subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again

body:
Hello Helga, and thank you for joining the mailing
list.

--- Helga Hecht <helgah at email.com> wrote:

> I just started the subscription and the first thing
> I read is this message, which seems to be in answer
> to some other message, which I do not know.

You can find the Wikipedia mailing list archives for
August at this URL:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-August/thread.html

Just look for the word "Helga" and I think you'll find
all of the threads concerning you.

> 1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not
> particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at
> all".

Good. I'm glad that's on the record.

> 2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty
> much discounts anything that distracts from or in
> any way disproves her
> assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest
> victims of WWII."
>
> I have never said anything like this.

Perhaps you haven't said anything like this, but your
actions speak otherwise.

> I see and know a lot more about things that she
> could ever read in her school books. Her books tell
> onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full
> truth.

Given that Julie is a historian and can read German, I
suspect she has access to a broad range of sources
beyond simple "school books".

> For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper
> declaration March 1933: Judea  declares War on
> Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997
> been verified by other religious Jewish groups
> http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and
> http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article:
> Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
>
> One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?

It's not "hidden" that such a headline was printed.
What is being disputed is your claim that this was a
cause of WWII.

> If wanting to get answers and find out the truth
> is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could
> call it that.
>
> However I believe I see the complete picture more
> clearly than she does.

Your actions contradict your words. When I read your
contributions, all I see is a one-sided perspective
that is hostile to the views of others.

> Editing or correcting etc is fine.
>
> Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not
> mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It
> becomes a lie.

Absolutely.

> I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia
> want to be like any other commercial enterprize,
> that
> only tells you, what the general public wants to
> hear
> or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?

There is a strong commitment to be truthful. The
problem, Helga, is that you ignore the many, many
sources that contradict your positions... or you claim
they were fabricated because of some sort of
conspiracy. In addition, you have:

- consistantly ignored simple Wikipedia conventions
(such as using English names), even after having them
pointed out to you.
- added long lists of rulers and geneologies to
unrelated articles.
- ignored the arguments made against some of the
questionable sources you use.

Helga, you have a specific agenda to push, and you
seem unable to step back and look at the wider
picture, or work with other people who point out
problems with your contributions and sources.

Stephen Gilbert

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect" (something to chew on)

body:
On Tuesday 03 September 2002 04:34 pm, LDC wrote:
> They certainly could, but only in their capacity as vetted,
> recognized, and fully identified experts. ?Nupedia's function,
> then, is precisely the selection of appropriate experts to review
> articles in certain areas. ?This could be by reviewing academic
> credentials in some areas, professional credentials in others, or
> by whatever means are felt appropriate for things like games and
> hobbies. ?Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
> editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
> subject article itself would remain fully editable.

I like this idea - it just may work. What would be needed of course would be
a good deal of integration between Wikipedia and Nupedia. A link in in the
non-editable part of a Wikipedia page in the article namespace might say;
"View the last review of this article". Clicking on that link will bring you
to Nupedia's review of the Wikipedia article with maybe the exact text of the
version of the Wikipedia article reviewed on the left and the review on the
right (with maybe reviewer made highlights, numbering, underlining and other
markup in the copied Wikipedia article).

Another important thing to have would be the exact revision number, date and
time of the Wikipedia article along with a cur link (that way somebody could
easily see what, if any, edits have been made to the Wikipedia article since
it was reviewed).

Just some thoughts - take them or leave them (remember I really only care
about results not any particular process -- please do think of something even
better).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again

body:
At 02:13 PM 9/3/02 +0800, H. Jonat
 wrote in response to J Hoffmann Kemp's post,
Helga again

Most of which I have deleted

>
>For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933:
Judea  declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997
been verified by other religious Jewish groups
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia
article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
>
>One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
>
>5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth  is bordering on
obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
>
>However I believe I see the complete picture more  clearly than she does.
>
>6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
>
>Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all,
leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.
>
>I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any
other commercial enterprize, that
>only tells you, what the general public wants to hear
>or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
>
>H. Jonat

First, let me welcome you to the list. You appear rather under a cloud, but
no reason that should continue. The vast majority of what happens here is
about Wikipedia in general not about you or any particular issue. I hope
you begin to participate and help us solve our more general problems.

My information is that Hitler, for whatever reason, and it is very hard to
figure out why, since he was raised in a part of Austria with almost no
Jews, was obsessed with them and ascribed to them all sorts of qualities
which to a person acquainted with Jews seem fantastic. The following is
taken and partly quoted from recent biography of Hitler, the first volume,
Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris, by Ian Kershaw, W.W. Norton, ISBN: 0-393-04671-0.
(The one CBS is basing its planned miniseries on). In a letter of September
16, 1919 when asked by one of the participants in the courses of political
education he conducted for the German Army in Munich for clarification of
the 'Jewish Question,' he replied that antisemitism should be based not on
emotion but on 'facts,' the first of which was that Jewry was a race, not a
religion. Emotive antisemitism would produce progroms, he continued;
antisemitism based on 'reason' must, on the other hand, lead to the
systemic removal of the rights of Jews. 'Its final aim,' he concluded,
'must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether' Ian K cites as
sources: Deuerlein, 'Hitler's Eintritt', 199; Joachimsthaler, 247; and
Eberhard Jackel and Axel Kuhn (eds.), Hitler. Samtliche Aufzeichnungen
1905-1924, Stuttgart, 1980.

It may be that a small Jewish group as it contemplated the distruction of
Jewry, "declared war" on Hitler's government in 1933 when he was taking
power. But you say:

"This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious
Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and
http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of
WW II."

The actual situation is quite different. England had pretty much stood by
as Hitler expanded the territory of Germany to include Austia and
Czechoslovokia and built up his army. It was his invasion of Poland that
triggered the war. It has always been England's policy to prevent any
continental power from growing too strong, the balance of power policy, so
no idealistic motives need to be ascribed to England, but this has nothing
to do with Jews, who had they been given the chance, probably would have
supported the national government as they did during World War I.

So it isn't the little footnote to history, that a small Jewish extremist
group delcared war on Germany, that is objectionable, if it occured; but
the broad stroke you make maintaining that this act somehow caused World
War II by some 'butterfly effect'.

Anyway, welcome aboard,

Fred Bauder


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Helga again

body:
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> Ed Poor wrote:
> > *sigh* if only Larry were still
> > here.
>
> Larry's not a magic bullet. I respect Larry, and I
> think he deserves a lot of the credit for getting this
> project off the ground. He has, however, been less
> than diplomatic in certain past situations.

Yeah, actually Larry was less "appreciative" of bullshit than I am.
He'd have called Helga a troll and banned her a long time ago.

So, maybe we *should* wish Larry was still here, but only because
he was Schwartzkopf to my Powell.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [helgah@email.com: Re: Subscribe to wikipedia-l]

body:
Helga is here now.

----- Forwarded message from Helga Hecht <helgah at email.com> -----

From: "Helga Hecht" <helgah at email.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 01:03:43 +0800
To: jwales at bomis.com
Subject: Re: Subscribe to wikipedia-l

Hi Jimbo,

I subscribed to the wikipedia-l.

I also want to make you aware of what Rabbi Schwarz wrote:
http://globalfire.tv/nj/nyt.htm (posted on the same google results).

Have a good holiday weekend

HelgaH at email.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Helga again

in_reply_to: <3D70819A.E0F7FBB@surfbest.net>; from mri_icboise@surfbest.net on Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:43:06AM -0700

body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> > Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> > which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
>
> So let someone else write it.
>
> Do you contend that there are not people in the world who
> have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations?
> I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people
> in North America in person and on the internet.

I think this cuts straight to the heart of how difficult NPOV can be
at times.

In _many_ cases, it is easy to get to NPOV by simply "going meta".  If
something is entirely uncontroversial, we can say 'X'.  If it is
somewhat controversial, we can say "most scholars say X".  But when
there is opposition to X but only by lunatics and frauds, it is NOT
NPOV to simply "go meta".

I don't think, Michael, that you closely read what Vicki says that she
refuses to write.  The _reason_ she refuses to write it is that it is
not NPOV.

Getting to NPOV in this case does not involve giving credence to
suggestions that Hitler didn't _really_ hate Jews, nor does it involve
giving credence to suggestions that Jews started the war with Nazi
Germany.

What needs to be written about the situation in Germany leading up to
World War II is a frank discussion of tensions between Jews and
non-Jews, with attention given to the sources of those tensions.  This
part of the discussion must not be framed in such a way as to suggest
that the Holocaust was deserved, etc.  But it also need not shy away
from a discussion of the reasons that even previously normal people in
Germany were swept up in the anti-Jewish venom of the day.

It would be very hard to get to where we want to be starting with
Helga's nonsense.

> Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of
> Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to
> information during her early education or indoctrination?

But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to rescue Helga from her poor
education.  We need not _morally_ condemn her in order to ask her to
stop writing nonsense.  We can have all the compassion (and
well-meaning condescension) in the world for her plight, and still
refuse to put up with it.

