On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Thomas Larsen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, if I read this correctly, anybody wanting to get an article
> published in this particular journal will need to write an article for
> Wikipedia first?
>
> That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
So that's what I thought.
WP is a survey of knowledge at the encylopedic level--it does not
include each scientific report separately, but at the summary level
that would correspond ,ore closely to a published review article. If
a journal publishes an article on something, of particular interest,
almost always other journ
In a message dated 12/17/2008 7:01:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that
require expert knowledge to understand.>>
I don't concur with that interpretation of what we were trying to c
In a message dated 12/17/2008 6:58:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
I do not think that the style of having our Derrida article consist
primarily of lengthy quotes from Derrida would pass muster.
-Phil>>
-
A good art
On Dec 17, 2008, at 6:01 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> As expert editors, we are allowed to summarize our sources.
> A summary is a description of the source.
> A summary *of the source* is not a criticism of the source, nor an
> interpretation of the source vis-a-vis some other source such as
On Dec 17, 2008, at 6:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that
> can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge.>>
>
>
In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
Short of simply quoting Derrida verbatim, there is very little that
can be gleaned from Derrida without any specialist knowledge.>>
---
Then why be short?
Quote him.
If you want the
2008/12/17 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2) is heavily subject to the heckler's veto; someone who's either out to
>> cause trouble or (more likely) simply too anal and literal-minded about
>> rules says "I'm sorry, I don't accept that" and forces you to take it out.
>> Completely at random.
> That doesn't s
In a message dated 12/17/2008 1:04:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
In fact, I would bet you that if I were to find the one of my
colleagues with whom I most disagree on every point of literary theory
and criticism, and pick at random a Derrida essay neither of
> "You can do it as long as anyone reasonable can reach that conclusion"
> 1) is not so much a rule as it is a pragmatic statement about not getting
> caught violating the rule, and
I have no problem with that.
> 2) is heavily subject to the heckler's veto; someone who's either out to
> cause tro
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> NOR is a list of things you can't do, not a list of things you can.
> Noting that two things are the same when there is no way a reasonable
> person could fail to reach the same conclusion after seeing both
> sources is not on the list of unacceptable thi
On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:09 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> "But Derrida is a primary source, so no claims requiring specialist
> knowledge are allowed.
>
> Which effectively rules out all uses of Derrida in the Derrida
> article."
>
> this is dealt with the same way as in politics or religion: we cite
"But Derrida is a primary source, so no claims requiring specialist
knowledge are allowed.
Which effectively rules out all uses of Derrida in the Derrida article."
this is dealt with the same way as in politics or religion: we cite
someone for their own viewpoint. for whether it is a complete
st
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> < snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
>
> that nobody who has actually
> read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level
> of obvious description>>
>
> Well then there you go.
> You have just recited policy, so go and do it.
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> If the most we can do is what a biography of him, and then state
> that he
> also wrote ten books or whatever, than that's how we have to leave
> it.
> Brand new explanations, never before seeing the light of the day,
> would be
> your
I think you're over-analyzing the situation with Derida Phil.
On the one hand, you want to create something about Derida, that has never
existed in any form before, it seems.
That would be a forbidden type of OR.
On the other hand, you feel that what sources exist on Derida don't actually
e
<>
Well then there you go.
You have just recited policy, so go and do it.
If nobody with an understanding of it, would dispute it, then make it so!
Will Johnson
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.co
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:41 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
>
> The only way
> to get a decent, NPOV summary of Derrida is to work through hard
> sources that require specialist knowledge.>>
> ---
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
Actually, it is - the observation of similarities is acceptable, but
the act of saying that there is an echo, reference, or other
connection would be decried as OR (and has been, in fact, in p
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:35 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Ender's Game is from 1985.
> Doing a google reality check I get six hundred thousand hits for
> "Ender's
> Game" (enquoted).
> So (even though I've never heard of it), it seems to have gotten a
> substantial appreciation base.
