Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[Derek V.Giroulle]

I was reacting to Gerard ,  i did not necessarily take into account the 
preceding exchange

I was talking about the wikipedia in a more general fashion
and  that refernce to religion was a paraphrased quotation  from prof 
J.De Mul


I sorry if it did indeed leap from the RFC   to a more general wiki 
philosofy/practise  side of things

but to me Gerards reaction was applicable in tho most general of ways

Derek

On 13-03-16 15:26, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

On 2016-03-13 10:06 AM, Derek V.Giroulle wrote:

looks like a modern religion, with its proper dogma and clergy.


... I'm sorry.  Where did you leap from "this was a badly organized 
and ill-tought out RfC on which nobody should be basing an important 
decision" to "put sourced content before  real knowledge"?


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[Derek V.Giroulle]

I wholeheartedly agree with Gerard.

During the conference by the KNAW ( academy of sciences) in Amsterdam
when the Wikipedia community received from HM Willem Alexander of the 
Netherlands the Erasmusaward
Philosofy Professer Jos De Mul ( Erasmus university of Rotterdam) , who 
specialises in the impact of information
and communication technology on humans and on culture,  said 
(paraphrased) the Wikipedia and its community

looks like a modern religion, with its proper dogma and clergy.

In the 15-16 th century Erasmus and a lot of the learned men of his era 
sought refuge in the united Provinces of
the Netherlands together with the protestants who denied the Pope of the 
Roman Catholic church the right
ro call himslef the sole and infallible and omnipotent representative of 
God on this earth, and warred about this for 80 years with the catholic 
kings of Spain.


If we continue to put sourced content before  real knowledge, we are no 
better the flat-earthers who denied the evidence of a round earth 
circling the sun in favour of the catholic dogma of a flat earth center 
of the universe.


Currently the Wikipedia encyclopedia is not gathering knowledge, like a 
candle burning on two sides :
on the historic side of the candle the flame makes us lose knowledge 
that has never been recorded or described in writing; traditional 
aurally transmitted knowledge, descriptive knowledge about traditions, 
about history, about regional and local languages  that have no written 
literature, about traditional costumes, music, dances and ceremonies, 
knowledge stored in family or tribal tales;
On the contemporary side we are not admitting knowledge because the 
scholar is not taken seriously, is not referenced by others. By analogy 
if wikipeida had existed in the 20th century : contributors could not 
have written about black holes because the Einstein's theory had not 
been proven and it would have been all considered speculation, just 
because a despotic self-serving Wikiclergy would have decreed that black 
holes were heresy... but  on the other hand that same clergy currently 
does allow disproven superstition to survive as fact on the same wikipedia.


Haven't we learned anything from clinging dogmatically to conventional 
wisdom instead of allowing creative theories to be tested and either 
being proven or disproven ?


Derek

On 13-03-16 09:12, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi
When this is it, when these people get away with it, their behaviour is as
bad as much of what we have seen lately. I do not care who they are. There
is too much going where people decide on policies and effectively destroy
our culture.,

We do no longer care about our quality, it is all about what others have to
do. It is all about determining for others what is good for them. The
resulting negativity has a lot to do with demanding influence and meddling
with what works by some. Some of the trappings of influence may be exposed
like information about the deliberations of the board but then what?

The board is not at the apex of our community, we are the community. Most
of us do care about issues that are real. But when real things happen
apparatchiks do not care; it is not in their interest. It is why Basel
probably died without even a whimper. What is lost in all the huha is care
that shows what really matters and is not reduced to the regurgitation of
the same old, mostly self serving arguments.

We have so much money that we have money stashed away for a rainy day while
at the same time we have millions of well educated people are in refugee
camps with nothing to do going stir crazy. We could make a difference there
having them edit Wikipedia. It would be mostly languages other than
English. Doing this would be good if only to make up for dropping the ball
for Basel. Alternatively we could invest all that money in green energy to
offset the generation of energy with fossil fuel that powers all the
computers and mobiles of people reading Wikipedia.

As an organisation we have been beaten into a pulp with words. Arguments
are only accepted when they come with a long list of sources. These same
sources are often what holds us back. A psychiatrist was sentenced by a
judge [1] because he argued that a caring psychiatrist will improve the
results for a patient. Later research more than vindicated him. The point
being sources exist and their point is often very much wrong. Our culture
of sources prevents our thinking.

That chuckle is so infuriating because it exposes what is wrong with us.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/02/wikipedia-peter-breggin-power-of.html

On 13 March 2016 at 00:58, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:


On 2016-03-12 1:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:


When it is only a nominal consideration but mostly a chuckle, what does it
say about the validity of those people and their assumptions?


