body:
----- Original Message -----
From: <wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:00 PM
Subject: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #223 - 7 msgs

> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Stevertigo and anti-Semitism (Stevertigo)
>    2. Re: Re: Slogan policy (was: DTK article) (Stevertigo)
>    3. Re: Stevertigo and anti-Semitism (The Cunctator)
>    4. Re: Vicki's Question (koyaanis qatsi)
>    5. Re: Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is (Geoff
Burling)
>    6. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and other similar entries
(Tony Wilson)
>    7. Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is (Daniel Mayer)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo at attbi.com>
> To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo and anti-Semitism
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:01:52 -0800
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> >RK:I am really having a tough time digesting all of
> > Stevertigo's barbs at Jews diatribes on this list.  His
> > obsession with Jews, and those who hate Jews, is the only
> > common link to his contributions to Wikipedia.
> Ah. So in other words "I didnt bother to actually read what
> Steve wrote, but I's sure it was Jew bashing from that anti-Semite." Sorry
> Robert, Ive been cluing people into how the term anti-Semite is commonly
> used to slander people who speak the truth about Israeli atrocities in the
> name of Yahave.  Next question.
>
> >RK: Do people here recall his attempts to promote Nazi
> > Holocaust deniers as mainstream academics that deserve
> > respect?  His repeated edits which attempt to deny that
> > anti-Semitism exists in many articles?  His attempts to
> > claim that anti-Semitism doesn't mean hatred of Jews at
> > all?  His constant Jew-baiting, where he lists a handful of
> > people that much of the Jewish community views as
> > anti-Jewish - whom he then presents as heros?
> None of this is true, of course. I did write an essay on David Irving
which
> essentially said 'for all of his Holocaust denials, at least he never
killed
> anyone, which is more than can be said for that IDF bulldozer driver that
> murdered Rachel Corrie. Read your Ten Commandments baby...
>
> >RK: Does anyone here do constant atheist baiting? Christian
> > baiting?  Hindu baiting?  No. We only see Stevertigo's Jew
> > baiting...and it has been gooing on for quite some time.
>
> I  still dont understand the term "Jew baiting".  It sounds like something
> southern Aryan racists might say... of course, Jewish American Zionists,
> according to their literature dont consider racist Jew-hating White
> Supremacists as "anti-Semitic" because many are close with Christian
> Zionists... and its the liberal who considers Palestinians as actual human
> beings who is the  "real anti-Semite" Jew hater.
> ( http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c10-s20.html )
>
> >RK:Consider his newest post: He finds a handful of people of
> > Jewish descent who say anti-Jewish things, which many Jews
> >find anti-Semitic. Stevertigo quotes them, promotes them
> > for the sole purpose of attacking Jews, yet then claims
> > that he can't be anti-Semitic, because they are Jews, and
> > Jews cannot be anti-Semitic. Is anyone fooled by this
> > childish wordplay?
> No. Noone is fooled by your childish wordplay. They all actually read the
> last posts, (tracing through the header-changes) and they know that you
> obviously didnt.
>
> >RK:By the way, Stevertigo himself knows that his claims are
> > false.  A phenomenom common to many ethnic and >national  groups is the
> existence of self-hatred.
> Yes, and this would explain your behaviour, Roberticus.. I submit these
> quotes from ( http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/19antis1.htm )
>                "The assumption of an eternal anti-Semitism ... has been
> adapted by a great many unbiased historians and by even a greater number
of
> Jews. It is this odd coincidence which makes the theory so very dangerous
> and confusing. Its escapist basis is in both instances the same; just as
> anti-Semites understandably desire to escape responsibility for their
deeds,
> so Jews, attacked and on the defensive, even more understandably, do not
> wish to under any circumstances discuss their share of responsibility."
