subject: [Wikipedia-l] Categories: An implementation

body:
Eclecticology wrote:

>A category would have three elements: a code, a title, and a
>description.  The codes would be brief and hierarchical; they would also
>be sufficient as broad search elements.  The titles would function in a
>manner similar to the present article titles.  They could appear after a
>code as a dumb descriptor for that code and linked directly only to the
>third element.  Like most articles these descriptions would be fully
>editable, and if any edit wars were to arise out of the classification
>system this is where they would happen.

I don't understand the motivation for including the code at all.
If it's to allow for hierarchical classification,
then this can also be done by placing, say,
"[[Category:Mathematics]]" in the text of [[Category:Topology]],
just as you'd place, say, "[[Category:Topology]]"
in the text of [[Hausdorff space]].
If it's to standardise the name of the category,
then we can just use the name of the article on the subject:
say, [[Category:Mathematics]], following [[Mathematics]],
not [[Category:Maths]] or [[Category:Math]], much less [[Category:QA]].
Of course, we could always redirect the abbreviations
to [[Category:Mathematics]].

I agree that the LC could well give us an initial set of categories to use.
But we don't need their codes.

-- Toby


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Thomas-
> Well, and if nobody is online (of the developers) and all are on holidays
> and all missed the missing ',' at the end, everything is hopefully in
> english (fallback),

First, there are many people with CVS access, and there will be many more
soon. At some point, it is about as likely that all of them are
unavailable as the danger that all Wikipedians are suddenly unavailable to
fix a vandalized page.

Second, the idea is to use the test.wiki for experimenting, and to
announce it as such to our users. So they would help with the debugging
process.

Third, nothing would stop us from doing emergency bugfixes if absolutely
necessary.

While I like having an admin do things manually, the number of different
installations involved and the many people working on CVS code makes this
quite tricky. It seems like an obvious job for scripts. It works for
Debian, why shouldn't it work for us?

Regards,

Erik


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Major new thread: Looking for consensus on content metadata

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>all of the requirements you describe would be met nicely by my
>[[Category:Foo]] scheme. :-)

I would just like to not here that I'm in full favour of Erik's scheme.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why I don't believe (any more) in NPOV

body:
Eclecticology wrote in part:

>The strongest adherent of the
>scientific method admits and accepts that no scientific hypothesis is
>absolutely true.  He does not feel threatened by the emergence of some
>bizarre theory, and is probably more effective in his refutations by
>allowing for the possibility of a new and perhaps unlikely hypothesis.

In defence of the poor scientist-in-real-life,
he (or she) may not feel /threatened/ by bizarre theories,
but he often feels /exhausted/ from constantly refuting them,
and even /annoyed/ when called upon to refute (IHO) really stupid ones.
But I think that our NPOV method can still deal with this.

In the cube example, we don't allow anything with no supporters
(that falls under Wikipedia's ban on original research),
and we don't feel the need to refute things with no arguments
(it's enough to state the fact that the position is a fringe one).
Then once the arguments for the cubical Earth are presented,
we only have to lay out the counter-arguments once, there in the article.
If the counter-counter-arguments etc get to be too long,
then we simply spin things off into [[Cubical Earth]].
People that don't want to deal with this inane crackpot nonsense
can rightly point its adherents to that article.

-- Toby


list: wikien-l

from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] A puzzle of pizzas

body:
| Although I disagree with SV's point all the same.
| It's valid to note (as Dr. Phil wants to do)
| that you have the power to influence your own emotions,
| despite what other people may try to do to you.
| But at the same time, this doesn't mean that
| the other people are therefore blameless,
| which is the conclusion that Steve seems to draw.
 | -- Toby

I never claim to *draw any conclusions.  I'll paint you a picture, maybe.
-SM-


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Links within article

body:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 05:45:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Robert-
> > > Is it possible to use HTML  and  type
> > > tags or something similar in a Wikipedia article?
> >
> > It has been discussed, but I think the majority does not want it,
because
> > it complicates linking unnecessarily. It would be difficult to keep
track
> > of links to non-existent sections and to fix them, and this might happen
a
> > lot given how often articles are rewritten.
> >
> > What I, and I think most people, would find useful is an option to have
an
> > automatic table of contents for every article with more than x headlines
> > (I would say x=3), which would use the headlines as position points for
 > name=".."> tags. But you could not directly link to one of the sections
> > from another article.
> >
> > Actually, you can see a similar feature in action on Sun's Javapedia:
> >
http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javapedia/AlwaysUseStringBufferMisconception
> > (Die, CamelCase!)
>
> Which majority doesn't want it ? Just try using Wiktionary for a moment
> and you'll see why having option of linking (cross-article) to such
headings
> is something that we have to implement.

I'm also FOR and I ask desperately this feature in Wikipedia for a while !
[[Foo#Bar|Text]] may be VERY nice to me.
With for exemple ##Bar to create targets.

Aoineko


subject: [Wikitech-l] Admin questions (a few)

body:
Matthias Jordan wrote:

>+ I have some ideas of features that would be nice to add. One of these
>is a user configurable default set of namespaces to search for. In Wikis
>for small communities that are only just evolving many users will want
>to search for some documentation which can only be found by searching
>for the keyword, failing and then selecting the proper namespace (which
>the user probably doesn't know). I hardcoded this mechanism into my
>setup but this is far from being a Good Idea (TM). What's the procedure
>to become a developer with write access to the CVS repository and to
>convince the other developers to be allowed to include certain features?

A simple method that I'd like to search in namespaces
is to recognise a search for (say) "User talk:Lir"
as a search for "Lir" in the [[User talk:]] namespace.
Something like this already works for Go.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] Feature suggestion: default namespaces for search

body:
Matthias Jordan wrote in large part:

>When users search, they search by default only in the article namespace
>(rather, in no namespace at all). In new Wikis smaller communities it
>could be very useful to let users search for other namespaces by default
>as well. E.g. many new users will want to search for documentation. I'm
>working for a youth organization and we have many non-computer literate
>members. To let them search for on-site documentation, they have to
>search, fail, click on the correct namespace and search again. My
>feature would enable the admin to define a site-wide default set of
>namespaces to search for that defaults to the currently used set.

A simple method that I'd like to search in namespaces
is to recognise a search for (say) "User talk:Lir"
as a search for "Lir" in the [[User talk:]] namespace.
Something like this already works for Go.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Problems?

body:
Richard Grevers wrote:

>Toby Bartels:

>>K Forstner wrote in part:

>>>5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown

>>You're supposed to send reports to <wikidown at bomis.com>.
>>The idea is that when the wiki is down,
>>it may well be that all of wikipedia.org is down.
>>But bomis.com will probably still be up!

>Then it might make sense for a developer to change the error handling code
>in the wiki. We (the several of us who mentioned this) were only mailing to
>the email address linked to by the error message!

I guess that Brion has fixed the code.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] History search

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>It would be fairly convenient to be able to search the history of an
>article for the first occurance of a specific phrase. So if I want to know
>who inserted claim X into the article, I would just enter "XYZ" in the
>search box, and the next screen would show me either "no results" or the
>diff of the edit that added XYZ to the article, as well as the user name.

Ooh, I like!

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] Links within article

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>Which majority doesn't want it ?

Me for example.
The main reason is that encyclopaedia articles get restructured
and we don't want to have to check all of the links to # anchors.
If a # anchor will be fairly permanent and should be linked to,
then that's a good sign that it really ought to be a separate article.
(This is /not/ an objection to # links /within/ a single article.)

Of course, you've heard this before.

>Just try using Wiktionary for a moment
>and you'll see why having option of linking (cross-article) to such headings
>is something that we have to implement.

Previous objections have been about Wikipedia, not Wiktionary.
I would have to rethink my opinion in that case;
possibly the two projects have different coding needs here.

>Foo:
>... .... ... ... ... [[Bar]] ... ...

>Bar:
>=== A language  ===
>... ...... .... .... ....
>=== B language ===
>........... ..... ....... .... .......
>=== C language ===
>... ...... ... ...... ... ... ....
>=== D language ===
>...... .... ..... ...... .... .....

I see what you mean!
But I wonder why you don't have pages like [[Bar (A)]], [[Bar (B)]], etc?
I'm not objecting to Wiktionary policy, since I don't write Wiktionary,
but I'm still curious -- you might direct me to a Wiktionary policy page.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proper Foreign Names

body:
I wrote in part:

>O good Lord!

...

>Stop wasting my time!

I apologise for the tone of that post.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] too many edits???

body:
Anthere-

> Note that it won't change anything in the end, because
> on Wikipedia, we ban people for what they do (the
> damage) and not on their names/personality.

Oh yeah. That makes a lot of sense. In case of such a deliberate
deception, the person in question should not / could not be surprised if
they were banned for being Lir, of course, nor would such a ban be an
abuse of power.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Textbooks (was: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is because our
> audience is a general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be
> DPOV is because our audience is very focused (the biology student,
> for example) and we need to bring that student through the material
> in a logical and efficient way.

Hmmm, don't be so quick to dismiss NPOV in this context.  Consider:

1.  Within various disciplines there are legitimate and ongoing
disputes of which students should be made aware.

2.  If "outside" views are likely to be encountered by students, then
students should be made aware of them, including the weakness in their
arguments.