> I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present
> belong somewhere in the Wikipedia.

This is NOT our policy, nor has it ever been.  NPOV is more subtle and
difficult than this.  Wikipedia is not the place for factions to
present competing "views".  We can _report on_ those views, in an
appropriate context, but we must not allow them to distract from our
fundamentally _encyclopedic_ mission, which necessarily involves
summary and selection.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga again

body:
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> I think we could say: "Tensions between Jews and non-Jews in Germany had
> been growing for several years, as evidenced by thus and such actual
> facts that actually happened."
>
> -- Jimmy, even that kind of implies a some kind of mutual antagonism --
> >From everything I've read, the tensions were almost entirely  created by
> non-Jews towards Jews, with a great many of them directly caused by
> NSDAP propaganda (and the whole Jews killed Jesus thing quite common in
> both the Catholic and Lutheran churches of the time).   I'm all for
> NPOV, but isn't part of the NPOV credo that minority views that confound
> reality don't get included?

Yes, I don't disagree with any of this, and perhaps my sentence needs
to be edited.  :-) My only point was that a fair treatment of the time
before WWII need not treat either side as sub-human.

> In the case of the Holocaust, there is a fairly large minority
> world-wide of people who deny the Holocaust.  I am on an educator
> listserve where a teacher SE Asia asked how to deal with the fact that
> most of her high school students really thought the Nazi flag was cool
> and whose general impression of Hitler was that he'd been a good leader
> for the German people.  Most had not heard of the Holocaust, and those
> who did thought reports were exaggerated.  Clearly, westerners are more
> focused on the European Theater in WWII and the holocaust because it
> directly affected our own history more dramatically.  Still I would hate
> to think that, in the cause of NPOV, we put out articles that were
> misleading.
>
> I'll stop preaching for the moment.

No, I agree with you completely here.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga

body:
This is an unmoderated list, and I'm not about to moderate it to enforce
these ground rules.  So these are unenforceable rules, but in the wiki spirit,
I think that if people see the rationale for them, they will be followed.

1.  We aren't here to debate German history, the Holocaust, Poland,
etc.  So let's not do that, except if ABSOLUTELY necessary.

2.  We are here to discuss with Helga the problems people are having
with her biased writing.

3.  We are not here (at this time!) to debate the NPOV policy.  That
is, this particular discussion will not end with me saying "Oh, I
don't care, everyone just go nuts and write whatever you want."  Or
anything similar.

4.  While integrating Helga into our community would be nice, I don't
consider it a primary goal here.  My current view is that Helga needs
to straighten up or go away, enforced by a ban if necessary.

5.  A part of this needs to involve a solid commitment by all of us
that we DO NOT SEEK to cover up any valid information that Helga may
have and want to see treated in the wikipedia.  If she wants to have
an article about the Daily Express thing, we should find a way to
accomodate her.

6.  Helga should NOT accuse people of trying to cover anything up.
That's a personal insult.  At the same time, of course, we should not
insult Helga in any way.  She's been kind enough to come before a very
hostile court of opinion here, so we should be kind enough to listen.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edit war

body:
At 09:46 AM 9/3/02 +0200, you wrote:
>An edit war seems to have broken out on the 'East Timor' page earlier
>today. 209.226.107.51 has twice added a line about the US selling weapons
>to Indonesia during the conflict in East Timor, which Zoe has deleted
>twice. Maybe someone could look into this case before it leads to a real
>edit war or someone is leaving the project in disgust.
>
>Andre Engels

Zoe is correct. Hard to prove a negative, but the addition is a violation
of neutral point of view as relating to the US as it implies that the US is
somehow responsible for what happened in East Timor just by selling weapons
to Indonesia. The information, if true needs to be in some article on arms
sales or something else not in the East Timor article. It is that which
needs to be explained to 209.....
Fred


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tables.

body:
At 02:34 PM 9/3/02 +0200, you wrote:
>What happened to the tables debate?
>
>Would it be possible to just add simple tables for now? I really feel they
>would be useful to a lot of people, and if necessary, we can expand the
syntax
>later.
>
>||
>| Cell1, Row1 | Cell2, Row1 | Cell3, Row1 |
>||
>| Cell1, Row2 | Cell2, Row2 | Cell3, Row2 |
>||
>
>Or whatever the easiest suggestion was.
>
>-- Daniel

You might look at the table in [[china/Temp]] which Jironimo put into
shape. It seems to work.

Fred


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement

body:
I agree with only parts of Larry's post.

Larry Sanger wrote:
> The free software movement is organized and led by world-class
> computer scientists associated with industry and academia.

This is not really true.  Linus Torvald's was an unknown nobody when
he started.  Current major projects like KDE and Gnome are led by
young upstarts.  Most of the leading lights in free software are
leading lights because of talent and willingness to work -- most are
_not_ "world-class computer scientists".

The "world-class computer scientists" work at Microsoft -- and turn
out a mixed-quality product.  Or they work in Universities, doing
valuable and original research.  But they don't devote a lot of time
to writing and releasing free software -- and nobody misses them.

I think this is very important to understand: credentialism is a
killer for volunteer projects.  A hostility to credentials is possibly
worse, but we are in no danger of that.  But a hostility to
enthusiastic amateurs (in the postive traditional sense of that term)
is death to a volunteer project.  If that keeps the credentialed away,
then so be it.

Would it be nice if real experts came to a free encyclopedia project
in droves?  Yes, of course.  It is likely?  No more likely than it is
in the case of Linux and the free software movement, which is to say:
not likely at all.

The wikipedia model *is* significantly different from the model of
most free software projects, for a lot of the reasons that Larry
mentions.  And it is possible that a less "open" model will be useful
soon, using Wikipedia articles as a base.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] What Larry (and everybody else) said

body:
Brion VIBBER wrote:
> Nupedia may well be wonderful, but I have zero interest in it. I first
> heard of it a few months before I got involved in Wikipedia; I went to
> the site, browsed through the FAQs, and got the distinct impression that
> I wasn't welcome unless I had a PhD.

Let me tell you my story.  :-)

I completed all the coursework, but no dissertation, in two different
PhD programs in finance.  (What happened was, I finished one program's
coursework and then got accepted to a much more prestigious program
and so left the first one with a master's degree.)

I specialized in option pricing theory, and published an academic
paper in a real journal.  This was not an important contribution to
the literature, mind you, but it was a respectable enough publication
for a grad student.

Then I worked for a few years as a futures and options trader in
Chicago.

So at Nupedia, I volunteered to write a short biography of Robert
Merton, a founder of option pricing theory and a winner of the Nobel
prize.  This is a simple sort of article, anyone could write it, even
a complete nonexpert.  For someone with my level of knowledge, it
would be nothing at all.

When I sat down to write the article, though, I was seized with
horrible writer's block.  That's astounding, for a guy who does hardly
anything but write 8 hours a day 5 days a week.  If my collected email
output were collected and published in book format, I hate to think of
what it must weigh.

The fact is, I was intimidated by the sheer snobbery and credentialism
of Nupedia.

And *I* had an inside track.  The editor-in-chief worked for me.
Everyone on the project knew who I was.  I could expect to be given
softball reviews and easy acceptance.  Even so, I found the process
just intimidating enough to find excuses not to write that simple
article.

--Jimbo


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edit war

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>An edit war seems to have broken out on the 'East Timor' page earlier
>today. 209.226.107.51 has twice added a line about the US selling weapons
>to Indonesia during the conflict in East Timor, which Zoe has deleted
>twice. Maybe someone could look into this case before it leads to a real
>edit war or someone is leaving the project in disgust.
>
>Andre Engels
>
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making comments about the effects
of the arms trade on the history of this crisis.  Zoe's deletion was
nothing more than that without even an explanation on the talk page.
 Her summary comments did mention a lack of substantiation, so I've
added a few references on the talk page, as well as a revised paragraph
on the subject in the article.

Eclecticology


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>This is an unmoderated list, and I'm not about to moderate it to enforce
>these ground rules.
>
Moderating such a list could be a hell of a lot of work.  I'm sure there
are more interesting things to do with your time.

>
>5.  A part of this needs to involve a solid commitment by all of us
>that we DO NOT SEEK to cover up any valid information that Helga may
>have and want to see treated in the wikipedia.  If she wants to have
>an article about the Daily Express thing, we should find a way to
>accomodate her.
>
This may be a key issue.  Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point
of view should still leave room for alternative points of view, even
when the majority considers them quite goofy.  It is still perfectly
acceptable to state that these alternate or eccentric points of view are
somewhat removed from the beaten track.

>6.  Helga should NOT accuse people of trying to cover anything up.
>That's a personal insult.  At the same time, of course, we should not
>insult Helga in any way.  She's been kind enough to come before a very
>hostile court of opinion here, so we should be kind enough to listen.
>
Although I've had little to do with the specific issues discussed in her
articles I too would like to extend my welcome to her.