> For interpr
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
The only way
to get a decent, NPOV summary of Derrida is to work through hard
sources that require specialist knowledge.>>
-
Yes.. and?
The only way to get a dece
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> [[Chosen (Buffy episode)]] says "The core four share a moment talking
>> about going to the mall after saving the world which causes Giles to
>> say "the earth is definitely doomed," echoing the end of the second
>> episode of the first season
In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:21:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
Explaining this while restricting myself purely to description is
impossible, as the novel works precisely because of implication of
things left unsaid. (Which is par for the course for literar
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> If nothing else, the list of stuff Carcaroth provided that you wrote
>> off is a pretty good list of fundamental debates in the question of
>> how to read sources and what they mean - debates that have
>> ramifications in all fields. To declare
> If nothing else, the list of stuff Carcaroth provided that you wrote
> off is a pretty good list of fundamental debates in the question of
> how to read sources and what they mean - debates that have
> ramifications in all fields. To declare them irrelevant to our process
> is... problematic.
I
> [[Chosen (Buffy episode)]] says "The core four share a moment talking
> about going to the mall after saving the world which causes Giles to
> say "the earth is definitely doomed," echoing the end of the second
> episode of the first season of Buffy." This echoing is transparently
> clear - the s
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:51 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm a person who likes examples.
> Phil, do you have an example article where something is written a
> certain
> way, or is not, and you'd like it to be something different and what?
The examples I have are more articles that seem to me f
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:55 PM, geni wrote:
> Strawman.
Unhelpfully reductionist response that doesn't actually explain itself
and so is worthless.
> Blanket denial without at least a line of reasoning behind it is not a
> helpful approach to debate.
I don't even understand what you're saying h
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer :
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:09 PM, geni wrote:
>
>> It's very pragmatic. People in general seem to want plot summaries
>
> Pandering to popular opinion is a dodgy proposition. We regularly
> ignore what people in general seem to want on fiction articles.
> This is largely o
I'm a person who likes examples.
Phil, do you have an example article where something is written a certain
way, or is not, and you'd like it to be something different and what?
An example of the problem would really help clarify it for me.
The current policy language was hammered out over sever
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Perhaps in universities where students study a wide range of subjects.
> In UK universities, most people never go near the English department
> but almost all of them will learn how to do academic research and
> writing (often as you go along, r
> Sure. And if we want to break NOR into individual field-specific
> guidelines, it changes. But a general principles of research and
> writing class? That's an English class in almost every University. I
> know, because I've taught it. And NOR is a general principles of
> research and writing poli
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:09 PM, geni wrote:
> It's very pragmatic. People in general seem to want plot summaries
Pandering to popular opinion is a dodgy proposition. We regularly
ignore what people in general seem to want on fiction articles.
> It can also be rather hard to talk about a book/fil
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer :
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> What? WP:NOR barely mentions lit crit or anything related to it.
>>> It's
>>> a general policy that applies to literature as much as it does to
>>> scien
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer :
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:48 PM, geni wrote:
>
>> And this is one of the reasons why wikipedia policy is what it is.
>> This fight has been done by others and they have done it better ( eg
>> http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html ). Wikipedia policy is a
>> pragmatic
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer :
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> What? WP:NOR barely mentions lit crit or anything related to it. It's
>> a general policy that applies to literature as much as it does to
>> science or history. I think you may be a little paranoid...
>
> Lit cri
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> What? WP:NOR barely mentions lit crit or anything related to it. It's
> a general policy that applies to literature as much as it does to
> science or history. I think you may be a little paranoid...
Lit crit, however (or more broadly, English
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:48 PM, geni wrote:
> And this is one of the reasons why wikipedia policy is what it is.
> This fight has been done by others and they have done it better ( eg
> http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html ). Wikipedia policy is a
> pragmatic approach to the situation.
Usually
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer :
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Please don't! I try and avoid reading about lit crit (I completely
>> avoid reading actual lit crit), far too many long words used purely to
>> sound clever.