> Same thing is true for a section of a medical textbook on abortion ;
> we leave out most of the history and the different political views
> on the subject and just talk about the procedure itself and maybe
> have a single paragraph at the end sating something about access to
> the procedure and that risks doctors face when they choose to
> specialize in this area.

Right, but that's not POV-editing, that's just restricting topical
focus.  Here's how to tell -- an article which describes the procedure
neutrally (and in medical detail, say) could be agreed upon by all
reasonable people, regardless of their political or ethical views on
the matter.

> So textbooks are inherently POV - that is why each time somebody tried to
> write a textbook in Wikipedia their efforts were quickly thwarted.

I do not agree that textbooks are inherently POV.  Many *are* POV, but
that's a flaw that is likely driven by the non-consensus way in which
they are written.

I do agree that textbooks are not the same thing as encyclopedias, but
the difference is primarily one of focus, not of POV.

------------------------------

Let me give a specific example.  Many textbooks of American history or
citizenship for high school students deal with the Bill of Rights.  In
most cases, the 2nd Amendment is either ignored completely, treated as
deprecated, and presented in a fashion that is at odds with the bulk
of scholarship.

There is a controversy over the historical meaning of that amendment,
and there's room for a high school text to discuss that controversy
briefly.

Why doesn't this happen?

Because the textbooks are POV, written by people, probably honest but
not expert in this particularly issue, who have swallowed a particular
political line of thought.  It's bias, pure and simple.

Textbooks should be NPOV, just as encyclopedia articles should be
NPOV.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] too many edits???

in_reply_to: <8oSvo2HCpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:40:00PM +0200

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I proposed to *enforce the existing ban* on
> Lir. For this, the threshold of annoyance should arguably be much lower.
> Furthermore, Lir's number of edits is excessive by any standard. At which
> point does it get too much? 100 edits per page? 1000?

I agree with everyone on this.  :-)

What I mean is, yes, of course, merely editing an article "too many"
times is not a bannable offense.  It's discourteous, but probably
happens because people don't really realize that it's discourteous.

And I also agree -- for people already banned, all the thresholds of
annoyance are set a lot lower.  Like, to zero.

Here's the thing -- let's say someone gets banned for ongoing annoying
behavior.  And then, upon being banned, they feel stupid and embarassed.
(Well, work with me here, it _could_ happen.)  But they want to work on
wikipedia.  So they come back under a new username and actually behave
completely.  There's nothing we can do about that, and it isn't a problem
anyway.

But, what we don't want to encourage is multiple attempts by banned
persons to come back again and again under different usernames.

--Jimbo


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: wiktionary, search

body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
> >No, there is no way. Just as we can't link
> >international wikipedias together or to the english
> by
> >other way than an external link with canonisation
> >requirements.
> >
> Use InterWiki links:
> [[DeWikiPedia:foobar]]
> [[FrWikiPedia:foobar]]
> etc...
>
> Alas, many of these seem to be out of date or
> missing. I'll fix em up.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

waouuu, that works !

hum...why not [[FrWP:foobar]] ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: wiktionary, search

body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> cprompt wrote:
>
> > Wiktionary pages can easily link to Wikipedia
> through a link like
> > this: [[w:User:Cprompt|my user page]]
>
> w: is deprecated due to its non-specificity. If you
> want to link to the
> English-language wikipedia from the associated
> subwikis (meta,
> wiktionary), use [[en:]].
>
> > I'm sure there's a similar way to make a link from
> Wikipedia to
> > Wiktionary, but I don't know how. Anybody?
>
> It should be a regular interwiki link:
> [[Wiktionary:somepage]]
>
> If that's not set up, I'll add it...
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

btw, who do I have to give my fortune to ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] A puzzle of pizzas

body:
Vicki wrote:
> You and Dr. Phil are both wrong. If you toss a grenade into a crowd,
> you are causing conflict. Claiming that you haven't is merely an
> attempt to deny your responsibility for your actions.

Boy, this is getting a bit philosophical.  :-)

I would say, in our context, that there are responsibilities for all
parties.  There's a responsibility not to cause conflict as much as we
can, and there's also a responsibility not to let a conflict-causer
upset us as much as we can.

For me, when I fail in these things[1], it does me a world of good to
think globally and big picture about what we're trying to do here, to
get in tune with the vision.  This helps me to see most of our
day-to-day struggles in the proper context, and to fully appreciate
how wonderful everyone is who is working together on this.

Even when we disagree, we're still wikipedians.  And we should try not
to upset each other, and try not to be upset by each other.

--Jimbo

[1] For example, I regret snapping at Julie about her comments on Ayn
Rand.


from_name: Richard Grevers

subject: [Wikitech-l] Links within article

body:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:18:58 +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck at easynet.be> gave utterance to the following:

> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:53:51PM -0500, Smith, Robert wrote:
>> Now, THAT'S interesting!
>>
>> So, for example, I'd do this:
>>
>> [[Martin_Luther#Bib|Bibliography] in the TOC
>>
>> and
>>
>>
 ==Bibliography==

>>
>> and it's work?
>>
>> Rev. Robert E. Smith
>
> Indeed, go and see on
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/Liste_des_articles_d'astronomie and click on the
> letters A to Z.
> The problem is that it create self-linked articles.
> What would be very nice would be [[#anchor|text]] and a syntax to create
> the anchor.

Or, since an anchor is most often a heading, support for
=== Heading Text#anchor_id ===

I wonder if we have any headings which contain # as a character?

--
Richard Grevers
Women are like watches: The finer the movement the better the time


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Notice of Appeal of Ban

body:
First, don't be so formal and legalistic.  This isn't a court of law,
it's a private website where editing is a privilege generously
extended, and a friendly community of people trying to work on
something we believe in.  It doesn't help your cause to be so formal.
Just speak plainly.

> Please accept this as my formal appeal of the ban stated above in
>accordance with the second paragraph. Regretfully, it is impossible
>for me to provide a defense to obtain proper justice in this serious
>matter when the only accusation made known to me is "that Canuck's
>actions alone are sufficient for banning."

Please look at this concise summary:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004729.html

1.  Are you the same person who was formerly logged in as 'DW' or
'Black Widow'?  Do you know DW and Black Widow?  Are you associated
with them in any way?

2. As an example of the rude behavior in question, please re-read what
you wrote:

>The above photos were placed in Wikipedia by me in FULL compliance
>with the legal requirements set forth by the owners of
>Wikipedia.org. Arbitrary removal of these photos by any person here
>constitutes a violation of my rights to use Wikipedia.org in
>accordance with the owners regulations and the licenses under which it
>operates. I am not legally bound to answer any questions about photos
>I place here from other Users who show up here to use this site under
>the same equal terms and conditions as I. I am obliged only to obey
>the regulations set down by the owners under an open website
>license. Any person who disagrees with my position is welcome to take
>up the matter with the owners of Wikipedia.org. and I will obey their
>ruling without question. But, any individual who, without the express
>written authority of the owners of this website, violates my right to
>free and equal use and enjoyment of this open website will be held
>liable for their actions. Joe Canuck 03:36 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This sort of quasi-legalistic nonsense is extremely rude, and
completely misunderstands all of our policies.  The people who acted
to remove those photos did so under my "express written authority".
You *had* the right to edit wikipedia, and others *still have* the
right to make further edits, including removing the images that you
uploaded.

Accusing them of violating your rights is preposterous.

Questions about what you are, or are not, "legally bound" to do are
completely irrelevant in this context -- you are bound to treat others
with respect (this is a formal policy of Wikipedia!) as a matter of
courtesy and as a matter of achieving valid goals.

The question of "fair use" of images is a thorny one, and one which we
struggle with constantly.  It is therefore important that those who
are involved in controversies related to fair use of images stand
ready to work in a friendly manner with others to reach a consensus.
Making quasi-legalistic arguments like the one outlined above is
wrong, and will not be tolerated.

If you are unable to agree, then we should just part company now.  I
can give you some recommendations of hosting services for you to start
your own website, as well as to give you the names of other "open
editing" websites where your behavior may be more tolerated.

But behavior like this, which directly undermines our community spirit
of friendly co-operation, is not allowed at Wikipedia.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] A puzzle of pizzas

body:
| Even when we disagree, we're still wikipedians.  And we should try not
| to upset each other, and try not to be upset by each other.
|
| --Jimbo
|
| [1] For example, I regret snapping at Julie about her comments on Ayn
| Rand.

Jimbos exactly correct - and doubly so in bringing the discussion down to
the wikiEarth.  But on Vicki's point - grenades have nothing to do with it.
And they dont invoke "anger" per se.  They may cause people to be blown to
bits, or stunned, or maimed.  They may in a chain of causal events proke
swift, blinding retaliation - or cold calculated carnage,  but "anger" has
still yet to enter the picture. Lets be civilized.

-Dr. Steve-


from_name: David Baltzer

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Notice of Appeal of Ban

body:
RE: Notice of Appeal of BAN

I refer to the following:

Jimmy Wales - Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:40:58 -0700

Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia.  Would someone with the

appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this

technically true.

As always, Joe is invited to write to me to discuss this further,

and/or is invited to the mailing list.

Some have expressed a strong conviction that Joe Canuck is the same

person or persons as DW, etc.  I express no opinion on that matter,

and find that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning.  To

the extent that it is true, of course, then just being the same person

is grounds for a continuation of the ban.