Eclecticology


from_name: Julie Hofmann Kemp

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Helga's website suggestion

body:
I checked this out, and it's appalling.  I looked at other articles, as
well as the one you suggested.  Helga, if you want people to support
you, please take my advice and direct them to sites that are not
revisionist.  I know that the site claims that it doesn't deny the
Holocaust, and that's somewhat truthful.  What is DOES do is blame the
Jews for the Holocaust, which is almost as bad.  Basically, it's
inflammatory and chooses to publish (or link to, because it's trying to
avoid prosecution under German law) the most obscure and not necessarily
factual articles.  There is often a kernel of truth, but it is so hidden
in warped opinion that we can't trust it.  AS I have said again and
again -- Consider your sources and ask if they are credible.  This
source isn't -- unless we write an article on propaganda and hate groups
and how effective they are at convincing people.

One of the things about history is that our picture is always expanding.
You are correct that many people are only now learning about the
Heimatvertriebene -- just as 30 years ago, people (especially
non-scholars) in English-speaking countries were really beginning to
learn about Stalin's purges -- mostly through reading "The Gulag
Archipelago", which topped the NY Times bestseller list.  Documents are
hidden.  Governments cover things up.  Historians constantly rewrite
history to include more knowledge -- and sometimes that revises the big
picture.

What I'm trying to impress upon you is that most of the postwar picture
you want included is real -- that is, ethnic Germans, counted perhaps
into the millions, were either exterminated or expelled from their homes
in areas that fell under Communist control.  But we don't play
comparative victims here, and we also have to include facts that
unfortunately don't fit your picture.  I think I can speak for everybody
when I say we want the truth -- but we want it to be told responsibly,
and not by revising history in ways that at present seem entirely
unwarranted.

Julie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020903/c7ca74cd/attachment.htm


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edit war

body:
An edit war seems to have broken out on the 'East Timor' page earlier
today. 209.226.107.51 has twice added a line about the US selling weapons
to Indonesia during the conflict in East Timor, which Zoe has deleted
twice. Maybe someone could look into this case before it leads to a real
edit war or someone is leaving the project in disgust.

Andre Engels


in_reply_to: <r5ifzwrj6zh.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>; from wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk on Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 06:52:34PM +0100

body:
I agree with Gareth.  However, and I'm sure he'll agree with me in
return, this does not mean that we should suppress information.  There
should be articles _about_ the alternative points of view, _as_
alternative points of view.  And I think that's all that Ray meant as
well.

Gareth Owen wrote:

> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
> > Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still leave
> > room for alternative points of view, even when the majority considers them
> > quite goofy
>
> I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
> is not "goofy".  It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
> Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
>
> I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
> explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint.  To do so would not be
> neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
> to record and report accurately on those events.
> --
> Gareth Owen
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikitech-l] German wiki software reverts?

body:
Bonjour,
I don't seem to have right to add files in the CVS Wikipedia.
Someone can add the following dummies files from Language.php :

    LanguageFr.php (France)
    LanguageJa.php (Japan)
    LanguageKo.php (Korea)

I would have the right to modify it, isn't it?
Have I to be added to the developers list ?
You can create empty files, I will create the extended class LanguageFr, ...
Thanks,

Guillaume


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Average Size of Articles and Article Size Evolution

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>On Monday 02 September 2002 07:15 am, David Levinson wrote:
>
>>Each article, as it ages, presumably tends to get longer as
>>people add content.  New articles start small. People add facts, they
>>get larger.  They spawn incomplete links[?] and new articles are
>>created, but start small.
>>
>
>You just gave me a great idea -- How about we have a population pyramid on
>the statistics page? See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
>
This is an interesting approach.  The article set could be divided into
deciles (or some other suitable sized sample).  I would guess that the
median article size that we currently have is likely fairly constant.
 The markers for the deciles are likely similarly constant.  This is, of
course, subject to minor sampling variation.  People who use population
pyramids let them be indicators of broad changes in populations.
 Statistically significant variations from key markers would suggest
differences in the patterns of participation.

Perhaps one of our more mathematically could do an analysis on "The
fractal geometry of Wikipedia participation"

Eclecticology


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
It occurs to me that Larry's concerns (and mine) with Wikipedia
might be a manifestation of what journalist Frederic Schwarz calls
the "Casio Effect": often a new technology comes along to replace
a large amount of human effort, but that technology produces, say,
90% of the original quality with 5% of the effort.  What often
happens, then, is that the people formerly responsible for that
effort don't bother making up for the remaining 10% of the quality,
but merely settle for what the technology produces.  So instead of
hiring an expensive human drummer, we use a drum machine; but we
end up with a sound that's somewhat inorganic and lacks the little
touches of creativity that a human might produce.  Instead of hiring
a secretary, the exec uses a word processor, and sends out letters
that haven't been vetted through the eyes of someone who knows how
to smooth out his rough language.

Wikipedia is such a technology.  It is probably capable of
producing 90% of the quality of a Britannica with 5% of the effort.
But we have two problems: first, we aren't even putting in 5% of
the effort yet--Britannica has hundreds of full-time staffers and
an impressive list of experts.  Secondly, we have a lofty goal to
produce something even better than Britannica.

Our task, then, is to precisely identify what that missing 10% is,
and work on systems to create precisely that, and let Wikipedia do
the remaining 90% it does well.  At first blush, it appears to me
that the basic creation of content is something Wikipeida does well.
Creating almanac-like content is does well.   And it even seems to
be good at ironing out some controversies.  And finally, it's good
at polishing prose.

But what it doesn't do well is grunt scholarship: meticulous
checking of facts and references, proper listing of all the best
sources in the field, expert summary of the state of a field and
its history, etc.

Nupedia tried to do everything--generate content, expertly review
it, publicly review it, finish it for publication, etc.  I think
that's too much to ask.  Perhaps Nupedia could be pared down to a
simpler function, and one that would be easier for experts to
participate in: instead of creating articles, or even editing them,
why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of articles submitted
to them, which then get attached to the articles?  Wikipedia authors
could, whenever they feel an article is ready for it, ask for it to
be submitted to expert review. The expert then just writes what he
thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you got that wrong,
etc.) and sends it back.  The Wikipedia process can then go to work
on the article again, with the expert commentary available.

That way, the experts never have the problem of having their names
associated with the mediocre work itself--only with the review,
which is entirely their own creation and therefore ego-satisfying.
And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and polishing have
the expert's input to work with.  The experts will be providing
only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't, and no more.


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Done.

Guillaume Blanchard wrote:

>Bonjour,
>I don't seem to have right to add files in the CVS Wikipedia.
>Someone can add the following dummies files from Language.php :
>
>    LanguageFr.php (France)
>    LanguageJa.php (Japan)
>    LanguageKo.php (Korea)
>
>I would have the right to modify it, isn't it?
>Have I to be added to the developers list ?
>You can create empty files, I will create the extended class LanguageFr, ...
>Thanks,
>
>Guillaume
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at nupedia.com
>http://nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You just gave me a great idea -- How about we have a population
>>> pyramid on the statistics page? See
>>> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
>>>
>> This is an interesting approach.  The article set could be divided
>> into deciles (or some other suitable sized sample).  I would guess
>> that the median article size that we currently have is likely fairly
>> constant. The markers for the deciles are likely similarly constant.
>> This is, of course, subject to minor sampling variation.  People who
>> use population pyramids let them be indicators of broad changes in
>> populations. Statistically significant variations from key markers
>> would suggest differences in the patterns of participation.
>>
>> Perhaps one of our more mathematically could do an analysis on "The
>> fractal geometry of Wikipedia participation"
>>
>> Eclecticology
>>
> I'd expect something like a [[Zipf distribution]], if there is a
> scaling principle operating.

We may both be right.  My interpretation of a Zipfian distribution is
that it is a one tail curve.  For articles less than median size it
seems as though the curve for the distribution of article size would be
a steeply rising one.

Ec


from_name: Helga Hecht

subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again

body:
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:59:15 -0700
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C250E5.D464E4B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

1. For the record, I don't think that Helga is particularly anti-Semitic
--
although she often comes off that way.

2. My take is that she pretty
much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII.

3. For her the Holocaust is minor -- as are the Stalinist purges that ran
into the tens of millions -- except those directed towards the Heimatvertriebene.

4. This also keeps her from seeing that there may
have been long-standing resentments caused by German actions over a long period of time and began well before Hitler -- not that this is a reason
for genocide or any other wartime or post-war atrocity.

5. She just seems incapable of seeing any of this in context because she's got her own
agenda that borders on obsession.

6. It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that
it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.

Jules
--------------------

I just started the subscription and the first thing I read is this message, which seems to be in answer to some other message, which I do not know.

J Hoffmann Kemp probably means well.

However

1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at all".

2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty
much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her
assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII."

I have never said anything like this.

3a. Have never said anything like that either.

4a. I see and know a lot more about things that she could ever read in her school books. Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.

For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933: Judea  declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.

One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?