>
> Not to call Thomas out particularly here, but this
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer :
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Please don't! I try and avoid reading about lit crit (I completely
>> avoid reading actual lit crit), far too many long words used purely to
>> sound clever.
>
> Not to call Thomas out particularly here, but this
On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Please don't! I try and avoid reading about lit crit (I completely
> avoid reading actual lit crit), far too many long words used purely to
> sound clever.
Not to call Thomas out particularly here, but this attitude is much of
the problem - W
> I think Phil means the debate over authorial intentionality (and
> related topics):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentionality
>
> Though he might have meant other aspects of that debate.
>
> Other articles that might help:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism
> http
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> At a number of points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate
>> in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation.
>> This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled.
>> However the view Wikipedia
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Phil Sandifer wrote:
> Thoughts?
Like most things on Wikipedia, attempts to define boundary cases
rigidly is impossible. We seem to labor under the (intentionally
blinkered?) delusion that it should be possible, if we try hard
enough, to set unambiguous policy th
Mathematics: Can't get enough original research or validation or exceptions,
and please state your assumptions.
Physics: No perpetual motion machines, please. Original research in nuclear
science is covered by treaties and your local American army base.
Biology: Please restrict your original rese
2008/12/17 Phil Sandifer :
> Picking up on a thread from the anti-intellectualism thread, WP:NOR
> currently reads " Any interpretation of primary source material
> requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without
> a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make
> At a number of points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate
> in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation.
> This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled.
> However the view Wikipedia is taking - that there is some core of
> knowledge that is
From: "Lukasz Bolikowski"
(...)
>> This feels to me essentially the same issue as with the category
>> tree: while some might prefer a strict IS-A relationship for
>> categorization, in practice we have to accept that all that category >>
>> membership means is some kind of hopefully human-
>> un
Picking up on a thread from the anti-intellectualism thread, WP:NOR
currently reads " Any interpretation of primary source material
requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without
a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make
descriptive claims, the acc
I don't want anybody getting routinely ignored or charged with false and
vexatious complaints. Just in case anyone missed it, secur...@verizon.net is
the fallback reporting address, because I saw a threat that would not fall
under common assault, and it was identified as a death threat that woul
Matthew Brown wrote:
> Since policy describes practice and not the other way round, I suspect
> that the policies may need fixing or clarifying.
Fixing or clarifying the policies is definitely one of the possible
options to solve the problem, although I suspect that it will not be
easy to reach a
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Lukasz Bolikowski
wrote:
> Matthew Brown wrote:
>> IMO, this is another instance where the human usability of something
>> on Wikipedia is being damaged by the drive to make something more
>> compatible with bots.
>
> Not in this case. Personally, I'd simply like
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Thomas Larsen wrote:
> So, if I read this correctly, anybody wanting to get an article
> published in this particular journal will need to write an article for
> Wikipedia first?
>
> That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
>
Have you actually read the detai
Hefty point for the writers who do not get a new article accepted
and resort to promoting their web page (no self reference) or usenet
article -- get warned and then wonder what is left to do, here (hordes, of
course, and you gotta look). Looking at it this way, "Nature" might seem out
of order,
From: "David Goodman"
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:02 PM
> As I read their announcement, the intention is to have the Wikipedia
> article be non-technical. The first paper being reported there seems
> to be appropriate to Wikipedia. But then, its a comprehensive paper,
> on a suitable broa
Matthew Brown wrote:
> IMO, this is another instance where the human usability of something
> on Wikipedia is being damaged by the drive to make something more
> compatible with bots.
Not in this case. Personally, I'd simply like to make the ILLs more
compatible with the policies that describe wh
2008/12/16 David Gerard :
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
>
>
> - d.
Wikiprojects are not going to be the problem or I suspect the solution
here. They are pretty much going
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do
it. --Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
There might be a lot of academics touting one study or another as
ground-breaking, making it GFDL and linking sixty subjects to it that are
only tangentially relevant, then putting a lo
58 matches
Mail list logo