--Jimbo

- - - -

Sir:

Please accept this as my formal appeal of the ban stated above in accordance with the second paragraph. Regretfully, it is impossible for me to provide a defense to obtain proper justice in this serious matter when the only accusation made known to me is ?that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning.?

I have done nothing but be a conscientious contributor to Wikipedia.org of a very sizeable amount of encyclopedic information and have conducted myself in the most appropriate and proper manner possible. Accordingly I must ask that you post to this mailing list the specific details of the ?actions? you claim were justification for banning me in order that I be allowed to make a proper response. Thank you.

D.C. Baltzer (User:Joe Canuck)

---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030625/dd58e78a/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] False statements by User james duffy

body:
 I note the following message posted after I was banned, such ban under appeal: james duffy wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:06:05 +0100.

This public communication is filled with prevarications and libelous statements about me. I hereby demand that the person claiming to be someone named james duffy, working on Wikipedia.org using variations of the logged in User name Jtdirl, immediately retract these statements in a fomal public communication on this mailing list.

User:Joe Canuck

---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030625/3453d5ba/attachment.htm


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>> Aoineko <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Aoineko> has sent
>> me a fixed version, with entities for characters foreign to the fr:
>> setup (language names for instance).
>> I have uploaded this to CVS.
>> New version is 1.4
>
>
> Just went online. Working OK?

Yup. Thank you :-)


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thomas Corell wrote:
>
> > Well, and currently there are so many with CVS but
> too few (23 vs 1)
> > checking and installing all those things.
>
> Seems to me we need more people with access to the
> test server and the
> live server.
> (I'd volunteer but for my spectacular muck-up with
> the french language
> file!)

On ne fait pas d'omelette sans casser d'oeufs...

Tarquin, someone au bistro, suggested that our article
count was still the coma method. I made a test, and
indeed, this page
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_de_test_rien_que_pour_moi

counts for one. It contains just ",".

Didnot we vote something on the topic once ?

Why are we still with the old system ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] too many edits???

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Anthere-
>
> > Note that it won't change anything in the end,
> because
> > on Wikipedia, we ban people for what they do (the
> > damage) and not on their names/personality.
>
> Oh yeah. That makes a lot of sense. In case of such
> a deliberate
> deception, the person in question should not / could
> not be surprised if
> they were banned for being Lir, of course, nor would
> such a ban be an
> abuse of power.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

Dear Erik

An abuse of power is losing a lot of its potency when
it may be reverted.

Removing content from article would be really abusive
were the removing permanent

Sysop banning IP adresses could be potentially really
abusive were the other sysops not able to unban

Deletion of articles could be really abusive if
deletion was permanent. Fortunately, the process is
reversible, the regular users now have an official
tool to ask for abusive deletions to be reverted, and
perhaps one day they will even be able to directly
judge by themselves whether the deletion was abusive
or not.

Banning a loggued in user may not be so abusive, if
other people have the possibility to unban these
users.

Degree of abuse is depending a lot on whether actions
may be reverted without damage.

When banning cannot be agreed upon between the
different members of the community, and nobody is
available to balance the power held by the one
applying the ban, there is a risk of abuse.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] A puzzle of pizzas

body:
At 03:08 PM 6/24/03 -0700, you wrote:

>| >| But isn't it obvious that Pizza Puzzle is just joining
>| >| this debate to cause conflict?
>| >
>| >
>| >Well, of the two - conflict or consensus, which can actually be "caused"?
>|
>| Vicki:Both, of course.
>
>Ha.  Nope, sorry.  This is related to that old principle... (via Dr. Phil ;)
>noone can "make" you mad...  they can do something that would in 10 out of
>11 billion people would result in an angry response, but thats not a "make".

You and Dr. Phil are both wrong. If you toss a grenade into a crowd, you are
causing conflict. Claiming that you haven't is merely an attempt to deny your
responsibility for your actions.

--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Axel Boldt wrote in part:
>
> >How about if we give up our current distinction between
> >images and text and require a single confirmation whenever people
> >upload material to Wikipedia:
>
> >  By uploading material to Wikipedia, you certify that either
> >     * the material is in the public domain, or
> >     * the copyright owner of the material releases it under GFDL,
or
> >     * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and
> >       such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of
> >       Wikipedia
>
> >(maybe even with three checkboxes.)
>
> You mean three radio buttons?

Yes.

> But in the case of images (along the lines of album cover
> thumbnails), I don't think that we need to worry about future users
> of Wikipedia (much less try to guess who's /likely/ to be one of
> these and who isn't).
> This is because images can be easily removed by the future user.

Granted that it's easier to remove fair-use images than fair-use
quotes, but even the former involves going through the articles that
link to the removed images and removing the now-broken links. Not to
mention the case-by-case decisions about which fair-use images to keep
and which to remove. In effect, this necessary work prevents a
quick-and-dirty third-party $10 Wikipedia CD from ever seeing the light
of day. And there isn't much room: the Encyclopedia Britannica DVDROM
sells for $50.

In the end, to get a cheap CD, we would probably have to produce a
sanitized version of Wikipedia ourselves.

> For quotations, we should be able to ensure that the quotation
> is fair use for /every/ potential user, so that would be all right.

Even for quotations you need the word "likely" somewhere: your quoting
a line of Martin Luther King in an article about him is certainly fair
use; my selling t-shirts with that quote on it is certainly not.

> Thus, there is a practical difference between text and images.

True, but I'd like to maintain the spirit of GNU-free for the whole
encyclopedia, not just for its text.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

body:
Eclecticology wrote:

>Those strike me as tainted sources for
>revenue.  I would be suspicious of anything
>from them, and any potential strings
>attached.  Sometimes sudden riches can be
>a more serious problem than being poor.

We just have to make sure we are very clear on what
they want us to do or not do and weigh the pros and
cons. No big deal. We can and should accept large
grants so long as what the donor wants us to do is
already consistent with what we want to do. If not,
then we don't accept the grant - easy as that.

>A provision that limits the amount that a
>person can contribute could protect the
>foundation from anyone who might come along
>and use his money to influence the direction
>of the foundation.

That assumes that there wouldn't be any decision
making process in grant acceptance. A foundation isn't
just a money accepting body it is also a decision
making body with certain rules and by-laws. In short
there are many things we can do to limit the potential
of a large donor using money to mis-direct the
project; just because somebody has cash doesn't mean
we have to take it regardless of the conditions.

>We already know Jimbo's approach to many issues,
>and we've mostly all accepted his Wiki philosophy.
>That does not guarantee that some new person won't
>come along and use money to convince us to take
>some direction.

We aren't stupid and won't take cash if that means we
have to change the project for the worse.

>I've raised budgetting before, because I see
>that as an issue that needs serious consideration.
>Once we know how much we need, we'll know how much
>to get from Wikipedians.

Why limit this to Wikipedians? We already donate a
great deal of our time to the project and relying
exclusively on Wikipedians is double dipping IMO. But
I am sure that a not-insignificant amount of cash will
still flow from Wikipedians though (I've already
donated by purchasing several domain names, for
example). But I do see a real point in making sure
everything is set-up first before we start to solicit
for grant money. So we can start with donations.

>Some potential expenses can be dangerous. Paid
>staff can be a problem  because they can have a
>conflict of interest between their personal well-
>being and the well-being of the foundation.

I don't understand your point here. Please explain how
this is different than the relationship between an
employee and the company he works for? Both have a
mutual vested interest in succeeding. But that is
purely academic since the only way we would be able to
afford even one paid employee is to get a large grant.
Donations just won't cut it alone for a very long
time. Either way it will be some time before we are in
a position of even considering paid staff.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Textbooks (response to Jimbo's WikiEN-l post)

body:
Jimbo wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> The reason why our encyclopedias
>> have to be NPOV is because our
>> audience is a general one. The
>> reason why our textbooks have to
>> be DPOV is because our audience is
>> very focused (the biology student,
>> for example) and we need to bring
>> that student through the material
>> in a logical and efficient way.
>
>Hmmm, don't be so quick to dismiss
>NPOV in this context.  Consider:
>
>1.  Within various disciplines there
> are legitimate and ongoing disputes
> of which students should be made aware.

Yes, exactly. But our current NPOV policy states that
we should include all major viewpoints in a neutral
manor (notice the lack of focus). This makes perfect
sense in an general focus encyclopedia but doesn't
make much sense in a textbook. I was planning all
along to take the NPOV text and make some minor
qualifications in reference to the scope under which
the new policy (DPOV) would operate.

>2.  If "outside" views are likely to
> be encountered by students, then students
> should be made aware of them, including
> the weakness in their arguments.

It depends on the focus of the particular course you
are writing for. An intro class in biology shouldn't
spend too much time defending the underlying premise
that modern biology is founded on (namely, evolution).
There is a great deal of material to get through and
therefore the arguments of creationism needn't be
given much space or much credibility in such a
textbook. However, if we can figure out how to
organize chapters into modules then we can potentially
create a very wide-foccused (and huge) textbook
reference edition on all aspects of biology (including
many counter-arguments to evolution and alternate
interpretations of other aspects). That way
instructors would be able to assemble textbooks from
these modules into a variety of different
configurations with each having a different emphasis
(there would have to be a core set of modules that
would form the foundation and framework of the
textbook though).