5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth  is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could call it that.

However I believe I see the complete picture more  clearly than she does.

6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.

Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.

I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any other commercial enterprize, that
only tells you, what the general public wants to hear
or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?

H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup


body:
> I have to say that Gareth and I have had our differences
> in the past but I am with him 100% on this; historical
> revisionism in any shape or form is not to be countenanced.
> Ever.

Reportage is not approval.  If some group of folks makes
enough noise to get attention, and has published a book with
silly ideas, it is every bit as much of a moral obligation
for us to honestly report that fact as it is for us to to
express disapproval (or to report that most people disapprove).


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tables.

body:
What happened to the tables debate?

Would it be possible to just add simple tables for now? I really feel they
would be useful to a lot of people, and if necessary, we can expand the syntax
later.

||
| Cell1, Row1 | Cell2, Row1 | Cell3, Row1 |
||
| Cell1, Row2 | Cell2, Row2 | Cell3, Row2 |
||

Or whatever the easiest suggestion was.

-- Daniel


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
 Perhaps Nupedia could be
> pared down to a
> simpler function, and one that would be easier for
> experts to
> participate in: instead of creating articles, or
> even editing them,
> why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of
> articles submitted
> to them, which then get attached to the articles?
> Wikipedia authors
> could, whenever they feel an article is ready for
> it, ask for it to
> be submitted to expert review. The expert then just
> writes what he
> thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you
> got that wrong,
> etc.) and sends it back.  The Wikipedia process can
> then go to work
> on the article again, with the expert commentary
> available.
>
> That way, the experts never have the problem of
> having their names
> associated with the mediocre work itself--only with
> the review,
> which is entirely their own creation and therefore
> ego-satisfying.
> And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and
> polishing have
> the expert's input to work with.  The experts will
> be providing
> only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't,
> and no more.

That's an interesting proposition.
Also, why wouldnot near-expert wikipedians
(considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a
rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which
they have not been involved themselves but are
interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make
another 2%.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com


from_name: Brion VIBBER

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Does anyone have stats of interwiki links ?

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> That would be very interesting ...

They're not stored in the link tables, but I can rig up queries on the
text on the order of:
   SELECT count(*) from cur where cur_text like "%[[la:%";

There may be a few false positives.

 From English wiki:
de 1322 German         (30% of 4466)*
eo  998 Esperanto      (28% of 3512)
fr  713 French         (34% of 2112)
pl  664 Polish         (16% of 4140)
nl  545 Dutch          (38% of 1422)
es  443 Spanish        (21% of 2069)
sv  358 Swedish        (??? of  212) This is odd.
no  351 Norwegian      (93% of  377)
pt   35 Portuguese     (10% of  334)
it   22 Italian        (17% of  128)
sl   21 Slovene        (24% of   88)
dk   17 Danish         (15% of  113)
ca    7 Catalan        ( 5% of  135)
ja    5 Japanese      (100% of    5)
af    4 Afrikaans      (12% of   34)
la    4 Latin          (29% of   14)
et    2 Estonian       (29% of    7)
sh    2 Serbo-Croatian ( 2% of  110)
ia    1 Interlingua    (25% of    4)

 From German wiki:
en 1376 English        ( 3% of 40821)*
eo  730 Esperanto      (21% of  3512)
pl  531 Polish         (13% of  4140)
fr  521 French         (25% of  2112)
nl  477 Dutch          (36% of  1422)
es  409 Spanish        (20% of  2069)
sv  351 Swedish        (??? of   212) This is odd.
no  346 Norwegian      (92% of   377)
pt   23 Portuguese     ( 7% of   334)
it   13 Italian        (10% of   128)
sl    9 Slovene        (10% of    88)
dk    9 Danish         ( 8% of   113)
ca    5 Catalan        ( 4% of   135)
la    4 Latin          (29% of    14)
af    3 Afrikaans      ( 9% of    34)
ja    2 Japanese       (40% of     5)
et    2 Estonian       (29% of     7)
sh    2 Serbo-Croatian ( 2% of   110)
ia    1 Interlingua    (25% of     4)

* German and English article counts come from Special:Statistics; all
others are comma pages.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
>> [Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]

> That's an interesting proposition.
> Also, why would not near-expert wikipedians
> (considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a
> rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which
> they have not been involved themselves but are
> interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make
> another 2%.

They certainly could, but only in their capacity as vetted,
recognized, and fully identified experts.  Nupedia's function,
then, is precisely the selection of appropriate experts to review
articles in certain areas.  This could be by reviewing academic
credentials in some areas, professional credentials in others, or
by whatever means are felt appropriate for things like games and
hobbies.  Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
subject article itself would remain fully editable.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

in_reply_to: <3D753419.3010403@planetunreal.com>; from tarquin@planetunreal.com on Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 11:13:45PM +0100

body:
tarquin wrote:
> >>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
> >
> >Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
> >editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
> >subject article itself would remain fully editable.

The main concern I have about this is that if it is widely used by
foot soldiers like we all are now, then these uneditable reviews might
take the place of /Talk pages, with the difference that refactoring
them becomes impossible (rather than merely a social risk).

Uneditable anything is a major step away from the wiki "mutually
assured destruction" that keeps things occassionally civil around
here.  :-) So we should be careful about that.

I'm strongly inclined to say that we should just embrace the Casio
effect for another year or so -- our progress has not stalled (right?)
and in another few years, we'll be to a point where "most everything
important" will have an article about it.  At that time, either we can
start working on new inventions, possibly mirroring new social
customs, to attract "expert" help.

OR, and this is a distinct possibility, we will be the provider of raw
"90% good" content for competing major "distributions".  Larry, or
someone like him with an interest in getting University sponsorship
and grant money, can gather our content and devise a way (possibly
involving payments!) to attract these polishers.

There's no current crisis in the wikipedia world, so changes _later_
are probably better than changes _sooner_.  I think I'm echoing
several other people in saying this.

--Jimbo


body:
Gareth Owen wrote:

>Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
>> Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still
>> leave room for alternative points of view, even when the majority
>> considers them quite goofy.  It is still perfectly acceptable to
>> state that these alternate or eccentric points of view are somewhat
>> removed from the beaten track.
>
>I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
>is not "goofy".  It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
>Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
>
It was certainly not my intention to enter into the semantics of the
word "goofy".  Anything entirely at odds with the facts can be
encompased by this term, as can anything inspired by little green men
aboard flying saucer, as can anything that has been a fit subject for
Generoso Pope's most famous periodical.  Gareth's denial that the
mentioned Jewish conspiracy is "goofy" seems to put him at odds with
himself.

The simple fact is that some people do sincerely believe such things.
Their serious delusions are not an adequate basis for imputing motives
of hatred.  When Gareth quoted me he left off the second sentence.  Even
there I said nothing about World War II or Jewish conspiracies.  Why
should he find it so offensive that I should even suggest that they are
goofy?

>I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
>explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint.  To do so would not be
>neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
>to record and report accurately on those events.
>
Gareth's intolerant approach to these stories is what gives them
credibility, and fuels their perpetuation.  When someone raises these
theories, I'm content to have them gently manoeuvred into some backwash
section of the article saying, "That's what some people believe; go
figure."   I too view the Nazi era as an aberation, but this would not
justify my adopting their tactics to suppress dissenting opinion and
free speech.

Eclecticology


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
>>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
>>Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
>>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
>>subject article itself would remain fully editable.

>Two good points about this idea strike me immediately:
>
>* there's no forking of articles -- no concurrent versions
>* there's a good chance that experts will dive in and make
>  improvements to the Wikipedia articles they have reviewed :-)

...but they aren't _required_ to do so, so there's no bottleneck,
and the rest of us can edit /them/ (in the main articles, not
their reviews) if they get out of line.  And those whose egos get
bent out of shape by amateurs editing their work can leave in a
huff, and we've still got their complete review, dated and signed,
with their views.  The thick-skinned ones will remain, and those
are the ones we want anyway.

But the main thing I like about this idea is that it is /simple/.
It doesn't require a lot of software, a lot bureaucracy, three or
four levels of article approval, voting systems, or any of that
nonsense.  It's just a simple, clean, obvious way for an expert to
say "here's what I think" in a way that can improve articles
without interfering too much with the existing process.


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Whither bondage?

body:
Sudden influx of pages on bondage today:
bondage magazine
bondage photographer
bondage artist

Yes, yes, I know, wikipedia is *wide*, wikipedia is *all-inclusive*,
wikipedia has room for everyone and everything.
Even so, I am feel mysteriously tempted to start writing a slew of
articles on the fine art of picking one's nose.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:

>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
>>>
>>That's an interesting proposition.
>>Also, why would not near-expert wikipedians
>>(considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a
>>rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which
>>they have not been involved themselves but are
>>interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make
>>another 2%.
>>
>They certainly could, but only in their capacity as vetted,
>recognized, and fully identified experts.  Nupedia's function,
>then, is precisely the selection of appropriate experts to review
>articles in certain areas.  This could be by reviewing academic
>credentials in some areas, professional credentials in others, or
>by whatever means are felt appropriate for things like games and
>hobbies.  Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
>subject article itself would remain fully editable.
>
For the most part I see Wikepedia working very well, despite the fact
that on an individual level, experiences can sometimes be highly
frustrating.  Wikipedia has confronted some major contemporary issues,
and come out remarkably well.