>                                                                Hannah
> Arendt, Origins, p. 7 (Jewish historian)
> "For some Jews and perhaps some of the Jewish leadership, the fear is that
> if anti-Semitism completely disappears then the Jewish community might
erode
> or dissolve."  Stanley Rothman, (in STALLSWORTH, p. 67)
>
> >RK:Examples of people who are sometimes considered Jewish
> > anti-Semites are Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak. Referring to works by
> Israel Shahak and others, The ADL's >report on
> > The Talmud and Anti-Semitism states "In distorting the
> > normative meaning of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers
> > frequently remove passages from their textual and
> > historical context....Those who attack the Talmud
> > frequently cit ancient rabbinic sources without noting
> > subsequent developments in Jewish thought....Are the
> > polemicists Anti-Semites? This is a charged term that
> > should not be used lightly, but the answer, by and large,
> > is yes. Now and then a polemicist of this type may have
> > been bon Jewish, but their systematic distortion of the
> > ancient texts, always in the direction of portrarying
> > Judaism negatively, their lack of interest in good-faith
> > efforts to understand contemporary Judaism from
> > contemporary Jews, and their dimissal of any voices
> > opposing their own, suggests that their goal in reading
> > ancient rabbinic literature is to produce the Frankenstein
> > version of Judaism that they invariable claim to have
> > uncovered."
> Rubbish. Utter rubbish. You refer to The ADL as an unbiased source??? "one
> of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli
press
> casually describes it." (Neccessary Illusions) Tell me, what do you think
> about what Dennis Bernstien says:
> "Everyone else is terrified. The only ones who begin to open their mouths
> are the Jews in this country. You know, as a kid, I sent money to plant
> trees in Israel. But now we are horrified by a government representing a
> country that we grew up loving and cherishing. Israel's defenders have a
> special vengeance for Jews who don't fall in line behind Sharon's
> scorched-earth policy because they give the lie to the charge that
Israel's
> critics are simply anti-Semite."
> (
>
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?dir=7&story=313235&ho
> st=3&printable=1 )
>
> >RK:Chomsky and Shahak, not surprisingly, are about the only
> >> people of Jewish descent that Stevertigo agrees with.  What
> >> conclusion can one draw from this?
> No they are not. Im sure I agree with you on some issues. And now you
admit:
> your criteria for *who is anti-Semitic is directly linked to *which Jews
> they do or do not agree with.  I see now. Thank you for clarifying,
Robert.
>
> >RK:No, Stevertigo, the term is merely used to accurately describe you.
> Of course!!  I agree!!  It's a "term merely used" by racist Jewish bigots
to
> slander critical thinking people like me. Thank you and God bless.  :) -SV
> Ps. I should add that Its Hanlon's Razor that allows me to respond in kind
> to you RK, otherwise the Murphy's Law of: "never argue with a fool" would
> forbid me.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo at attbi.com>
> To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Slogan policy (was: DTK article)
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:03:43 -0800
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> > Ed Poor wrote:
> >
> > >How about some convention like "Slogan: XYZ" or "The slogan: 'XYZ'", as
> in:
> > >* [[Slogan: Death to Moonies]]
> > >* [[The slogan: Moonies stink]]
> >
> > No, no, no! It should say "Death to Moonies, PLEASE." C'mon folks,
> > let's try to show some proper MANNERS around this joint. ;)
>
> And your sense of HUMOR is not lost on us Sheldon... :) -SV
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo and anti-Semitism
> From: The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: 20 Mar 2003 01:49:11 -0500
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> This exchange really does not belong on the mailing list.
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:36:39 -0800 (PST)
> From: koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze at yahoo.com>
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Vicki's Question
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> >Ah you *ask* finally. Allow me instead of simply
> giving
> >you a fish, teach you *how to fish, and ask you to
> >figure it out: 1. Stevertigo incessantly
> >quotes Chomsky, Einstein, Robert Zimmerman,.. thinks
> >Rachmaninoff surpassed all composers, loved
> Shindler's
> >List, and am waiting eagerly for Occupation
> >101...   Can you fish? -SV
>
> I can fish, but I was out for bass and I think this
> must be brim.  here's what's on the hook:
>
> My mother has nearly every movie Whoopi Goldberg
> starred in (yes, even the one where she becomes a
> basketball coach).  I asked her about it once.  Her
> response was that she doesn't consider Whoopi black.