>> Same thing is true for a section of a
>> medical textbook on abortion ; we leave
>> out most of the history and the different
>> political views on the subject and just
>> talk about the procedure itself and maybe
>> have a single paragraph at the end sating
>> something about access to the procedure
>> and that risks doctors face when they
>> choose to specialize in this area.
>
>Right, but that's not POV-editing, that's
>just restricting topical focus.  Here's how
>to tell -- an article which describes the
>procedure neutrally (and in medical detail,
>say) could be agreed upon by all reasonable
>people, regardless of their political or
>ethical views on the matter.

Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
focus; that was my point. It reads in part "A general
purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized
knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To
whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should
steer clear of taking any particular stance other than
the stance of the neutral point of view." Simply
replacing "encyclopedia" with "textbook" will not do
for a textbook editing policy. If NPOV (as written)
were applied to the evolution chapter of the above
biology textbook example then we would have to present
creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with the
viewpoints of biologists. This is not acceptable when
trying to explain evolution in a biology textbook
because no serious biologist gives any credence to
anti-evolution ideas. But NPOV can and should be
applied to the major viewpoints that exist from within
the biological sciences. There could still be optional
modules that deal with the viewpoints of society as a
whole - the larger debate (so that the same textbook
could be used in a class that deals with those types
of issues). The core modules need to be very specific
in focus, though. Otherwise students won't know what
to think (yes, part of education is indoctrination
into the POV of a discipline).

So yes, we can write about the current understanding
of what evolution is and how it is theorized to
operate but we cannot mix that with creationism
viewpoints in the same module. So a modified NPOV
("DPOV") would need to operate in a compartmentalized
fashion; within a core module it operates from within
the context of whatever discipline the textbook is
being written for; but in an optional module it can
operate with a wider focus (although most optional
modules are going to be more detailed treatments of
certain topics raised in a core module). In short, the
goals of what each module needs to do need to be
focused. That requires restricting NPOV to that
context.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] RE: Mav on modules

body:
>That way
instructors would be able to assemble textbooks from
these modules into a variety of different
configurations with each having a different emphasis
(there would have to be a core set of modules that
would form the foundation and framework of the
textbook though).

Yeah, yeah !!

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] too many edits???

body:
Jimbo wrote: they want to work on
| wikipedia.  So they come back under a new username and actually behave
| completely.  There's nothing we can do about that, and it isn't a problem
| anyway.

The above is a textbook example of defacto-practicality - minimum wasted
energy, maximum effectiveness.

What I think this also means, (Excuse me if this has all been said before)
is that people shouldnt be too keen on looking for phantoms, or to call
someone a Lir.  If one gives themselves away, then this should be reported -
in a formal way, and the ban would be automatically extended to the new
identity.

People ought not be so quick to jump to calling for a ban before there is
conclusive evidence.  *The *very *first *mention of a case should be
*conclusive, *well detailed, and practically *incontrovertible.  Its like
cops calling someone a rapist without enough proof to convict - theyd be
sued for libel.  Cops just gather evidence, only reporting it to a
prosecutor when theres enough of it.  Then theres a quick and speedy trial.

The case for banning is then based not on particular behaviours,  rather
these collected behaviours (if well documented ) can serve as evidence of
that persons true identity.  In more blatant cases, of course, this is all
somehwat moot, but keeping to the established, orderly *due process ought to
save everyone some stress, and quiet the critics of ban enforcement - who
really only call for some deliberate, maturely conducted process. There are
advantages to both informality and formality.

History lesson: Formal democratic ways developed from the popular need to
surpass royal Law, which ultimately tended to be 'at a king's (or queens)
discretion.'

IMHO
-Stevert


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> It depends on the focus of the particular course you
> are writing for. An intro class in biology shouldn't
> spend too much time defending the underlying premise
> that modern biology is founded on (namely, evolution).

Sure, I agree with that.

It's perhaps subtle, but the point of NPOV in this context is just
that a creationist could read the entire book on biology and agree
that it's a fair presentation *of biology*, even if they don't agree
that current biologica science is a valid description *of reality*.

Usually, this is just a matter of a few words here and there.

> Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
> focus; that was my point.

Well, it does, though, doesn't it?  If an article is about X, then it
is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue
about".  Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the
title.

As an example, consider [[Christian views on homosexuality]].  If that
article is done properly (and I didn't read it just now, so I don't
have an opinion), then both fundamentalist Christians and their
opponents should be able to read the article and say "O.k., that's a
fair presentation of the topic."

> If NPOV (as written)
> were applied to the evolution chapter of the above
> biology textbook example then we would have to present
> creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with the
> viewpoints of biologists.

No, I think this is a common misconception about NPOV, but that isn't
the way I see it at all.  The topic of the chapter on evolution in the
science book is not "evolution and everyone's opinion about it".  The
topic is "scientific consensus views on evolution".  Such a chapter
may (and likely should) include a paragraph to indicate that other
views, religious views, exist, but that's not the topic of _this_
book.

Restricting focus to the topic of interest is perfectly legitimate and
falls within the scope of NPOV, rather than being an addition *to*
NPOV.

Remember the big argument about "communist state"?  Part of the
problem there was that the two sides were talking past each other as
to what the article was *about*.  Was it "everything good and bad
about communist countries"?  Or was it "the political science
definition of the term 'communist state'"?

That's similar.  It's not POV to talk about bad things that happened
in communist countries.  And it's not POV to exclude such talk in an
article that's actually about something else, namely "how political
scientists define this term".  Both can be NPOV, and yet, both can be
inappropriate for articles within a particular scope of interest.

The real acid test is this: could an honest creationist read our
idealized biology text and come away saying "Yup, that was a good book
about what scientists believe about biology.  I have a greater
understanding of their theory now.  I would have preferred a book
about something else, but this book is a fair and honest and accurate
treatment of the subject."

Can this be achieved without contortion or weaselly soft-pedalling?  I
think so.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Links within article

body:
For an index such as
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_articles_d%27astronomie

the best thing to do would be to somehow mark the headings so the HTML
output is:

A

(perhaps have an article-wide tag to do them all)

Then all you need is a note at the top of the page saying:

"hit COMMAND / CTRL + letter you want to go to"

Advantages:
* accesskey can be used at any point of the article, unlike the row of
"quick links" at the top


from_name: Thomas Corell

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> First, there are many people with CVS access, and there will be many more
> soon. At some point, it is about as likely that all of them are
> unavailable as the danger that all Wikipedians are suddenly unavailable to
> fix a vandalized page.

Well, and currently there are so many with CVS but too few (23 vs 1)
checking and installing all those things. In fact I get the feeling that
there are great difference between CVS and 'live'-php files. We are in
'code-frezze' for about 2 weeks or so, if you remember.
>
> Second, the idea is to use the test.wiki for experimenting, and to
> announce it as such to our users. So they would help with the debugging
> process.

Nice idea. Where is the german test-wikipedia? I only know about the
english one. Did not help a second to check if LanguageDE.php is working.
Give me another hint.

> Third, nothing would stop us from doing emergency bugfixes if absolutely
> necessary.

Well. That's exactly the problem I see. Last ''good'' example was the
kernel. There was a mail about that one of them only supports 500MB and the
other 2GB. Unfortunaly Jimbo did't know that, before the reboot - pity. And
nobody switched the ''automatic'' (here called default) kernel. Fortunatly
someone remembered, but is the default kernel now switched? Are you sure?
took a look? - I'm paranoid, I know.

> While I like having an admin do things manually, the number of different
> installations involved and the many people working on CVS code makes this
> quite tricky. It seems like an obvious job for scripts. It works for
> Debian, why shouldn't it work for us?

Sorry? What at debian works automaticlly and don't ask all 5 or 10 updates,
do you want it this way or that? I have a stable woody running as a server
and it ask me questions. Thats not automatic the way you described it.

But (nerver without one), write these nice scripts, get them running, if
possible yesterday because I bet the avtive and the CVS version of
LanguageDE.php have a diff of at leased 2 weeks, I don't know about the
rest. Well, possibly the last changes involved even some patches in other
files, I start forgetting these information. I think you will need about a
whole day to check the diffs between CVS and the installed version and the
english version for _one_ other language. And than still nothing is done.

And I still get querys about some missing translations, which I have to
answer: Sorry, everything in CVS for about 2 or 3 weeks. Let's wait. I
can't fix it. And I know there is a version of the Language file which
needs a patch in the SearchEngine. Simply installing only the Language file
won't work.

I don't complain someone personaly, don't missunderstood. I complain that
too few of all those guys having access to the machines help Brion with
that work. If those guys don't can/want or whatever do it, find one or two
others. Or make a script. Clone Brion. Do that twice. But don't wait to
long, because users starts easily loosing interests in projects nobody
seems to react. You and I, we know about this problems or can imagine them,
but others will took a look and say: What, this typo can't be fixed in
about 2 weeks? And they have how may Users? Ok, let's go somewhere else.
There is no difference between GNU or comecial software, the customers only
see how long it tooks to solve the problem.

And I do it the same way. There a code frezze for about 2 weeks now. Noboby
knows if Brion and Lee are working on the targets behind that code frezze,
or 20 other developers are twiddeling thumbs. And my reaction as a
developer? Why starting some further code, if I still not know about the
code 3 weeks old? Asking about some coding style guidance, no answers for
that mail, so coding restults will be put in CVS and you wait until someone
complains. Sorry that's usually no way to work and you switch to another
project. (Usually I talk to the project manager, give him a list and say:
"call me if the problems on this list are fixed, I took the nice weather to
take a nap of sunshine and you know that the customer will be angry if he
pays a lot of money for me doing that." Never seen problems fixed that fast
;)

Just call if everthing works as you proposed Erik :)
--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Thomas Corell wrote:

> Well, and currently there are so many with CVS but too few (23 vs 1)
> checking and installing all those things.

