On 02/23/12 11:41 AM, Sarah wrote:
If the oral citations (audio and video) were used as an adjunct to
more traditional sources, I think there would be no problem at all.
On the Holocaust page, we used to highlight a quote (now removed) from
a witness who talked to the BBC at the time of the
On Thursday 23 February 2012 12:58 AM, Sarah wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
extremely useful.
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 23 February 2012 12:58 AM, Sarah wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
extremely
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:35, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
By far the majority of people who come up and buck the system or
challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or
people with an agenda. This started - as others have pointed out -
with a few
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 01:36 PM, Peter Gervai wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:35, George Herbertgeorge.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
By far the majority of people who come up and buck the system or
challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or
people with an
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:32, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't* do
well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of not-yet-legitimised
knowledge - whether the 'truth' is new analysis backed up by serious
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
not-yet-legitimised knowledge
I'm not seeing a good argument that we *should* assess the legitimacy. This
seems to be being cast in the light of verifiability
What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight, or in a
quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off from raising
the issues.
The expertise that is most valued at Wikipedia is
What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight, or
in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off
from raising the issues.
The expertise that is most valued at Wikipedia
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the
problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is polite and sensible
might be incomprehensible to a newbie. Simple things like
On 22 February 2012 12:44, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the
problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
not-yet-legitimised knowledge
I'm not seeing a good argument that we *should* assess the
On 22 February 2012 13:11, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
not-yet-legitimised
On 22 February 2012 13:29, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
However I am interested in whether you have a specific idea of what you
would change? Can you express a reason for why using the published test is
a poor signal?
It produces a rich crop of both false positives and
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 06:59 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 22 February 2012 13:11, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to
What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight,
or
in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off
from raising the issues.
The expertise that is most valued at Wikipedia
This idea of published can (and is) relaxed though. Indeed it is my
perception that in many topic areas we rely far too heavily on online
sources - there can be a distinct prejudice against offline source
material.
Tom
Journals pose a particular problem as they are often, as in the case of
And this is what I meant about misunderstanding policies. Because nothing
in our policies precludes the use of primary sources. What you can't do
is
use them for interpretation or analysis. So to make up an example; if you
have an oral citation from someone who was arrested under an
Interesting because in the Haymarket case there is a 3,000 page
transcript of the trial on line. I thought we could not use it directly.
What can we use it for?
Can it be used as a reference for itself, in the
sense that the fact that there was a lengthy hearing with a great number
of
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
An aside: there are millions of oral testimonies hosted at thousands of
extremely reputable organisations - on Native American life at the
Smithsonian, or Holocaust history at Yale - which currently have no place on
An update: Steven Walling will be with me on NPR's Talk of the Nation,
today at 3pm US Eastern time talking about this issue.
In preparation for the show, I looked up Messer-Kruse's book on Amazon, and
I am pasting in the first two sentences of the blurb (bold emphasis mine).
In this
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
But I do share Mike Godwin's concerns on what this means for attracting
editors and for Wikipedia's public image.
This is where I disagree. But we can talk about this later. ;)
Steven
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
But I do share Mike Godwin's concerns on what this means for attracting
editors and for Wikipedia's public image.
This is where I
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 08:08 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Journals pose a particular problem as they are often, as in the case of
the three journal articles in this case, behind pay walls. Those are peer
reviewed, while his book by a commercial publisher has not received
academic reviews.
Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
extremely useful.
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for
instance, which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
extremely useful.
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
which highlights some of the interpretive problems
Mike Godwin wrote:
I read the article in the Chronicle pretty carefully. The author's
experience struck me as an example of a pattern that may account for
the flattening of the growth curve in new editors as well as for some
other phenomena. As you may remember, Andrew Lih conducted a
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Bauder writes:
I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
If the answer to one is yes, then These things happen is an
explanation but not an excuse, and should be a prompt to help us all
get better at detecting that. These things do happen, but should not.
These things
I should add a response on this point:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a
priori he should automatically have
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
If the answer to one is yes, then These things happen is an
explanation but not an excuse, and should be a prompt to help us all
get better
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the
Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered
application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for
our credibility when
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:06 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Any policy - or policy change - we can think of will have unforseen
consequences.
I agree with you. But we can't let this paralyze us in responding to a
problem that is no longer unforeseen, but that in fact has
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the
Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered
application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for
our credibility
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I should add a response on this point:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
professional, credible, and by all
On 22 February 2012 03:04, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a
priori he
On 02/19/12 12:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christiecoldchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
changed. It's impossible to
On 02/19/12 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder writes:
I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
one example, but there are
I have initiated a discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia
It is there that any refinement of the policy and how it is properly
applied can possibly be resolved. I note that the article in question
still does
On 2/20/12 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
As Mark has said, some subjects are highly vulnerable to recentism,
but one shouldn't expect that with a historical article about events
from 1886.
I agree it's more of a problem in some areas than others, but I think it
also often applies as a
The one thing experts in a field are not good at, is predicting the
success of innovative material. If it were of predictable value, it
wouldn't be revisionist. Experts can tell is something fits into the
accepted paradigms; they can tell if something is so wrong with
respect to soundly known
Jussi-ville writes:
The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view.
I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me repeat in more concise
form.
The policy was written to enable serious
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original
Research), and who,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original
Research), and who,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-ville writes:
The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view.
...
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-ville writes:
The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view.
I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's
On 2/19/12 4:12 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No
On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
has for long been used to remove new
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 2/19/12 4:12 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
this case there is no ongoing
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can
be
changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's
Fred Bauder writes:
I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
one example, but there are other similar situations.
This
Fred Bauder writes:
I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
one example, but there are other similar situations.
This
On 14 February 2012 06:02, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#.22No_Evidence.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#Dubious
As with so many cases, causing a stink gets the giant searchlight
directed on
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted,
much less there
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted,
much less there
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
has for long
On 14/02/12 02:39, Achal Prabhala wrote:
The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
By Timothy Messer-Kruse
[...]
My improvement lasted five minutes before a Wiki-cop scolded me, I
hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies,
such as verifiability and undue weight.
There are a number of interesting relies. As they too undoubtedly
intended the material to be available, (I'm one of them at any rate
I did,) I include them here; if additional come in, I shall post
them.
operalala 1 day ago
In your 2011 edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
instead of
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#.22No_Evidence.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#Dubious
--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985
___
foundation-l mailing list
63 matches
Mail list logo