Nupedia, on the other hand, is moribund.  It would would be a fantastic
playpen for the experts, but they continue to stay away.  I believe it
was Julie who criticized Nupedia for its overly complicated process.  If
it's so complicated why aren't the experts on that forum busy finding
more suitable processes.  If the plebeians at Wikipedia can manage that,
it should be a simple matter for Nupedia's patricians.

Many of these expert complaints about Wikipedia seem like just so much
expert foot-dragging.  The only valid reason that such an expert can
have for not participating at Nupedia is that he is too busy
accomplishing things at Wikipedia.

Eclecticology


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

body:
At 06:52 PM 9/3/02 +0100, Gareth Owen wrote:
>Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
> > Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still leave
> > room for alternative points of view, even when the majority considers them
> > quite goofy
>
>I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
>is not "goofy".  It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
>Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.

Indeed.

"Goofy" would be an assertion that Hitler's hatred was caused by flying
saucer aliens,
who beamed those sick ideas into his head because they wanted to see how
quickly
they could get humans to use atomic weapons.

>I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
>explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint.  To do so would not be
>neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
>to record and report accurately on those events.

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


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Does anyone have stats of interwiki
 links ?

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Brion VIBBER wrote:
>> From English wiki:
>>sv  358 Swedish        (??? of  212) This is odd.
>
> 212 is the article (comma) count.  There are 394 pages in the Swedish
> Wikipedia.

Which means many of the linked articles either don't exist or are
comma-less stubs.

> Also, you assume that interwiki links must point to articles that
> already exist.  Normal (intrawiki) links can point to pages that don't
> yet exist, and there is no harm in that.

I'm not "assuming" that; that's an empirical observation of most (all?)
of the interlanguage links except for the ones you yourself have put in
without warning to nonexistent articles.

Whether they _ought_ to be that way is another matter. My contention, at
least as things stand now, is that the interlanguage links are more like
streamlined links to external websites than they are like internal wiki
links. You wouldn't link to an external web site that _might_ come into
being in the future but doesn't exist yet, especially without giving
warning. Would you?

> Further, it is odd that the Swedish Wikipedia has only attracted
> contributions of 212 articles.  Maybe the management is doing
> something wrong in promoting that website.

Maybe they just don't draw as much activity when there's already an
active encyclopedia-like Swedish wiki at susning.nu? You may have heard
of it. :)

 >  That theory could also
> explain why the Spanish Wikipedia only has 2000 articles, while
> another famous Wiki in the Spanish language has well over 9000
> articles.  Perhaps the Spanish interwiki links would be more useful if
> they pointed to where the contributions go.  Just an idea.

I've suggested that myself; support has been lukewarm here and nobody
seems to have bothered to ask the Spanish wikiistas what they prefer.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tables.

body:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Fred Bauder wrote:

>> Would it be possible to just add simple tables for now? I really feel they
>> would be useful to a lot of people, and if necessary, we can expand the
>> syntax later.

> You might look at the table in [[china/Temp]] which Jironimo put into
> shape. It seems to work.

It appears to contain only a HTML formatted table.

-- Daniel


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
> I'm strongly inclined to say that we should just embrace the
> Casio effect for another year or so -- our progress has not
> stalled (right?) and in another few years, we'll be to a point
> where "most everything important" will have an article about it.
> At that time, either we can start working on new inventions,
> possibly mirroring new social customs, to attract "expert" help.

I don't think there's any immediate need for change either.
I should also point out that "attaching an uneditable review" is
doable right now--all one has to do is put an external link on the
talk page.  Many talk pages have external links to "meta" pages,
for example.

I do share Larry's concern for the "big picture" of the free
encyclopedia movement as a whole, though.  So I'm basically
proposing that we make it easier for experts to do that, and
for some community to identify which of these are real experts
worth listening to, and that we create a social norm of taking
them seriously.

But perhaps that too can be done entirely outside the auspices of
Wikipedia itself.  For example, the review board could select
reviewers, select articles for review, publish the reviews on its
own site, and only then put external links to them on the talk
page of the article, with a strong suggestion that our editors
here take heed.


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

body:
Of course. However, pointing out that certain groups
resort to historical revisionism despite the
overwhelming weight of reality is both appropriate and
useful.

Stephen Gilbert

--- Steve Callaway <sjc at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> I have to say that Gareth and I have had our
> differences in the past but I
> am with him 100% on this; historical revisionism in
> any shape or form is not
> to be countenanced. Ever.
>
> rgds
>
> Steve Callaway

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>When I sat down to write the article, though, I was seized with
>horrible writer's block.  That's astounding, for a guy who does hardly
>anything but write 8 hours a day 5 days a week.  If my collected email
>output were collected and published in book format, I hate to think of
>what it must weigh.
>
I know what you mean.
What I like about Wikipedia is that I can quickly slap down the bones of
an article, without feeling that I have to get it *right*.
I can then leave it to simmer, and return to it a few weeks later,
admire what others have added to it and mercilessly rewrite my earlier work.
Run an article through a few cycles like that and you start to get good
stuff. :-)


from_name: Gareth Owen

body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:

> Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still leave
> room for alternative points of view, even when the majority considers them
> quite goofy

I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
is not "goofy".  It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.

I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint.  To do so would not be
neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
to record and report accurately on those events.
--
Gareth Owen


from_name: Michael R. Irwin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again

body:
Welcome to the mailing list Helga.

Helga Hecht wrote:
>

<snip some of Dr. Kemp's summary>

> 6. It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that
> it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.
>
> Jules
> --------------------

Helga, I think you should be aware that this is part of a larger issue
that
the mailing list has been attempting to address.  How do we
appropriately
include all views, summarize concisely and accurately for casual
readers,
yet still provide comprehensive detail for the interested readers to
form their own conclusions?

Many of us find it useful to examine specific cases for insight or
inspiration on how to attempt to improve our approach.  I hope you
will keep this in mind as you review the archived material.  The
discussion is not intended as an attack or indictment of you or your
knowledge and contributions although some of it could be interpreted
that way; if one were not aware of the larger issues being addressed
via illustration with specific situations.

If you search the archives regarding "troll", "24", "mirwin", "Michael
Irwin", "Ark" or "infanticide" you will find further discussions
involving
similar issues.   How do we include minority views or strong claims for
which there is little detailed acceptance or evidence viewed as credible
while building a world wide reputation for accuracy, reliability, and
truthfulness that our readers can depend upon?

I have learned a lot regarding scholastic research, academic
credibility, evidentiary standards, etc. from Dr. Kemp over the
last few months.  I would urge you to consider her criticism of
some of your contributions as a constructive effort to maintain
Wikipedia's reputation for being able to substantiate claims
presented as factual truth or "history".

As one of our few professional scholars Dr. Kemp has perhaps
shouldered an unduly heavy burden in fact and source checking
and attempting to discuss our desire for accuracy and credibility
with the general community of new contributers.  To me it appears
that appeals for assistance occasionally trigger a "lynch" mentality
which should not be attributed to Dr. Kemp.  This has been under
extensive discussion as we attempt to learn better ways to develop
a project consensus and propagate improvements through out the
participating community and the Wikipedia.

We have similar controversy underway regarding some scientific
theories.   Some people would like to present their understanding
of the natural processes governing our universe as "truth" or
"fact" or dismiss more widely accepted theories.  Obviously we
have a responsibility to present the best available scientific
consensus appropriately.

I agree with you that all information potentially belongs somewhere
in the Wikipedia but I also agree with many others here that believe
it should not all be given equal weight or front page billing with more
widely accepted theories or scientific "fact".

>
> I just started the subscription and the first thing I read is this message, which seems to be in answer to some other message, which I do not know.
>
> J Hoffmann Kemp probably means well.
>
> However
>
> 1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at all".

Excellent!  I am not certain that I could meet the "not at all"
criteria myself but I also attempt to be fair and open minded
with individual people and regarding politically sensitive issues.

>
> 2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty
> much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her
> assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII."
>
> I have never said anything like this.

I believe Dr. Kemp was defending you here against
impressions that might have been given by other people
such as myself.  Please accept my apologies.  I am
glad you have confirmed her defense of your character.

>
> 3a. Have never said anything like that either.
>
> 4a. I see and know a lot more about things that she could ever read in her school books. Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.
>
> For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933: Judea  declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.

Surely not the only or primary cause of WWII?

The history I learned in U.S. schools spoke of many factors
and causes all the way back to WWI and before which involved
entire economies, continents, and governments.