Seems to me we need more people with access to the test server and the
live server.
(I'd volunteer but for my spectacular muck-up with the french language
file!)


from_name: John R. Owens

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 13:41, Thomas Corell wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
> > On ne fait pas d'omelette sans casser d'oeufs...
>
> I hope I did not need to understand that ;)

I'm sure you've heard its English version before, "you can't make an
omelet without breaking a few eggs".

--
John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/
Sleep is a common substitute for adequate caffeine intake.
--John Owens


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
> > Tarquin, someone au bistro, suggested that our
> article
> > count was still the coma method. I made a test,
> and
> > indeed, this page
> >
>
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_de_test_rien_que_pour_moi
> > counts for one. It contains just ",".
> > Didnot we vote something on the topic once ?
>
> Well it was done on meta.
>
> > Why are we still with the old system ?
>
> As far as I know only the en-wikipedia on the new
> server is running with
> the new count system.

Ah ?

I must have been dreaming about a vote somewhere,
which was
1. supposed to be international
2. initially set up because *the french people* (me
essentially) complained some guys were having much fun
adding hundred of stupid visible or even invisible
commas in articles to have them counted as articles

Ok, this is an stupid issue, but I find quite curious
that this topic was initially raised by the french
wiki, that so many french people expressed their
dislike of this method, that final conclusion was to
drop the count system, that we indicated in our talk
pages that the count system was changed

just to find oneself totally ridiculous many months
later discovering that *nothing* has changed and that
the old system is still the one working.

Ok, back to the old fun of seeing non-grammatically
correct commas in articles now.

I mean. This is the kind of day I feel very old.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
Joe Canuck (David Baltzer) wrote:

>I note the following message posted after I was banned, such ban under appeal:
>james duffy wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:06:05 +0100.

For y'all's convenience, a link:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004729.html

-- Toby


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

>Erik Moeller wrote:

>>all of the requirements you describe would be met nicely by my
>>[[Category:Foo]] scheme. :-)

>I would just like to not here that I'm in full favour of Erik's scheme.
                      ^^^
s/not/note

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] PP and ban

body:
I wrote:

>An interesting commetn in light of this early PP edit:

>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Toby_Bartels&diff=941440&oldid=941403

Sorry, for the full flavour you also need:

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Toby_Bartels&diff=943114&oldid=941440

-- Toby


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Major new thread: Looking for consensus on content
 metadata

body:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Toby Bartels wrote:
> >Erik Moeller wrote:
> >>all of the requirements you describe would be met nicely by my
> >>[[Category:Foo]] scheme. :-)
>
> >I would just like to not here that I'm in full favour of Erik's scheme.
>                       ^^^
> s/not/note

You're so contrary, Toby! Don't deny it...

(For the record, I also favor an Erik-style madcap scheme with
[[Category:foo]] links, based largely on improved backlinks magic.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unreadable email messages

body:
Richard Grevers wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Choose to view SV's messages in plain text (that's what I do),
>>or tell your HTML interpreter to override his colour settings.

>I know of at least two email clients in which the latter is impossible - if
>you choose to view html it's all or nothing.

These were written by Micro$oft, weren't they? ^_^

>>While I find SV's decision to specify colour unnecessarily provocative,
>>the fact is that he isn't forcing anything on any reader.

>I find Microsoft's decision to release a buggy email client unnecessaily
>provocative. As I have said before, I am not so concerned about the effect
>on people's reading choice that HTML has, I'm concerned that posting HTML
>or multipart to the list can make the digest version and/or any text
>archive of the list unreadable. (I'm on so many mailing lists that I forget
>which one is on which software, but IIRC we're on GNU Mailman, which is
>affected).

This page from our archive,
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004761.html>,
is perfectly readable.
You get Steve's message in text, then ignore the HTML gibberish.

I also read the digest version just fine,
without ever seeing a speck of HTML.
Then again, I do use a decent mail reader,
which correctly interprets the MIME;
perhaps Micro$oft's readers don't do this.

Anyway, I don't mean to defend Steve's actions.
Posting in HTML in the first place is a lousy idea,
much less specifying the colours that you send.
(If Steve wants to specify the colours that he /reads/,
then let him, but that's a different matter entirely.)
But I do mean to say that (to borrow from another thread)
he can't /make/ anybody read his messages in lousy colours.

-- Toby


from_name: John Robinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Notice of Appeal of Ban

body:
On Wed Jun 25, 2003  8:07:23  AM US/Central, David Baltzer
<dcbaltzer at yahoo.ca> wrote:

 >...formal appeal of the ban stated above in accordance with the second
paragraph...
 >...provide a defense to obtain proper justice in this serious matter...

Fine.  Play lawyer all you like; I don't think anybody told you to
bring it to the list though.

