal-minded about
rules says I'm sorry, I don't accept that and forces you to take it out.
Completely at random.
On Dec 17, 2008, at 6:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that
can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge.
On Dec 17, 2008, at 6:01 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
As expert editors, we are allowed to summarize our sources.
A summary is a description of the source.
A summary *of the source* is not a criticism of the source, nor an
interpretation of the source vis-a-vis some other source such as
In a message dated 12/17/2008 6:58:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
I do not think that the style of having our Derrida article consist
primarily of lengthy quotes from Derrida would pass muster.
-Phil
-
A good
In a message dated 12/17/2008 7:01:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that
require expert knowledge to understand.
I don't concur with that interpretation of what we were trying to
28 matches
Mail list logo