While I can see how you might classify my education in
the U.S. similar to:  "Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda,
but not the full truth.", I harbor similar suspicions regarding your
own educational access.   Dr. Kemp, however, is a scholar with much
deeper, broader, access to source materials than anything I have ever
studied.  Further, part of her professional responsibilities include
estimating or making judgements regarding the relative reliability of
often contradictory historical sources.  Her long term success and
reputation as a scholar will depend upon her skills in successfully
determining and presenting the possibilities and probabilities that
we call "history" from primary and secondary sources.

How shall you and I come to some mutual agreement on how to
present our (I would accept Fred Bauder's summary as a better
summary of my understanding than I can currently write.) opposing
views of history; if we cannot usefully rely on Dr. Kemp and
other professionals attempts or methods to evaluate the relative
weights of various evidence?

How shall we include all views such that as additional evidence
or new contributor's views and sources arrive we can tweak the
Wikipedia to keep the presentation of all views, summaries, and
cited substantiating evidence accurate and useful to most, or
better, all readers?

>
> One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?

Some have expressed the view that as an encyclopedia attempting
to summarize all human knowledge and point to further detailed
information (act as a general reference and starting point) we
cannot give everything equal weight.  Somehow we must treat the
most important or general knowledge as most useful and important
to the general reader and point to further more detailed subject
material for those who wish further information.

Others, including myself, have taken the stance that there is no
near term limit on the breadth, or depth as long it does not effect
our perceived reliability for the general reader.  I think most people
in my faction have or will acknowledge that packaging considerations
will limit the depth and detail to the media available such as: cd,
dvd, or online access.  Whether the available convenient one piece
packaging will continue to grow in density and size as fast or faster
than the full online Wikipedia is probably determined more by how
fast and large the available community of contributors can grow
in effectiveness.

This is why many of us feel it is important to learn how to
work together as effectively as possible and continue to
improve our individual ability to contribute productively.

>
> 5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth  is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
>
> However I believe I see the complete picture more  clearly than she does.

This is quite a strong claim.  May I inquire as to the basis for this
belief?

Are you a professional scholar in a related field?

As an educated layman in the U.S., my exposure to WWII is
quite limited: routine high school studies, television documentaries,
random
magazine and books read on casual interest or whim, the occasional
usenet
debate etc.   Still, to me the preponderance of evidence available
leaves
me with the impression that the powers involved in this world wide
conflict
would not take an isolated statement from a specialized media outlet
seriously.
Just as President Bush, or Saddam Hussein, would probably dismiss a
declaration
of War from the New York Times or an Iraqi newspaper.  If an additional
U.S.-Iraqi occurs it will not be because a few influential hot heads
publish a statement demanding it.  The underlying or root causes are
numerous and widely understood and talked about.  It would be misleading
in fifty years for Wikipedia to publish that the initial cause of the
possibly impending U.S.-Iraqi war was a newspaper story demanding that
the Iraqi or Saudi people attack the U.S., even if this could be shown
to have been influential in recruiting individual 9/11 terrorists.
This would imply a single writer and publisher triggered a war that
various tensions, economic, and political interests have been building
towards for decades.  Very misleading, partial, presentation even if
factually correct.  If selectively so, by design, then the very essence
of propaganda.

>
> 6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
>
> Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.

I would agree with this to some extent.  I would also like to see
participation preserved even if it appears to "unbalance" our quantity
of material available in the depth of details.   Other people have
raised
the excellent point that we do not want to allow partisans of any kind
to present a misimpression of the relative importance through sheer
weight of participation.

A question I have brought up previously, for which I feel we do not yet
have an adequate policy answer is:  How do we preserve as much accurate
detail as contributors wish to provide while providing a balance Neutral
Point of View (NPOV) summary or presentation for casual readers?

>
> I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any other commercial enterprize, that
> only tells you, what the general public wants to hear
> or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?

It is my impression that there is a firm committment to remaining
a non traditional activity which is not unduly influenced by
commercial enterprise.   We expect and hope that our valuable product
will be utilized by commercial enterprises so that it is widely used
and disseminated.   The creation process, however, is not currently
dominated by commercial or academic organizations.

Since we have a committment to truthful presentation of all relevant
knowledge, information, sources, etc. we have been grappling with
how to best reach a consenus on how to present the multitude of various
versions of "truth" that people create, allege, discover, etc.

I look forward to your continuing participation in helping
us resolve some of these detailed and general issues in ways
that are beneficial to our project, contributors, and readers.

Sincerely,
Mike Irwin


from_name: Makoto & Guillaume

body:
> Done.

Thank you very much.
I didn't see any way to upload modified files ?
Have I to be included in the developpers list ?

Guillaume (Aoineko)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Helga again

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > > And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> > > Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> > > which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
> >
> > So let someone else write it.
> >
> > Do you contend that there are not people in the world who
> > have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations?
> > I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people
> > in North America in person and on the internet.
>
> I think this cuts straight to the heart of how difficult NPOV can be
> at times.
>
> In _many_ cases, it is easy to get to NPOV by simply "going meta".  If
> something is entirely uncontroversial, we can say 'X'.  If it is
> somewhat controversial, we can say "most scholars say X".  But when
> there is opposition to X but only by lunatics and frauds, it is NOT
> NPOV to simply "go meta".
>
> I don't think, Michael, that you closely read what Vicki says that she
> refuses to write.  The _reason_ she refuses to write it is that it is
> not NPOV.

This is not my perception.  Nor, apparently, whoever proposed the
initial wording.

>
> Getting to NPOV in this case does not involve giving credence to
> suggestions that Hitler didn't _really_ hate Jews, nor does it involve
> giving credence to suggestions that Jews started the war with Nazi
> Germany.

I would agree with this assertion.  Credence should not be given
to any views, it should be earned in the thought processes of
the readers.

>
> What needs to be written about the situation in Germany leading up to
> World War II is a frank discussion of tensions between Jews and
> non-Jews, with attention given to the sources of those tensions.  This
> part of the discussion must not be framed in such a way as to suggest
> that the Holocaust was deserved, etc.  But it also need not shy away
> from a discussion of the reasons that even previously normal people in
> Germany were swept up in the anti-Jewish venom of the day.

This is distinctly non "NPOV".  The Nazi party existed.  It had
the popular support of one of the most populated and heavily
industrialized Democracy of its day.  The totality of the material
presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
the Holocaust was undeserved.

Similarly, there were legitimate security concerns that lead to
U.S. Japanese internment camps. We should present the concerns,
the evidence, the surrounding context, the allegations which revolve
around the failure to isolate/intern the large U.S. population of
German descent, etc. and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
I would even support summaries providing the mainstream conclusion
for the mentally lazy reader as long as not all contradictory
evidence is excluded.  Just as it is insufficient or inappropriate
to present only the mainstream credible summaries and then the
contradictory evidence it is insuffucient and inappropriate to
"summarize" minority views as "crackpots" or "crank" view without
presenting any supporting evidence which may exist to substantiate
them slightly.

If this approach prevails then the statement: "Once upon a time the
Earth was considered flat." would never have mutated from the
prevailing consenus of westen authorities and society that "God
separated the Earth and Waters from the sky."  Notice the second
statement is still arguably true although many Scientists contend
it was gravity and natural processes, not God, which separated them.

You and I may disagree with the conclusions of the Nazi party
that Eugenics and Genocide were appropriate but that does not
erase the fact that either millions of Germans believed it or
else thousands of German leaders and influential people embraced
it supported by a substantial minority or majority of the population.
If this NPOV fact provides an impression contradictory to the NPOV
summary someone chooses to present then it should be pushed to an
appropriate article and linked appropriately as per the consensus
of the community in how to best achieve "NPOV, current revision."

"NPOV" will present facts regarding both viewpoints neutrally and
allow the reader to decide.   Otherwise, an implicit editorial
policy has emerged just as "24" alleged it should/would.  If
this is the case then we need a methodology to establsh editorial
policy and criteria.

Mr. Sanger has proposed that we ask a
panel of highly respected intellectuals to provide us with
*guidance*.   Perhaps this *guidance* would also involve
editorial policy.  If we refuse to abdicate this power then
the responsibility for editorial policy remains with
either the community consenus or the "owner".

>
> It would be very hard to get to where we want to be starting with
> Helga's nonsense.

Then our procedures and methodologies need improvement.
Our project model, as I understand it, assumes that we can
converge on where we want to be, high quality neutral presentation,
from chaotic random starts and edits from less than perfect
all knowing contributors.

>
> > Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of
> > Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to
> > information during her early education or indoctrination?
>
> But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to rescue Helga from her poor
> education.  We need not _morally_ condemn her in order to ask her to
> stop writing nonsense.  We can have all the compassion (and
> well-meaning condescension) in the world for her plight, and still
> refuse to put up with it.

Education varies worldwide.  Broad, deep, reliable will not
be achieved unless our process is robust enough to help our
spontaneous contributors overcome limitations in their skills
and source materials.

