2012/9/12 Jouni Valkonen
> Wikipedia is just not the right place to settle controversies.
maybe the solution would be simply to make a quick article on wikipedia
explaining the controversies, and giving references to different point of
view.
that was the initial way wikipedia was designed, not
On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> The main problems are that it allows anonymous editing, and it has no respect
> for authorities in complicated, specialized subjects. I hope that it is
> reformed, or -- if it is not -- that some competing encyclopedia arises.
> Perhaps another
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by
>> supporters, and one by opponents. Why not?
>
>
> This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a
> compromise taking into accounts al
in fact I've heard of wikipedia spitrit in the old time :
it was to express reasonable opinion, all reasonable opinions, with
reference data, show controversies, ...
but on some subject I follow I've see that peer-reviewed but non mainstream
point of view get thrown out by ideological non scientif
2012/9/12 Jed Rothwell
> Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
>> I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as
>> either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the
>> user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands.
>>
>
> Exactly. To simplify: Just
I wrote:
If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by
> supporters, and one by opponents. Why not?
>
This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach
a compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and
only one article per topic. (A
Harry Veeder wrote:
> I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as
> either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the
> user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands.
>
Exactly. To simplify: Just have signed articles, like in Encyc
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
>> should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
>> controversial subjects.
>
>
> I do not think that will happen. The Wi
Harry Veeder wrote:
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
> should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
> controversial subjects.
>
I do not think that will happen. The Wikipedia management would not agree.
I do not see any need for tha
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
controversial subjects.
harry
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> As I said, Wikipedia is good for some things but not others. If f
refer-a-pedia
wiki-ference
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I
> use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the
> truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of th
Eric Walker wrote:
> I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking
> that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come
> about in the last ten or so years.
>
The Model T Ford was also incredible. It was wonderful breakthrough
technology. My moth
Terry, Eric
You ever open a "Sampler" box of Godiva or other fine chocolates and find
that are a few that you do not like as well as the rest...
Most are close to heaven, of course ...
Wiki is like that. You pass over the one or two that you do not favor (i.e.
cherry-filled) and savor the rest.
I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I
use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the
truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the
articles is a treasure trove.
T
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
No, I hope it withers away.
>
I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking
that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come
about in the last ten or so years.
Obviously readers must beware.
The rules/policies are absolutely ok when applied by editors with
common sense or for non-controversial articles.
For articles on controversial topics a group of editors will feel that
they have to protect the article from "evil POV pushers". They have a
mission: "Wikipedia must not expound fringe
16 matches
Mail list logo