I should say that it says more about the (lack of) validity of the RfC
itself, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi
When this is it, when these people get away with it, their behaviour is as
bad as much of what we have seen lately. I do not care who they are. There
is too much going where people decide on policies and effectively destroy
our culture.,

We do no longer care about our quality, it is all about what others have to
do. It is all about determining for others what is good for them. The
resulting negativity has a lot to do with demanding influence and meddling
with what works by some. Some of the trappings of influence may be exposed
like information about the deliberations of the board but then what?

The board is not at the apex of our community, we are the community. Most
of us do care about issues that are real. But when real things happen
apparatchiks do not care; it is not in their interest. It is why Basel
probably died without even a whimper. What is lost in all the huha is care
that shows what really matters and is not reduced to the regurgitation of
the same old, mostly self serving arguments.

We have so much money that we have money stashed away for a rainy day while
at the same time we have millions of well educated people are in refugee
camps with nothing to do going stir crazy. We could make a difference there
having them edit Wikipedia. It would be mostly languages other than
English. Doing this would be good if only to make up for dropping the ball
for Basel. Alternatively we could invest all that money in green energy to
offset the generation of energy with fossil fuel that powers all the
computers and mobiles of people reading Wikipedia.

As an organisation we have been beaten into a pulp with words. Arguments
are only accepted when they come with a long list of sources. These same
sources are often what holds us back. A psychiatrist was sentenced by a
judge [1] because he argued that a caring psychiatrist will improve the
results for a patient. Later research more than vindicated him. The point
being sources exist and their point is often very much wrong. Our culture
of sources prevents our thinking.

That chuckle is so infuriating because it exposes what is wrong with us.
Thanks,
 GerardM

[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/02/wikipedia-peter-breggin-power-of.html

On 13 March 2016 at 00:58, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 2016-03-12 1:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> When it is only a nominal consideration but mostly a chuckle, what does it
>> say about the validity of those people and their assumptions?
>>
>
> I should say that it says more about the (lack of) validity of the RfC
> itself, Gerard.  To be fair, while I applauded the *idea* of doing a
> consultation about the future of Wikimania in substance and in form, what
> actually happened - a very quiet poll involving three preset options that
> weren't even satisfactory to the very small number of participants - cannot
> possibly be interpreted to reach conclusions to reshape the biggest
> community event of the movement.
>
> I'm all for a proper consultation.  This wasn't it.
>
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[James Heilman]

Gerard not sure what you mean? In the Wikipedia world if a RfC is either
poorly formed or poorly participated in than it is not uncommon for another
one to occur.

J

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> When it is only a nominal consideration but mostly a chuckle, what does it
> say about the validity of those people and their assumptions? This is
> exactly the infuriating kind of response that turns people off the
> community.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 March 2016 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>
> > On 2016-03-12 6:31 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> >
> >> I've lost track of where that's at.
> >>
> >
> > Well, there was a consultation involving too few people that had a slight
> > majority picking every other year out of a set of constrained options;
> > followed by quite a bit of protestation; followed by the chair of the
> > selection committee responding that the consultation will be given "all
> due
> > consideration".
> >
> > I've very little doubt - knowing the selection committee people and their
> > involvement in Wikimania since Frankfurt - that the so-called
> consultation
> > /will/ be given all the consideration that it is due: very little, and a
> > bit of chuckle.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > -- Coren / Marc
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When it is only a nominal consideration but mostly a chuckle, what does it
say about the validity of those people and their assumptions? This is
exactly the infuriating kind of response that turns people off the
community.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 12 March 2016 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 2016-03-12 6:31 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
>
>> I've lost track of where that's at.
>>
>
> Well, there was a consultation involving too few people that had a slight
> majority picking every other year out of a set of constrained options;
> followed by quite a bit of protestation; followed by the chair of the
> selection committee responding that the consultation will be given "all due
> consideration".
>
> I've very little doubt - knowing the selection committee people and their
> involvement in Wikimania since Frankfurt - that the so-called consultation
> /will/ be given all the consideration that it is due: very little, and a
> bit of chuckle.
>
> :-)
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[Anthony Cole]

Thanks, Marc. That's a relief.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 2016-03-12 6:31 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
>
>> I've lost track of where that's at.
>>
>
> Well, there was a consultation involving too few people that had a slight
> majority picking every other year out of a set of constrained options;
> followed by quite a bit of protestation; followed by the chair of the
> selection committee responding that the consultation will be given "all due
> consideration".
>
> I've very little doubt - knowing the selection committee people and their
> involvement in Wikimania since Frankfurt - that the so-called consultation
> /will/ be given all the consideration that it is due: very little, and a
> bit of chuckle.
>
> :-)
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[Anthony Cole]

I've lost track of where that's at.

Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,