On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 18:17, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote:
The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the
On 10/05/2010 08:28 AM, SlimVirgin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 18:17,wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Have you looked at the current version of that page? Every sentence has
at least one ref, it looks like a spider has fallen into an ink well and
then run backwards and forwards across the
It's very distracting, and completely unnecessary.
There are ways of
bundling citations into one footnote at the end of
each paragraph,
while still making clear which citation supports which
words. But it's
It doesn't distract me at all,
Me neither. As a reader, I find it
On 5 October 2010 12:01, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's very distracting, and completely unnecessary.
There are ways of
bundling citations into one footnote at the end of
each paragraph,
while still making clear which citation supports which
words. But it's
It doesn't
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 02:04, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 10/05/2010 08:28 AM, SlimVirgin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 18:17,wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Have you looked at the current version of that page? Every sentence has
at least one ref, it looks like a spider
As an editor, it makes it very difficult to edit, when you
have three
words then a {{cite}} template.
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the article in
amongst all the citation templates when you're trying to edit.
A.
In a message dated 10/5/2010 6:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the
article in amongst all the citation templates when you're trying to edit.
That however really isn't a fault that can be laid at
On 5 October 2010 13:39, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/5/2010 6:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the
article in amongst all the citation templates when you're trying to edit.
On 05/10/2010 15:23, Liam Wyatt wrote:
On 5 October 2010 13:39,wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/5/2010 6:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the
article in amongst all the citation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/10/2010 19:48, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
What is the main point of wikipedia to edit it, or to read it?
Could it be both or do we get to choose only one?
NOTE: when reading an article or a book one rarely looks at the
references.
Hoi,
Who is our audience ? I am sure that a certain training is needed to feel
comfortable with references and sources. When you are comfortable with it,
you probably use a particular terminology and consider illustrations
distractions...
Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a
On 5 Oct 2010, at 18:48, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
What is the main point of wikipedia to edit it, or to read it? Because
the readability of something like the Bulger article is very low. Making
it easier to edit with peppered refs will probably mean that more refs
get added
on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human
knowledge.
On 02/10/2010 19:21, Peter Damian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005
- Original Message -
From: Noein prono...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
So, Peter, how is this communication failure [1] (and I think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you, your answers reveal quite clearly your vision. (I disagree,
though, but that's not important).
A few comments below...
On 04/10/2010 15:58, Peter Damian wrote:
How is the problem of making a difficult subject clear different in the case
To sum up a little bit:
Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of
philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not
appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained
philosopher. Philosophers, and philosophy in general, are treated
with less
- Original Message -
From: Noein prono...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 09:34, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of
philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not
appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained
philosopher. Philosophers, and
- Original Message -
From: Noein prono...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you
on 10/4/10 11:06 AM, Noein at prono...@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't self criticizing, openness of mind, intersubjective references,
shared arguments, and the empathic capacity to understand what the other
see a better approach to star a discussion?
Yes! With this you describe the very essence
Peter wrote:
2. An initiative to highlight 5 top importance articles and get them to GA
or FA. There are very few FA status articles, compared to the rest of the
project.
3. Another initiative to re-classify the top 50 articles in terms of
importance and quality (I looked at this and some are
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Peter wrote:
2. An initiative to highlight 5 top importance
Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you know you're
not one of them? What's the difference between the one who knows he
knows and the one who doesn't know he doesn't know if it's only about
self-perception (or social perception)?
Where
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:47, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
Teach a mind to be
critical and it can learn everything. Teach a mind what you believe and
you just shaped a sheep.
Exactly. Hence the importance of philosophy. When I argue in favour of
philosophy, I'm not arguing in favour of
- Original Message -
From: Noein prono...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Note, Peter, that I am not rejecting the value of your
On 03.10.2010 17:03, geni wrote:
So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than
go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my
time.
Wikipedia is about people with knowledge collaborating to add their part
to the project. This way Wikipedia is trying
On 4 October 2010 19:31, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote:
On 03.10.2010 17:03, geni wrote:
So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than
go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my
time.