 >conducted myself in the most appropriate and proper manner possible

Thanks for the chuckle though.  I needed that.

~~~Hephaestos


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] too many edits???

body:
Anthere-

> When banning cannot be agreed upon between the
> different members of the community, and nobody is
> available to balance the power held by the one
> applying the ban, there is a risk of abuse.

Uh, yeah, that's why I asked for feedback before enforcing the existing
ban on Lir, remember?

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > It depends on the focus of the particular course
> you
> > are writing for. An intro class in biology
> shouldn't
> > spend too much time defending the underlying
> premise
> > that modern biology is founded on (namely,
> evolution).
>
> Sure, I agree with that.

But, if you just assume the validity of the subject
matter, you are stepping into DPOV. But that isn't
necessarily a bad thing.

> It's perhaps subtle, but the point of NPOV in this
> context is just
> that a creationist could read the entire book on
> biology and agree
> that it's a fair presentation *of biology*, even if
> they don't agree
> that current biologica science is a valid
> description *of reality*.

Yes, but to say that, you would need an introduction
explaining explicitly that this attempts to outline
biology, not reality. Otherwise it is assumed that
this is a discription of reality, as most books are.
But it wouldn't be wise to include such an
introduction, for obvious reasons.

> Usually, this is just a matter of a few words here
> and there.

... and obfuscation of the entire text. It'll sound
like we are describing an imaginary world or that we
are uncertain of everything, both bad for textbooks.

> > Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
> > focus; that was my point.
>
> Well, it does, though, doesn't it?  If an article is
> about X, then it
> is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people
> like to argue
> about".  Often we have to fix this by adding some
> qualifier to the
> title.

Perhaps other people's views could go in an apendix to
create a NPOV.

> As an example, consider [[Christian views on
> homosexuality]].  If that
> article is done properly (and I didn't read it just
> now, so I don't
> have an opinion), then both fundamentalist
> Christians and their
> opponents should be able to read the article and say
> "O.k., that's a
> fair presentation of the topic."

The thing is that that page doesn't exist. It doesn't
have a place in Wikipedia. We might right that at
[[homosexuality]] or possibly [[christianity]], but
wikipedia doesn't write articles like this. And both
of those articles contain the rebuttals. That was one
of the reasons that Fred branched to make I-E. We
don't do this with NPOV, and you're thinking of
DPOV/SPOV. (come to think of it, DPOV=SPOV)

> > If NPOV (as written)
> > were applied to the evolution chapter of the above
> > biology textbook example then we would have to
> present
> > creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with
> the
> > viewpoints of biologists.
>
> No, I think this is a common misconception about
> NPOV, but that isn't
> the way I see it at all.  The topic of the chapter
> on evolution in the
> science book is not "evolution and everyone's
> opinion about it".  The
> topic is "scientific consensus views on evolution".
What consensus? There is no such consensus, just a
majority view.
> Such a chapter
> may (and likely should) include a paragraph to
> indicate that other
> views, religious views, exist, but that's not the
> topic of _this_
> book.
>
> Restricting focus to the topic of interest is
> perfectly legitimate and
> falls within the scope of NPOV, rather than being an
> addition *to*
> NPOV.
>
No, that is DPOV. You're describing DPOV. A
diciplinary point of view restricts the focus to the
topic of interest. DPOV is reasonable, but biased
because of a lack of information, and you don't have
to keep misusing the jargon.

> Remember the big argument about "communist state"?
> Part of the
> problem there was that the two sides were talking
> past each other as
> to what the article was *about*.  Was it "everything
> good and bad
> about communist countries"?  Or was it "the
> political science
> definition of the term 'communist state'"?
>
I still disagree with that decision, which, I guess,
weakens my argument.

> That's similar.  It's not POV to talk about bad
> things that happened
> in communist countries.  And it's not POV to exclude
> such talk in an
> article that's actually about something else, namely
> "how political
> scientists define this term".  Both can be NPOV, and
> yet, both can be
> inappropriate for articles within a particular scope
> of interest.
>
> The real acid test is this: could an honest
> creationist read our
> idealized biology text and come away saying "Yup,
> that was a good book
> about what scientists believe about biology.  I have
> a greater
> understanding of their theory now.  I would have
> preferred a book
> about something else, but this book is a fair and
> honest and accurate
> treatment of the subject."

Yes, but if the creationist doesn't agree with it as a
representation of reality, which is always assumed
(and a few words couldn't change in the minds of
most), the creationist will still say, "I disagree
with that book. If we decended from monkeys, why are
they still there? [classic creationist argument] This
book should adress that."

> Can this be achieved without contortion or weaselly
> soft-pedalling?  I
> think so.
>
> --Jimbo

Possibly, but you have to admit that it is DPOV, not
NPOV. No one wants a book that has no application in
reality, only vague "biology". We want biology for use
in the real world, and that assumes that biology is
true. That is how textbooks work. But if we still
wanted to be NPOV, we wouldn't assume that biology
applies only in biology-land, we'd make arguments
against biology for the real world in a seperate
section.

-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia homepage

body:
May I change the layout of the homepage of the English
Wikipedia to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia? I think
that layout looks much better. I would ask this on
[[Talk:Main Page]], but not many people look there
that often, and this would be a huge change.

Note for non-Esperantists: Aktuale is where the
current events should go, but someone from the UEA
(big esperalto association) just wrote about wikipedia
itself there for some reason. The rest of the things
there are fairly obvious, but the explanations in
different languages would be left out.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


in_reply_to: <20030626025720.73860.qmail@web41803.mail.yahoo.com>; from littledanehren@yahoo.com on Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:57:20PM -0700

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>> It depends on the focus of the particular course you are writing
>>> for. An intro class in biology shouldn't spend too much time
>>> defending the underlying premise that modern biology is founded on
>>> (namely, evolution).

I wrote:
>> Sure, I agree with that.

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> But, if you just assume the validity of the subject
> matter, you are stepping into DPOV. But that isn't
> necessarily a bad thing.

Well, you shouldn't "just assume the validity" -- you should set the
context of what this information is.  I think this point is really
subtle, but really important.

At one point, a textbook teaching about the Earth and the Sun might
say "The Sun revolves around the Earth".  Bad move to say that.
Better to say "Current scientific consensus is that the evidence
outlined in this chapter suggests that the Sun revolves around the
Earth."

That's NPOV in action.  It's writing things so that even people who
disagree on the substantive matter can agree that it's a valid
presentation.

So Copernicus could point to the first one and say: "That's just plain
wrong."  And we know today that it is wrong.

But he'd have to say of the NPOV version, "Well, this presentation is
fair, but I disagree with the current scientific consensus described
therein."

> Yes, but to say that, you would need an introduction
> explaining explicitly that this attempts to outline
> biology, not reality. Otherwise it is assumed that
> this is a discription of reality, as most books are.
> But it wouldn't be wise to include such an
> introduction, for obvious reasons.

I think it would be wise, actually.  You have to write it a bit more
carefully than that, of course.  And part of it is just _infused_ into
the final product.  Throughout the book, you refer to authorities, to
scientific consensus where appropriate, etc.  You don't say "Evolution
is true" -- you say "Modern biologists are in virtually unanimous
agreement that the broad outlines of evolutionary theory are
overwhelmingly supported by the evidence."

> > Usually, this is just a matter of a few words here
> > and there.
>
> ... and obfuscation of the entire text. It'll sound
> like we are describing an imaginary world or that we
> are uncertain of everything, both bad for textbooks.

No, it need not sound like either, and -- done properly -- it's an
actually a good way to sound *certain*, because we write only things
about which we *are* certain.  "Stephen Jay Gould's theory of
punctuated equilibrium says that..."  Well, we may not be sure if all
the details of punctuated equilibrium are true, but we are sure what
Stephen Jay Gould said, and what evidence he adduced for his theory,
and what critics said.

Respect for the reader entails simply laying out all the facts
uncontroversially, and allowing the reader to draw the appropriate
conclusions.

> > As an example, consider [[Christian views on
> > homosexuality]].
[...]

> The thing is that that page doesn't exist. It doesn't
> have a place in Wikipedia. We might right that at
> [[homosexuality]] or possibly [[christianity]], but
> wikipedia doesn't write articles like this.

Actually, that article does exist.  That's why I picked it as an
example:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_homosexuality

My typo ('on' rather than 'of') misled you, I'm sure.

> What consensus? There is no such consensus, just a
> majority view.

Actually, there's a very strong consensus on a lot of things, and
majority views on some things.  But even there, there is a consensus
view on what the majority views are.

Consider "Theory A" and variants "Theory A-1" and "Theory A-2".

"Theory A" is accepted by virtually all scientists and educated
people.  That's a consensus.  But when we get down to details, down to
A-1 and A-2, opinions vary.  There's a majority opinion, and a
minority opinion.  Sometimes these will have roughly the same status.

Well, that's not a problem for NPOV.  NPOV just presents it all this
way: "Theory A is scientific consensus.  Scientists are divided,
however, on the details of A-1 versus A-2, both of which we will
describe in detail."

> No, that is DPOV. You're describing DPOV.

No, I'm describing NPOV as I understand it.  I made it up, so I get to
say what it means.  :-)

What I'm saying is that it's a big misconception to think that an NPOV
textbook treatment of biology has to include, as if equally valid, the
views of scientists and creationists.  It doesn't.  It is not _bias_
to restrict our focus to a particular topic.

> A diciplinary point of view restricts the focus to the topic of
> interest. DPOV is reasonable, but biased because of a lack of
> information, and you don't have to keep misusing the jargon.

There's absolutely no reason for a textbook to have to be biased.  If
a biology text doesn't cover the Major League pennant race, that's not
bias.  And it's not bias for a biology text to not cover the
creationism versus evolution debate.  In both cases, that's not what
the book is about.

Of course it's very possible for a biology text to be biased on these
matters.  What I'm saying is: it's not necessary.  It's not necessary
to introduce bias in order to restrict topic.  You just restrict the
topic, you handle points of intersection thoughtfully and fairly, and
there you go.

Remember, NPOV is about getting consensus between potentially warring
factions.  If your biology text is written properly, then an honest
creationist will accept it.

> Yes, but if the creationist doesn't agree with it as a
> representation of reality, which is always assumed
> (and a few words couldn't change in the minds of
> most), the creationist will still say, "I disagree
> with that book. If we decended from monkeys, why are
> they still there? [classic creationist argument] This
> book should address that."

And a baseball fan might lament the lack of coverage of that issue, as
well, right?  My point is, NPOV doesn't require us to write a book
about everything that everyone will love equally.  But it does require
us to write carefully about things that even opponents can agree on.

> Possibly, but you have to admit that it is DPOV, not
> NPOV.

No, I insist exactly the opposite.  This is exactly what NPOV is all
about, and it applies 100% to textbooks.

> No one wants a book that has no application in
> reality, only vague "biology". We want biology for use
> in the real world, and that assumes that biology is
> true. That is how textbooks work. But if we still
> wanted to be NPOV, we wouldn't assume that biology
> applies only in biology-land, we'd make arguments
> against biology for the real world in a seperate
> section.

Well, I think you've completely misunderstood what I meant.

Let me jump to a different example.  I'm not sure that it's better,
but hopefully it'll open up a different way of looking at this.

As a hobby, I like to read Supreme Court cases, and about abstract
legal reasoning generally.  Politically, I'm what most people would
call libertarian, and like lots of libertarians, I believe in the
morality of individual rights.

So for any controversial issue, there's two ways to approach it.  I
can approach it from the point of view of individual rights theory.
Or I can approach it from the point of view of legal reasoning, of how
I think the Constitution ought to be read.

These two approaches don't always come up with the same result.

Even so, I can read a brilliant legal argument and say "Yes, I agree
with that.  That is what the constitution says, and under the legal