I have little compassion or condescension for "her plight".
My concern is with rounding out an effective process to
evolve the best material ever available from an online encyclopedia
that remains an ever improving best available resource.

This necessarily requires input from more than a restricted,
filtered, or "biased" pool of indoctrinated academics or people
within the existing western industrial power and economic structures.

>
> > I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present
> > belong somewhere in the Wikipedia.
>
> This is NOT our policy, nor has it ever been.

Perhaps it is time for our policy to be updated.  As Mr.
Sanger is fond of pointing out he was responsible in large
part for its formulation.  Clearly it has served its purpose
in helping initiate the project.

Whether it is of such quality at the current time that it
can no longer be improved is a proposition that I assert
the community should assess occasionally.  Otherwise newcomer's
are not involved as peers in our community and have no reason
to embrace and assist with extension or completion of our project.

>NPOV is more subtle and
> difficult than this.  Wikipedia is not the place for factions to
> present competing "views".  We can _report on_ those views, in an
> appropriate context, but we must not allow them to distract from our
> fundamentally _encyclopedic_ mission, which necessarily involves
> summary and selection.

Selection, censorship or propaganda?  If Nazi views can be
summarily dismissed as inappropriate or incorrect then there
are few modern minorities influential enough to justify NPOV
presentation.

If competing views cannot be presented, only reported from the
view of the currently dominant faction with claims of being
"NPOV" in style of presentation then Wikipedia should drop
its pretense of broad and deep.  Reliability may also be
compromised.

What are your criteria for "appropriate context"?  How should
these critera be modified or influenced by newcomers to improve
their neutrality or suitability for the Wikipedia in the
consensus view of the current community?  If the answer is
agree with the current predefined project standards or go
elsewhere then we clearly have:

1.  A possibly builtin bias based upon the initial group
who arrived and consented to policy prior to the freeze.

2.  An inability to improve or broaden our community of
participators beyond the initial pool well represented
(accidentally) by the current policy and guidelines.

3.  No way to correct errors present at the project
initialization.  We will not be ever converging on the
best definition of perfection or neutrality we can
devise with the assistance and consensus of the instantaneous
community of active contributors; but rather on the best
interpretation of the initial policy the community can agree
to put up with.

Elsewhere I have suggested that top level NPOV summaries
should be contextualized from the mainstream views, as neutrally
as practical, with links to additional material or detail for the
reader who desires it.  Some of which may be presented from an
identified viewpoint.

regards,
Mike Irwin


from_name: Jaap van Ganswijk

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Whither bondage?

body:
At 2002-09-03 15:38 +0100, tarquin wrote:
>Sudden influx of pages on bondage today:
>bondage magazine
>bondage photographer
>bondage artist
>
>Yes, yes, I know, wikipedia is *wide*, wikipedia is *all-inclusive*, wikipedia has room for everyone and everything.
>Even so, I am feel mysteriously tempted to start writing a slew of articles on the fine art of picking one's nose.

When ours is a movement of volunteers we can
expect people to have more knowledge about
whatever interests them. I like computers
and was therefore interested in electronics,
because that enables them.

You may like nose picking or something else
I'm not interested in, but why deny the people
with a less fortunate childhood to talk about
their sex-therapies?

I'm in Europe, let me guess: You're in the USA.

And by the way, the manner in which the Western
society through the christian church has interpreted
the biological tendency of men and women to bind
is very bondage-like. I think it's only natural
for people who live more in the flesh then the
mind, to act out the process of binding/bondage.

What's wrong with that?

Greetings,
Jaap


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> >>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
> >>Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
> >>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
> >>subject article itself would remain fully editable.
>
> >Two good points about this idea strike me immediately:
> >
> >* there's no forking of articles -- no concurrent versions
> >* there's a good chance that experts will dive in and make
> >  improvements to the Wikipedia articles they have reviewed :-)
>
> ...but they aren't _required_ to do so, so there's no bottleneck,
> and the rest of us can edit /them/ (in the main articles, not
> their reviews) if they get out of line.  And those whose egos get
> bent out of shape by amateurs editing their work can leave in a
> huff, and we've still got their complete review, dated and signed,
> with their views.  The thick-skinned ones will remain, and those
> are the ones we want anyway.
>
> But the main thing I like about this idea is that it is /simple/.
> It doesn't require a lot of software, a lot bureaucracy, three or
> four levels of article approval, voting systems, or any of that
> nonsense.  It's just a simple, clean, obvious way for an expert to
> say "here's what I think" in a way that can improve articles
> without interfering too much with the existing process.

I am wary of this approach.  It holds the "experts" up
on a pedastal.   Their material or comments are untouchable
and essentially unrebuttable.

We could easily double or triple our growth in experts reviewing
with no further participation while decimating or worse our
active community participation or stunting our participation
growth of less credentialed participation.

If this approach is chosen to experiment with, I would propose
that we add the review pages or a page of links to reviews and
allow any account holder to publish the critiques.  The critiquer
can place what ever background information or credentials they
feel appropriate on their personal page.  The personal pages
could be protected and administratively overridden if fraud is
alleged and substantiated.

It might also be a way of allowing the presentation of obscure
or non NPOV material without compromising the core articles.

regards,
Mike Irwin


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>>
>> You just gave me a great idea -- How about we have a population
>> pyramid on the statistics page? See
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
>>
> This is an interesting approach.  The article set could be divided
> into deciles (or some other suitable sized sample).  I would guess
> that the median article size that we currently have is likely fairly
> constant. The markers for the deciles are likely similarly constant.
> This is, of course, subject to minor sampling variation.  People who
> use population pyramids let them be indicators of broad changes in
> populations. Statistically significant variations from key markers
> would suggest differences in the patterns of participation.
>
> Perhaps one of our more mathematically could do an analysis on "The
> fractal geometry of Wikipedia participation"
>
> Eclecticology
>
I'd expect something like a [[Zipf distribution]], if there is a scaling
principle operating.

Neil Harris


body:
At 2002-09-03 18:44 +0100, tarquin wrote:
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>When I sat down to write the article, though, I was seized with
>>horrible writer's block.  That's astounding, for a guy who does hardly
>>anything but write 8 hours a day 5 days a week.  If my collected email
>>output were collected and published in book format, I hate to think of
>>what it must weigh.
>I know what you mean.
>What I like about Wikipedia is that I can quickly slap down the bones of an article, without feeling that I have to get it *right*.
>I can then leave it to simmer, and return to it a few weeks later, admire what others have added to it and mercilessly rewrite my earlier work.
>Run an article through a few cycles like that and you start to get good stuff. :-)

Yes, and that's the real strength of Wikipedia!

I added a paragraph to the article about surrealism
(because I wrote something about it elsewhere where
it could go to waste) but it wasn't in the tone of
the article. From that I drifted into movies and
noticed that genre and style weren't seperated.
I tried to seperate that and explain it on the talk
page. Someone reacted saying that what I wrote
on the talk page should be put on the page itself.

My hope would then be that someone with more
editorial skills then me and who would be less
distracted by the moods of geniouses would work
it into the article.

I think that this is the strength of Wikipedia
whatever oldbies say.

(And by the way, I'm probably older than that
premature-young-oldbie.)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
> I am wary of this approach.  It holds the "experts" up
> on a pedastal.   Their material or comments are untouchable
> and essentially unrebuttable.

Of course!  Their material SHOULD be uneditable and unrebuttable,
just like mine, and yours, and every other CREDITED article on
the net and every other publication.  That's the whole point of
an author credit--to attach responsibility.  What's editable is
the Wikipedia text that they're reviewing.  I'm talking about
letting Roger Ebert write a movie review--you're certainly able
to disagree, but you can't change what /he/ said, because it's
supposed to be his ideas, his views, his opinions.

> We could easily double or triple our growth in experts reviewing
> with no further participation while decimating or worse our
> active community participation or stunting our participation
> growth of less credentialed participation.

How is adding reviews any less "participation" than writing
articles?  Is not evaluation of ideas valuable information?

>If this approach is chosen to experiment with, I would propose
>that we add the review pages or a page of links to reviews and
>allow any account holder to publish the critiques.  The critiquer
>can place what ever background information or credentials they
>feel appropriate on their personal page.  The personal pages
>could be protected and administratively overridden if fraud is
>alleged and substantiated.

I'd be willing to relax the criteria for reviewers, but not
eliminate them entirely.  The whole point of having reviewers
is to show expert opinion.  I have as much disdain for formal
credentials as anyone--I write a lot of good articles here, and
a lot of good software, and I'm a college dropout.  So I hope
the review board is set up to recognize real accomplishments as
well as formal training.  As a non-reviewing writer, I think I'm
more than qualified to read an expert's review, and edit the
article based on it--and even to disagree with the expert if I
think his arguments are weak.  But I wouldn't for a moment think
one should consider me a recognized expert on anything but my
one or two narrow fields of expertise that I've been studying
for over 20 years--microcomputer software and poker.  And if I
can't convince an editorial board that I'm qualified to post
reviews on those two subjects, then I shouldn't be writing
reviews (of course in that case I'd think the review board has
problems, but I'm certainly free to express that opinion too).