Wikipedia is about people with knowledge
On 4 October 2010 19:43, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
controversial areas came later. Don't
On 04.10.2010 20:43, geni wrote:
On 4 October 2010 19:31, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote:
But those who don't have verifiable knowledge, should not write for
Wikipedia. Their contribution is at best useless, at worse they use up
time and energy of those who could make better
On 04.10.2010 20:43, geni wrote:
The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a
Imho the problem is much deeper than citing sources or lack of them.
The wikipedian may cite newspaper X, or even researchpaper Y, but
because he has limited inderstanding and/or knowledge about the field,
he may misinterpret the source or judge its weight in much more
absolute terms than the
On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote:
The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote:
The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
in their heads. The whole citation thing outside
Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа:
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
uncitability. I suppose we could
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for
On 03/10/2010 07:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа:
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
in your opinion? Please be specific.
David, I think one of the reasons
So 30 seconds British library catalog search then forget
about it.
Which means that unless you happen to live with a library
that
includes a bunch of naval history or are prepared to spend
a non
trivial amount of money you can't edit say [[HMS Argus
(I49)]] (which
cites Warship 1994).
Experts complain about uncitability - they complain
that common
knowledge in the field doesn't actually make it into
journal articles
or textbooks, but is stuff that everyone knows.
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states something that
On 3 October 2010 14:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge
in journal articles, it should still be possible to find it in basic
- Original Message -
From: Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Much of what you say here is true, David
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states
something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal
articles, it
should still be possible to find it in basic
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 07:15, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 October 2010 14:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior
knowledge in
In a message dated 10/3/2010 5:04:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavi...@comcast.net writes:
Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an
arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture
in
Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, this is
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but
rather based upon your argument and presentation. If you don't want to give
an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well.
Or at
On 3 October 2010 13:43, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
So 30 seconds British library catalog search then forget
about it.
Which means that unless you happen to live with a library
that
includes a bunch of naval history or are prepared to spend
a non
trivial amount of money you
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but
rather an encyclopedia built
In a message dated 10/3/2010 8:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
Will, can you try and focus on the three questions and keep this
on-topic.
1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no?
2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 09:14, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no?
2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying or systematic reasons?
3. If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
1. One of the foundational works that was used to create Wikipedia was
the
1911 EB. Wherever
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in particular,
and to a certain extent the humanities. The question is why is that so.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
This is absolutely the attitude I've encountered
Wikipedia changed since 2005?
This is absolutely the attitude I've encountered on Wikipedia, where
everyone thinks that if you know how to ask what is truth? you're
also able to have a go at answering it. But that's the basic error
right there, and it has driven off several of the specialists who
might
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I can think of a very labour-intensive change
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
I gave a list of problematic articles. Here is
one of them again.
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html
I really can't comment on that one without first learning more about
argumentum ad
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
No, built by the masses was not the intent. The goal was to build an
encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in
this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate. So
I must say, in
- Original Message -
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
To: Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
In my experience by verifiability, Wikipedians mean published
somewhere, not verifiably
.
- Original Message -
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion within the
bounds of the rules of this mailing list.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 October 2010 18:23, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
Geni:
However it fundamentally fails to explain why other areas of the
humanities such as those covered by
Geni, would you like to describe how you research
sources?
Entirely depends on what I'm doing. Sometimes I start with
an article
and go looking for refs.
Okay. Assume that all I am saying is: when you go looking for refs, look first
whether there are any academic refs out there that
In a message dated 10/3/2010 9:59:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
No, built by the masses was not the intent. The goal was to build an
encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in
this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate.
On 2 October 2010 18:13, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
And you've missed the point.
The entire thrust of our mission is to make readers into editors.
Inasmuch as we have a mission, it is to create a world in which every
single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
On 3 October 2010 22:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Seems to me you would not be the right editor to embark on this then. :) Best
to leave it to someone who speaks Japanese, and they should have a look what
scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese scholarly
Seems to me you would not be the right editor to
embark on this then. :) Best to leave it to someone who
speaks Japanese, and they should have a look what
scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese
scholarly literature.
err by that standard the person would have to be
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I predict Wikipedia's biology articles will far
On 2 October 2010 07:58, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941
With some fields going to this effort and not others, ultimately it's
up to the specialists in the
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what
On 2 October 2010 10:28, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
in your opinion? Please be specific.