principles at work, that's the right answer in the law."  But I can
still think that the constitution ought to be changed in certain ways.

Or, it can go the other way.  I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade, and I
think that there is an individual right to early term abortion.  And
yet, I think that Roe v. Wade is a bad constitional decision, because
it finds principles in the constitution that aren't there, using
reasoning that makes little sense.

You with me so far?

Well, now imagine an article about Roe v. Wade written by someone with
whom I disagree on matters of individual rights.  I think that there
is a right, and the other person thinks there is not.  But the article
simply isn't about that.  The article is about the reasoning used in
Roe v. Wade, and the question of whether or not it's sound
constitutional law.

I could very easily end up agreeing with the article, if it's
well-written and NPOV, because the issues are separate.

--Jimbo


subject: [Textbook-l] various POVs, modules

body:
Karl Wick wrote:
> If it is all built in modules then we can choose to link to any or
> all of the ones that are there.

Well, I think that's really a dangerous way to proceed.  Whenever NPOV
is abandoned as an organizing principle, there's a temptation to think
"Yeah, this is biased, but anyone who doesn't like it can just remove
this module or not read it."

Whatever needs to be said, can be said in an NPOV way.

> I think that applies to the issue raised earlier about what things
> should be included like moral arguments or other perspectives on the
> subjects covered.

But there's no reason why moral arguments or other perspectives need
to be presented in any other way than NPOV.

> One of the cool things about a hypertext book is
> that we can link to all kinds of things that a traditional
> textbook doesn't have space to print and the reader can
> choose which parts he wants to read.

Sure, that's true, but we can't let it become an excuse for biased
writing.

It's probably instructive to review a philosophy text on ethics.  In
well written texts, ethical arguments are presented in a neutral
fashion.  The author need not advocate any of the arguments directly,
but the author must present the various viewpoints fairly.

--Jimbo


subject: [Textbook-l] various POVs, modules

body:
I have this sneaky feeling like when we all have some
specific passages in front of us everyone is going to
pretty much aggree on what is appropriate or inappropriate,
and that the different POVs may all have a place. If it is
all built in modules then we can choose to link to any or
all of the ones that are there. I think that applies to the
issue raised earlier about what things should be included
like moral arguments or other perspectives on the subjects
covered. One of the cool things about a hypertext book is
that we can link to all kinds of things that a traditional
textbook doesn't have space to print and the reader can
choose which parts he wants to read.

Karl

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia homepage

body:
Benjamin Esham wrote:
> > May I change the layout of the homepage of the English
> > Wikipedia to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia? I think
> > that layout looks much better. I would ask this on
> > [[Talk:Main Page]], but not many people look there
> > that often, and this would be a huge change.

I'd say go for it.  The only reason the main page is protected is to
keep it from vandals, so in theory, it's just as editable as any other
page.  You've followed the right (cautious, courteous) convention by
asking here first, since as you say, it would be a huge change.

The only risk you take is that if people really freak out about it,
and a general consensus develops that it should be turned back
completely, then your work would be for nothing.

But I'm looking at eo.wikipedia.org, and it's sweet.


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Anthere wrote:

> On ne fait pas d'omelette sans casser d'oeufs...

I hope I did not need to understand that ;)

> Tarquin, someone au bistro, suggested that our article
> count was still the coma method. I made a test, and
> indeed, this page
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_de_test_rien_que_pour_moi
> counts for one. It contains just ",".
> Didnot we vote something on the topic once ?

Well it was done on meta.

> Why are we still with the old system ?

As far as I know only the en-wikipedia on the new server is running with
the new count system.

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


subject: [Textbook-l] RE: Some concept ideas ( Magnus Manske )

body:
Karl Wick wrote:
> Would it be possible to have the option to have some books
> and pages edited only by signed-in users and others open to
> everyone ? And leave the choice open to the person who
> starts the book or is the administrator or someone else who
> would have a reason to decide ? I'd imagine that some
> people would feel a lot better about contributing if they
> had more control over it that way, and others wouldnt care.
> Or maybe, in very special cases, modules on the site which
> are editable only by the original author ...

I would say 'no' to all of these things.  They are very un-wiki,
and wiki is a proven successful development model.

Later on, if we find some insurmountable difficulties, then we can
consider these kinds of things.

But believe me, what seems to make sense a priori, i.e. rules and
controls, doesn't work.  The most insane thing possible -- letting
everyone edit everything -- is astounding in it's power.

--Jimbo


body:
I aggree that we should get some strucuture out there from
the beginning.

Would it be possible to have the option to have some books
and pages edited only by signed-in users and others open to
everyone ? And leave the choice open to the person who
starts the book or is the administrator or someone else who
would have a reason to decide ? I'd imagine that some
people would feel a lot better about contributing if they
had more control over it that way, and others wouldnt care.
Or maybe, in very special cases, modules on the site which
are editable only by the original author ...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Textbook-l] various POVs, modules

body:
Jimmy,

I got your last email about POVs after I just sent mine,
and I guess it made my comments irrelevent. I have no
disaggreements with you on what you wrote, and certainly
wouldnt try to find any excuse to support poor or biases
writing.

Karl

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia homepage

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>May I change the layout of the homepage of the English
>Wikipedia to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia? I think
>that layout looks much better. I would ask this on
>[[Talk:Main Page]], but not many people look there
>that often, and this would be a huge change.
>
Just a note: the current layout used on the Esperanto, Danish, Czech,
Chinese, Spanish, and Polish Wikipedia homepages was IIRC based on the
fine work started at the Francophone Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure I saw a work-in-progress version of the English
Wikipedia front page with the new layout at some point, but it may have
gone away...

Hmm, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Temp is similar.

Anyway, food for thought:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_pages_considered_harmful

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:15:02AM -0700, Axel Boldt wrote:
> > For quotations, we should be able to ensure that the quotation
> > is fair use for /every/ potential user, so that would be all right.
>
> Even for quotations you need the word "likely" somewhere: your quoting
> a line of Martin Luther King in an article about him is certainly fair
> use; my selling t-shirts with that quote on it is certainly not.

Are you sure about that ?
In Poland I wouldn't hesitate for a moment before selling such t-shirts.
Short quotes receive next to zero protection here and I don't know why it
should be otherwise anywhere else.


from_name: Benjamin Esham

subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia homepage

body:
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 11:07 PM, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

> May I change the layout of the homepage of the English
> Wikipedia to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia? I think
> that layout looks much better. I would ask this on
> [[Talk:Main Page]], but not many people look there
> that often, and this would be a huge change.

Oh, please do!  The layout of the English mainpage
isn't disagreeable at all, but the E-o one is just amazing IMHO.

--
Benjamin D. Esham      {      http://bdesham.net
bdesham at iname.com      }      AIM: bdesham 1 2 8


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Textbook-l] Re: Textbooks

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:

>Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
>>focus; that was my point.

>Well, it does, though, doesn't it?  If an article is about X, then it
>is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue
>about".  Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the
>title.

Exactly.  If all that mav means by "DPOV" is
?restricting the topic to the discipline at hand and NPOV within that limit?,
then I agree with him about how the textbooks should be written.
But I disagree that this isn't already just part of NPOV.

In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology,
then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology.
This doesn't violate NPOV, and neither will the biology textbook.
An important point is the existence (or potential existence)
of other articles on parts of the discipline of scientific creationism
(such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the flood
by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data)
and similarly, the (potential) existence of a textbook on that topic.
To be sure, we don't have those articles on Wikipedia
and probably never will have that textbook -- but we could.

The text in [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] of course must be changed,
since it refers to a comprehensive encyclopaedia on everything.
But this is /context/, not the /essence/ of NPOV.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia homepage

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>May I change the layout of the
>homepage of the English Wikipedia
>to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia?
>I think that layout looks much better.
>I would ask this on [[Talk:Main Page]],
>but not many people look there that
>often, and this would be a huge change.

IMO that is HMTL madness -- WAY too many spurious colors that mean nothing and
whose only purpose is to look "purty" in the eyes of the designer. We have
already worked out a more conservative color scheme for the Main Page but
were waiting for some earth-shattering announcement to make to go with the
upgrade (such as "The Wikimedia Foundation is open for business and is now
accepting donations!" - not that we would say that on the Main Page but we
would have a link to a press release).

See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Temp
Which is based on: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

We really should be very conservative with making big noticeably changes to
that page because so many people visit it every day. Making a big change is
going to make people think that something is different and then they will be
more likely to see the link to the press release (we did this for our last
press release and it worked very well).

Color rational: White is for articles (thus the background for the category
links is white/unchanged), Yellow is for community (since all our user, talk,
and wikipedia pages are yellow) and Blue is for hyperlinks. I guess red for
edit links would also be neat (indicating there is always something else to
cover) but that would be too many colors and red is also a bit heavy.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia homepage

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>IMO that is HMTL madness -- WAY too many spurious colors that mean nothing and
>whose only purpose is to look "purty" in the eyes of the designer.
>
Personally, I find the current English main page to be overly dense; my
eyes glaze over when I look at it, and I've been here for a year and a
half. I shudder to think of a newbie's reaction. (Hmm, should we conduct
usability testing? I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.)

The color backgrounds on the selected events and community sections in
the /Temp page are an improvement, setting off separate sections, but
it's still a bit of a jumble of links that are hard to tell apart. For
whatever reason, I find the French front page a little clearer. It's not
necessarily the backgrounds or the colors; but a few things that look
nice to me:

* Skips the sea of links of our "selected articles" section. While it's
certainly useful, it's very hard on the eyes. Several solid lines of
undifferentiated blue  text, carefully set up to avoid being broken by
any ragged nasty white space... right at the top, too, so it's the first
thing a new user tries to read. Ouch!

* A few more important links (for instance, [[Le Bistro]]) are given in
bold, so the sea of links isn't so flat.

* The header size isn't as distractingly large

* Border and internal padding on the 'community' cell

* the tilde (~) as a spacer instead of (-) gives a little more space
between links in the category sections. This may help.

Anyway, just thoughts. IANAGD.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Textbook-l] Focus people! :-) (was Re: Textbooks)

body:
Toby wrote:
>The text in [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]
>of course must be changed, since it refers to a
>comprehensive encyclopaedia on everything.
>But this is /context/, not the /essence/ of NPOV.

That's the only thing I wanted to change, yes (well, that and some refactoring
of the text to make it more readable). The reason I called it something
different is so that people won't get confused between the
comprehensive-based NPOV used in Wikipedia and a more focused-based NPOV
needed for textbooks. This is especially important because the Wikipedia
