On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:55 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
and our processes have not always been victorious over it. Simply
put, the rubbish on
On 1 September 2010 00:27, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
You, and the RW article about WP, start from the assertion that
Wikipedia is successful. Successful at what? Success at Google
rankings/pageviews/popular culture? Is that the only appropriate
measure of an encyclopedia; an
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro_hominemoldid=369721624
- Original Message -
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
It's a simple error that most proof-readers would find.
Well only if they can read Latin, which is not that usual these days.
It looks right at first
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:35 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
...This, btw, is how Citizendium
became a pseudoscience haven:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Citizendium#The_concept_of_expertise_on_Citizendium
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:57 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29
On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Irony. David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence.
The links are there if you want to read them.
Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
and our processes have not always
On 31 August 2010 00:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Irony. David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence.
The links are there if you want to read them.
Or, if you prefer: of course the wiki is
Gerard writes: The trouble is that attempts to make something that lures
experts but
keeps idiots out of their faces have so far failed and/or attracted no
attention, even from the experts (Citizendium, Scholarpedia). That is,
they sound like a good idea; but in practice, Wikipedia has so far
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:38:34 +0100, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors
that
are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the
folk wisdom of the internet), no one will be bothered.
On 29 August 2010 15:38, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors that
are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the
folk wisdom of the internet), no one will be bothered. The problem is
On 29 August 2010 16:45, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
These issues have been discussed at length at the Strategy wiki and made
to the five-how year strategic plan. The question is how they would be
implemented now. But it is not really correct that nobody bothers.
Awareness of
*The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors
that
are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the
folk wisdom of the internet), no one will be bothered.
*
I think my problem with suggestions like this is that the assumption at the
heart of all
On 29 August 2010 17:19, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think my problem with suggestions like this is that the assumption at the
heart of all of them--that experts with degrees are preferable as
information authorities to nonexperts without--is deeply problematic, and
I'm not
Well, right. That's kind of what I mean. These things happened to
Citizendium because credentialism is the natural outcome of trying to create
a system of valuing a certain class of contributors more than others.
DM
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 29 August 2010 17:52, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, right. That's kind of what I mean. These things happened to
Citizendium because credentialism is the natural outcome of trying to create
a system of valuing a certain class of contributors more than others.
I was
On 29/08/2010 16:46, David Gerard wrote:
On 29 August 2010 15:38, Peter Damianpeter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors that
are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the
folk wisdom of the
On 29 August 2010 18:16, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Now whether they would have had to or not isn't the point. The point was
that all had experience onwiki aguements, and all had independently
decided that they're time was better spent in ways other than agueing
with a wikieditor.
We need to set up a regular mechanism which analyzes and searches for
errors. Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Error_management
We need to make a science of it, Wikipedia:Error_management
Fred
Gerard writes: The trouble is that attempts to make something that
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with
content issues.
We need to set up a regular mechanism which analyzes and
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with
content issues.
We need to set up a regular mechanism which analyzes
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:30 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently I am involved in a dispute regarding the interpretation of
the literature regarding Transcendental Meditation (TM) which has been going
on for years. There are about 5 editors who admit to being practitioner of
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:30 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that
deals
with content.
The
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote
Let's linky here, Oliver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDCOM
--
~Keegan
My bad. Anyway, to quote The role of the Mediation Committee is explicitly
to try to resolve disputes, especially those *involving
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:30:38 -0600, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Is this intended to be a WMF- (cross-project-) issue, or English Wikipedia
issue? If the latter is the case, then it should be sent to a different
post. If the former is the case,
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:30:38 -0600, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
.
For instance, would such committee (if ever created) tell Arabic Wikipedia
what
has to be written
Well, you're probably looking at it the wrong way; if something
mediation
committee-like is being talked about, telling X or Z what to do is not
the
purpose. Instead it's to get X and Z to (grudgingly) meet at Y. I agree
that
the general scope of this needs to be clarified, however. If it's
--- On Mon, 9/8/10, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's linky here, Oliver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDCOM
--
~Keegan
My bad. Anyway, to quote The role of the Mediation
Committee is explicitly
to try to resolve disputes, especially those *involving
content*
To address the comments made. The mediation committee does not have formal
means of enforcement. This is something maybe we should look at creating.
What is needed is a group of people who actively research the topic and come
to a tentative and enforceable conclusion. The mediation committee is
On 9 August 2010 20:45, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
To address the comments made. The mediation committee does not have formal
means of enforcement. This is something maybe we should look at creating.
What is needed is a group of people who actively research the topic and come
to
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that deals
with content. I have been involved in a number of cases in which such a
committee would be exceedingly useful ( ADHD, Rorschach test, abortion,
etc.). Currently I am involved in a
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:30 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that deals
with content.
The Mediation Committee?
___
foundation-l
30 matches
Mail list logo