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
As such, and in the interest of better philosophy
The question of which ones of the list philosophers will 'balk at' is
quite
different from the question of 'what would work' i.e. what would improve
the
content. Answer: none of them. They are all eminently sensible and
desirable. On citation I can remember getting this drummed into me
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
in your opinion? Please be specific.
David, I think one of the reasons that biologists and others may be
happier than philosophers to edit
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
in your opinion? Please be specific.
David, I think one of the reasons
In a message dated 10/2/2010 3:01:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
slimvir...@gmail.com writes:
Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for
years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the
subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts would
Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
But are [sic] mission is to explain things to that level.
You have totally missed Sarah's point. She
In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:04:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
You missed the point again. Sarah is not saying that the *readers* need
to
understand the basics. She is saying that the problem is with *editors*.
And you've missed the point.
The
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged!
OK you're a nutcase. Sorry. This is exactly the problem I have
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail to
understand even the most
In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:21:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail
to
understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject
is
in inverse proportion to you
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can sit in your padded room and throw your toys around in a temper
tantrum, but that still won't
On 2 October 2010 19:09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
You can sit in your padded room and throw your toys around in a temper
tantrum, but that still won't change anything will it.
While WJohnson's manner is perhaps unnecessarily brusque here, this is
the point: what to do about this?
Wikipedia
On 10/2/2010 8:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I do believe the fact that there is less of a culture of scholarly source
research in en:WP, and a preference of press sources over scholarly sources,
especially in the humanities, impacts very negatively on en:WP's performance
in this area.
I
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 21:08, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 10/2/2010 8:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I do believe the fact that there is less of a culture of scholarly source
research in en:WP, and a preference of press sources over scholarly sources,
especially in the
On 2 October 2010 20:53, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own folk ontology: an
answer to the question what is knowledge? that is simple and obvious
enough for smart high school students. And I'm
It explains things quite well.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:01 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 October 2010 20:53, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own folk ontology: an
answer to
This suggests the problem is: how do you *get across to*
someone that
they're just ignorant, in a manner that is duplicable
across the wiki,
and do that without breaking our spectacular successes so
far?
Well, one way is to make clear to our editors that we expect them to make a bit
of an
Yes, surely, this makes sense.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
This suggests the problem is: how do you *get across to*
someone that
they're just ignorant, in a manner that is duplicable
across the wiki,
and do that without breaking our
On 2 October 2010 21:32, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
This suggests the problem is: how do you *get across to*
someone that
they're just ignorant, in a manner that is duplicable
across the wiki,
and do that without breaking our spectacular successes so
far?
Well, one way is to
No indeed. That's why I say the question is how to get
across to
idiots that they are, in fact, idiots - without breaking
what clearly
works fantastically well on Wikipedia. (How to avoid, for
instance,
falling into a credentialism death spiral.)
I guess it is also worth thinking about
I agree, increasing the quality of editors rather than number of editors
would increase the quality of information and decrease the propensity of
editors to over-write incorrect information.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
No indeed. That's why I say
Putting in place what are effectively featured article
standards would
for starting new articles would be a great way of killing
the project
if it was remotely enforceable.
Worse still articles like [[Canal]] would be effectively
unrwritable
by anyone. Since there is not going to be
On 2 October 2010 22:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree with you, David, that credentialism isn't the way forward. But asking
editors, nicely, to please do some research and to check what scholarly
literature is available, in google scholar, in google books, and in academic
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation
as a debating tactic.
On 2 October 2010 22:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think that is a misunderstanding that operated at the time as well. This is
not about having to chew your way through all the available scholarly
literature before you are allowed to start the article canal.
It is about
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan nawr
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping
On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
A few posts back Peter linked to several philosophy-trained editors
who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems
he has identified.
I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as
his
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/09/2010 19:47, Peter Damian wrote:
To the other
Wikipedians here: is there a problem with academics 'talking down'? Do they
have a problem explaining their ideas in articles? Are they 'too rarified'
to be included in Wikipedia? If so,
A few posts back Peter linked to several philosophy-trained editors
who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems
he has identified.
I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as
his reasons for leaving:
[quote]
1. No one is accountable, nor does
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