implementation of NPOV often tends to result in articles that have everything
in them but the kitchen sink ([[abortion]] for example is mostly about the
controversy and history with relatively little by the way of explaining the
various medical procedures).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Jimbo wrote:
>At one point, a textbook teaching about
>the Earth and the Sun might say "The
>Sun revolves around the Earth".  Bad
>move to say that.

<off-topic>Hm. Given the Church's view on this subject at that time it would
have been a bad move for your own well-being to disagree... </off-topic>

>Better to say "Current scientific consensus
>off-topic>is that the evidence outlined in this
>chapter suggests that the Sun revolves around
>the Earth."

Assuming there wasn't a Church that would burn you at the steak then, in
retrospect at least, I would have to agree. However, the corollary of that is
not true because we know, as a fact, that the Earth does revolve around the
Sun because a couple deep space craft took several pictures of our whole
solar system (not to mention all the hoards of other empirical evidence there
is). So there is no significant controversy on this topic (even the Catholic
Church eventaully accepted this fact).

When there is no real controversy on a topic (in a global sense) then facts
can be presented as facts.

>Respect for the reader entails simply laying
>out all the facts uncontroversially, and allowing
>the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.

But we don't have room in every article to present every idea on a subject -
we have to pick and choose. If done right then the major arguments are
presented in some detail, with more detailed text on daughter articles and
the minor/crackpot ones get maybe a sentence or two or just a "see also"
link.

>What I'm saying is that it's a big misconception
>to think that an NPOV textbook treatment of
>biology has to include, as if equally valid, the
>views of scientists and creationists.  It doesn't.
>It is not _bias_to restrict our focus to a particular
>topic.

<Devil's advocate>Ever hear of a "bias of selection?"</Devil's advocate>

Perhaps the problem is that [[NPOV]] needs to be re-factored? It sure has been
misinterpreted enough.... It was also made for an encyclopedia and so was
framed with the needs of an encyclopedia in mind (sic comprehensiveness
instead of a focus on neutrally presenting the current views of a topic based
on how professionals in that discipline view it - I think that wording is
needed in the textbook version of "NPOV").

>Remember, NPOV is about getting consensus
>between potentially warring factions.  If your
>biology text is written properly, then an honest
>creationist will accept it.

Good thing you put the qualifier "honest" in there. Otherwise I would have
listed a few states where creationism is either presented as a valid
competing theory to evolution or as superior to evolution in those state's
public school biology textbooks. It makes me sick to think about that (also
very glad that I didn't grow up in those backward states -- no offense
intended Jimbo :-).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

PS I'm leaving for a Yosemite field study in about 4 hours and won't be back
to respond to posts until late Sunday/early Monday UTC.

Also, I would prefer us to use the terminology of "module" instead of article
when talking about textbook pages (both are one wiki page but "article" isn't
a good word for our use here - neither is "page" realy).


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikipedia may provide books made with different perspectives input, whilst others can't

body:
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:Jimmy Wales wrote in part:

>Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
>>focus; that was my point.

>Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an article is about X, then it
>is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue
>about". Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the
>title.

Exactly. If all that mav means by "DPOV" is
?restricting the topic to the discipline at hand and NPOV within that limit?,
then I agree with him about how the textbooks should be written.
But I disagree that this isn't already just part of NPOV.

In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology,
then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology.
This doesn't violate NPOV, and neither will the biology textbook.
An important point is the existence (or potential existence)
of other articles on parts of the discipline of scientific creationism
(such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the flood
by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data)
and similarly, the (potential) existence of a textbook on that topic.
To be sure, we don't have those articles on Wikipedia
and probably never will have that textbook -- but we could.

The text in [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] of course must be changed,
since it refers to a comprehensive encyclopaedia on everything.
But this is /context/, not the /essence/ of NPOV.

-- Toby
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

"In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology, then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology."

Well. No. That is not always true.

I just don't understand why some of you just keep focusing on the creationnism issue, only leading to hiding more important matters.
Important matters are that some topics just cannot be treated just within one disciplin.

Mine definitly can't. Writing a textbook about corn, and only sticking to the plant biology would be of no interest to a farming student. He will need plant science and botany to know the crop, farming information to grow it, animal science to understand what it is needed for (hence the quality required), soil science to understand the crop requirement versus soil resources, climate science and water science to irrigate the crop wisely, chemistry and quality management to understand how to best deal with this crop disease and insect specificities whilst insuring food quality and safety, environmental issues related to that crop, such as benefits and drawbacks associated with a particular crop management, a minimum of biotech information to understand what a gmo is and what the different trends are on that topic, mechanics for the farming equipment, trade, market, economical and political background to best sell his product and project himself in the future.

That is what I would put in a good textbook on this "so-restricted" topic. This is the book I would offer to students trained to be farmers for example, this is the book I would tell them to buy. This book would encompass at least 10 different disciplines. Likely, it can only be a group work, as it requires different disciplins to work together. And that is *exactly* where Wikip?dia can help, because it is likely to benefit from different inputs, while in the "meat space", these various disciplins don't always meet.

Note I don't necessarily say this has to be NPOV. I just say what Wikipedia can offer that others can't, is the vision offered by people on the same topic from different perspectives. Here, the perspective of a farmer, of an accountant, of a trader, of a seed retailer, of a chemist researcher, of a trade-unionist, of a policy maker...

If corn is too restricted, similar books about cereal cropping would be perfect. Including all these various perspectives. This would be a good book imho.
There are very few books of that type. Even when there is a collaboration, it is usually of two people at best. 2 people cannot give the best in all these disciplines. Wikip?dia can provide better because we can be more than 2.

But if all the various aspects of the topics are spreaded in 15 different booklets, all focusing on one discipline, we do just as the others do. Bland food.

It is quite frequent that professors tend to teach students research stuff, because that is what they know best, and that tend to suggest them the whole world is turning around research, here around biology. But in truth, only professors and researchers are doing stuff in research. What most students will do, and need really, is practical information to do well in life. Professors are not always very good at giving practical information. They need (and often welcome) support to adjust their teaching. They need a resource giving the practical and up to date information they have more pain to provide.

Well, that all depends if we want to make little booklets for academics to put on the shelf, or if we want to make books useful and helping people to get the big picture, as well as provide them with accurate and much needed info to deal with daily life.

Both are ok, but I am here for the second point. Not the first.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/attachments/20030626/14cbc6bd/attachment.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia may provide books made with different perspectives input, whilst others can't

body:
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:Jimmy Wales wrote in part:

>Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
>>focus; that was my point.

>Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an article is about X, then it
>is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue
>about". Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the
>title.

Exactly. If all that mav means by "DPOV" is
?restricting the topic to the discipline at hand and NPOV within that limit?,
then I agree with him about how the textbooks should be written.
But I disagree that this isn't already just part of NPOV.

In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology,
then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology.
This doesn't violate NPOV, and neither will the biology textbook.
An important point is the existence (or potential existence)
of other articles on parts of the discipline of scientific creationism
(such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the flood
by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data)
and similarly, the (potential) existence of a textbook on that topic.
To be sure, we don't have those articles on Wikipedia
and probably never will have that textbook -- but we could.

The text in [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] of course must be changed,
since it refers to a comprehensive encyclopaedia on everything.
But this is /context/, not the /essence/ of NPOV.

-- Toby
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

"In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology, then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology."

Well. No. That is not always true.

I just don't understand why some of you just keep focusing on the creationnism issue, only leading to hiding more important matters.
Important matters are that some topics just cannot be treated just within one disciplin.

Mine definitly can't. Writing a textbook about corn, and only sticking to the plant biology would be of no interest to a farming student. He will need plant science and botany to know the crop, farming information to grow it, animal science to understand what it is needed for (hence the quality required), soil science to understand the crop requirement versus soil resources, climate science and water science to irrigate the crop wisely, chemistry and quality management to understand how to best deal with this crop disease and insect specificities whilst insuring food quality and safety, environmental issues related to that crop, such as benefits and drawbacks associated with a particular crop management, a minimum of biotech information to understand what a gmo is and what the different trends are on that topic, mechanics for the farming equipment, trade, market, economical and political background to best sell his product and project himself in the future.

That is what I would put in a good textbook on this "so-restricted" topic. This is the book I would offer to students trained to be farmers for example, this is the book I would tell them to buy. This book would encompass at least 10 different disciplines. Likely, it can only be a group work, as it requires different disciplins to work together. And that is *exactly* where Wikip?dia can help, because it is likely to benefit from different inputs, while in the "meat space", these various disciplins don't always meet.

Note I don't necessarily say this has to be NPOV. I just say what Wikipedia can offer that others can't, is the vision offered by people on the same topic from different perspectives. Here, the perspective of a farmer, of an accountant, of a trader, of a seed retailer, of a chemist researcher, of a trade-unionist, of a policy maker...

If corn is too restricted, similar books about cereal cropping would be perfect. Including all these various perspectives. This would be a good book imho.
There are very few books of that type. Even when there is a collaboration, it is usually of two people at best. 2 people cannot give the best in all these disciplines. Wikip?dia can provide better because we can be more than 2.

But if all the various aspects of the topics are spreaded in 15 different booklets, all focusing on one discipline, we do just as the others do. Bland food.

It is quite frequent that professors tend to teach students research stuff, because that is what they know best, and that tend to suggest them the whole world is turning around research, here around biology. But in truth, only professors and researchers are doing stuff in research. What most students will do, and need really, is practical information to do well in life. Professors are not always very good at giving practical information. They need (and often welcome) support to adjust their teaching. They need a resource giving the practical and up to date information they have more pain to provide.

Well, that all depends if we want to make little booklets for academics to put on the shelf, or if we want to make books useful and helping people to get the big picture, as well as provide them with accurate and much needed info to deal with daily life.

Both are ok, but I am here for the second point. Not the first.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030626/14cbc6bd/attachment.htm