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
<snip background>

> But what it doesn't do well is grunt scholarship: meticulous
> checking of facts and references, proper listing of all the best
> sources in the field, expert summary of the state of a field and
> its history, etc.

Perhaps a verified facts page and/or a bibliography page would
help encourage the first two.

Facts could be stated, citations, sources etc. could be
listed in an acceptable standard format and "signed" by the
provider.  This would then be tracked as "contribution" and could
easily be updated or changed as improvements or errors are noted.
Someone detecting an error can either notify the originator
(forming a feedback loop for incremental improvement), fix it
themselves and change the signature, or some other compromise.

Thus some credit would be given for improving the reliability
of our article material (and the community) rather than merely
the original text.  Volunteers love recognition, it is often
their only immediate compensation.  Particularly in risky endeavers
that may collapse at any time without the long term
anticipated payoffs.  This credit might be left off the
"contributions" page but still presented in the form of a
tally.   Thus it would be incremented at the edit time and
not be a continuing burden on the server.   It could be in
a YTD format that includes an account aggregate or not as
the community feels most appropriate.  One might come to
know not to attempt to shine on a scholar with ten thousand
citatations and sources identified to date.  That person will
look up a fact on you in a heartbeat!

Likewise, a new policy or guideline that summarizes what is
desired (if this is not already available) and some links to
exemplary samples.  These could also be placed prominently
and simply at the front of the suggested ways to contribute
rather than the current attempt at humor (my assumption, perhaps
someone is attempting to encourage brilliant prose?) requesting
brilliant complete articles.

I would tend to expect an expert summary of the state of a
field and its history to emerge from a consensus of even
mediocre or amateur contributors.  If an expert or two is
an active participant then it should converge quicker, but
not necessarily to a greater ultimate level of completion.

>
> Nupedia tried to do everything--generate content, expertly review
> it, publicly review it, finish it for publication, etc.  I think
> that's too much to ask.  Perhaps Nupedia could be pared down to a
> simpler function, and one that would be easier for experts to
> participate in: instead of creating articles, or even editing them,
> why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of articles submitted
> to them, which then get attached to the articles?  Wikipedia authors
> could, whenever they feel an article is ready for it, ask for it to
> be submitted to expert review. The expert then just writes what he
> thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you got that wrong,
> etc.) and sends it back.  The Wikipedia process can then go to work
> on the article again, with the expert commentary available.
>
> That way, the experts never have the problem of having their names
> associated with the mediocre work itself--only with the review,
> which is entirely their own creation and therefore ego-satisfying.
> And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and polishing have
> the expert's input to work with.  The experts will be providing
> only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't, and no more.

I think perhaps you are making the implicit assumption that the
expertise is available as input only in person.

The previously proposed (by others) model, of non-experts
keeping quiet and taking notes when an expert speaks, is already
widely and easily available.   I have a fairly extensive library
of professional books written by experts and published for profit
that are easily consulted for fact checking or verifying a concept
only vaguely remembered or understood from the previous readings.

Other books are widely available to anyone with sufficient
interest and cash ranging from 10 to under a thousand dollars.
I would suspect an average price for professional books in the
U.S. at around 100 dollars.

I suspect that most or at least many Wikipedia contributors
have access to similar books or libraries where they can be
accessed or borrowed briefly.

Therefore, while I see the rationale for complicating the
existing process to attract a special class of contributors
that we can already effectively access, I am unconvinced
of its benefit to the project.  I think we should move
slowly and incrementally on this, if possible, and evaluate
the results carefully before full scale implementation.

If current estimates of 1% of very active contributors are
truly credentialed experts then further growth in participation
should bring in plenty of experts in the life cycle
remaining to the project.

regards,
Mike Irwin


from_name: Steve Callaway

body:
I have to say that Gareth and I have had our differences in the past but I
am with him 100% on this; historical revisionism in any shape or form is not
to be countenanced. Ever.

rgds

Steve Callaway

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth Owen" <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga

> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
> > Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still
leave
> > room for alternative points of view, even when the majority considers
them
> > quite goofy
>
> I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish
conspiracy
> is not "goofy".  It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
> Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
>
> I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
> explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint.  To do so would not be
> neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human
responsibility
> to record and report accurately on those events.
> --
> Gareth Owen
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Measuring progress

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
>
> > our progress has not stalled (right?)
>
> If you measure progress based on article numbers, active contributors,
> edits per day, software quality etc., it certainly hasn't.
>
> I would argue however that the most relevant measure is average
> article quality. And Larry seems to think that on this front, we're
> not doing too well:
>
> > But, looking at Wikipedia's contents now and comparing it to what I
> > recall from times past, I do have to say that I'm worried. I don't
> > think that in terms of quality, overall, it's getting that much
> > better.
>
> While it is clear that pretty much every individual article improves
> over time, it is still very possible that the average article quality
> is stagnating, or even declining.
>
> If I had an afternoon to burn, I'd hit the "Random link" button a
> hundred times and would rate the articles on a scale of 0 - 10. Then I
> would rate 100 article versions from three months ago (skip if the
> article didn't exist then). Then compare the averages. Ideally, this
> would be done in a "blind" manner, so that I didn't know whether an
> article version is current or old.

How would you (and the mailing list) rate the following
in terms of potential usefulness:

A quality inspection page which would take the following
data:  Number of articles to inspect, comparison period or
dates, logged in account, other?

present the number of articles specified (using random dates
or revisions if the dates and period are not specified) sequentially
for qualitative assessment on a standard predetermined scale,

add the response into an aggregate data set for plotting
or other evaulation.

Would something similar to the above allow a rough
community consensus on our quality trends to emerge?

I suppose one could also keep results of the individual
data runs to personally calibrate your personal assessment
against the results of the community.

If this were compiled properly it might also show us some
trends in community perception of quality related to educational
background, sex, etc. if any of that is perceived as useful.

Personally I suspect we currently have a moving target
in terms of perception of quality.   Perhaps we would
need a data field in the above for length of participation,
number of edits in some period, number of contributions
recorded, etc.  to properly guage reactions of newcomers
or occasional readers compared to regular contributors.

Would we need to calibrate the data against specific
articles or categories?   We may need an experienced
statitician to weigh in here if we get serious about
anything like this.

regards,
Mike Irwin


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Does anyone have stats of interwiki links ?

body: That would be very interesting ...


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:

>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
>>>
>>>
>
>Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
>subject article itself would remain fully editable.
>
Two good points about this idea strike me immediately:

* there's no forking of articles -- no concurrent versions
* there's a good chance that experts will dive in and make improvements
to the Wikipedia articles they have reviews :-)


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Brion VIBBER wrote:
>  From English wiki:
> sv  358 Swedish        (??? of  212) This is odd.
>  From German wiki:
> sv  351 Swedish        (??? of   212) This is odd.

212 is the article (comma) count.  There are 394 pages in the Swedish
Wikipedia.

Also, you assume that interwiki links must point to articles that
already exist.  Normal (intrawiki) links can point to pages that don't
yet exist, and there is no harm in that.

Further, it is odd that the Swedish Wikipedia has only attracted
contributions of 212 articles.  Maybe the management is doing
something wrong in promoting that website.  That theory could also
explain why the Spanish Wikipedia only has 2000 articles, while
another famous Wiki in the Spanish language has well over 9000
articles.  Perhaps the Spanish interwiki links would be more useful if
they pointed to where the contributions go.  Just an idea.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik
  Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxk?ping, Sweden
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/


body:
Brion VIBBER wrote:
> I'm not "assuming" that; that's an empirical observation of most (all?)
> of the interlanguage links except for the ones you yourself have put in
> without warning to nonexistent articles.
>
> Whether they _ought_ to be that way is another matter. My contention, at
> least as things stand now, is that the interlanguage links are more like
> streamlined links to external websites than they are like internal wiki
> links. You wouldn't link to an external web site that _might_ come into
> being in the future but doesn't exist yet, especially without giving
> warning. Would you?

The difference is that they *are* pointing to wiki pages that happen
to be blank, but where anybody can add contents at the click of a
link.  I consider it a bug that the links are not displayed as
?-links.  I guess this can be fixed in the PHP source code.  Editing
an English page to add the correct translation of the title should be
considered a useful contribution.

> Maybe they just don't draw as much activity when there's already an
> active encyclopedia-like Swedish wiki at susning.nu? You may have heard
> of it. :)

I promised Larry Sanger not to use these lists to promote my own
website.  If you dig through the archives, you should note that I have
been extremely careful to avoid that.  However, I never promised not
to promote Enciclopedia Libre in Sevilla.  Outside of these forums, I
do what I can to promote my site, and with good results.  If anybody
wants the Swedish Wikipedia to attract contributions, I think they
should start to promote the website, and I wish them good luck.  It
would help if it ran the new phase III software.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik
  Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxk?ping, Sweden
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/