> There are people that she considers black, and it's
> apparent she doesn't like them (though it's not
> apparent why).  She clutches her purse more closely
> when a black man gets on the elevator, and she has
> this odd fondness for the word "nigger." Unless, that
> is, there are black people around; then she's
> friendly, cheerful--obsequious even--and remains so
> until they leave.
>
> I'm not sure why that occurred to me, as you hardly
> seem the obsequious type.
>
> kq
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:47:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
> To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> I'm not one who was part of the Lir/Vera/Susan dispute, & I'll
> admit that I'm ignorant of many of the more subtle & minor details
> of this issue, but there are 3 very important points here that
> means the person who is Lir/Vera/Susan will remain banned from
> Wikipedia for the foreseeable future:
>
> 1) Jimmy Wales has stated that Lir/Vera/Susan is banned. And despite
> what the rest of us may think, as long as Jimmy is paying for the
> server & the bandwidth, he calls the rules. If you don't like that
> fact, then come up with enough money so that Wikipedia won't
> come to a sudden end if Jimmy decides to (literally) pull the plug &
> spend his money on something he finds more rewarding.
>
> (And I must needs add here that Jimmy is far more laid back &
> understanding than I would ever be in his situation. One does not
> accidentally piss off Jimmy -- one must make a concerted effort to
> do so.)
>
> 2) There have been a number of efforts to get Lir/Vera/Susan to
> discuss his/her reasons for his/her actions or opinions. The one
> that made the most definite impression on me was when Ed Poor,
> who had been in private discussion with Lir/Vera/Susan, tried to
> get him/her to discuss his/her viewpoint with the peopel on this
> mailling list. And Lir/Vera/Susan abruptly decided to be silent.
>
> Now I'll admit that sometimes I'm struck dumb when I want to provide
> a defense for my actions, but this was one of those ``put up or shut
> up" moments: either Lir/Vera/Susan offered some kind of explanation
> for his/her acts, or stopped entirely, out of shame or embarassment
> for being unable to justify them. Lir/Vera/Susan has done neither.
>
> 3) Lastly, there are a lot of people here on Wikipedia who, frankly
> speaking, consider Lir/Vera/Susan to be an asshole. Why would anyone
> want to hang around a group of people who think she/he is an asshole?
> Wikipedia is not the only game in town: there's the everything2
> & the h2g2 projects. Lir/Vera/Susan could join either of
> those, & prove he/she has reformed & is capable of making valuable
> contributions there.
>
> Now comes Zoe with her question:
>
> > > How many freaking times do we have to go over this?
>
> Unfortunately, as many times as Lir/Vera/Susan returns to Wikipedia
> with a new name, & as many times as we have new contributors. Perhaps
> we need an FAQ or similar document to help reduce the number of questions
> about this unique individual.
>
> Geoff
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Tony Wilson" <list at redhill.net.au>
> To: "WikiEN" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:42:08 +1100
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and other
similar entries
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> I see the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and related entries are
> taking a POV hammering again. TUF-KAT, Zoe,  and I have had to do
> reverts to it to restore balance in the past, and now Cferrero is doing
> revert duty tonight. A big problem with this stuff is that many of us
> (I am certainly one) sometimes lack the detailed knowledge to be 100%
> confident we are reverting POV ranting and not removing real
> information. (This particular entry has not been too bad so far, no
> massive edit wars and just one IP ban, but there is a whole class of
> broadly similar stuff, and this one will serve as an example of the
> general class as well as any.)
>
> Maybe it is worth considering having a special class of Wikipedia
> article that is not a completely protected page, but can only be edited
> by logged-in contributors. I'm not sure if this would work or not, or
> if it would be practical to implement. I'm just thinking aloud. Any
> bright ideas out there? Comments?
>
>
> Tony Wilson
> (Tannin)
> list at redhill.net.au
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:00:28 -0800
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> On Wednesday 19 March 2003 09:23 pm, Graham Burnett wrote:
> > Well I'm quite new to this mailing list, so forgive my ignorance, but it
> > seems that alot goes on 'behind the scenes' of wikipedia here,
>
> Behind the scenes? This is a publicly readable, unmoderated mailing list
that
> is open to anybody with an email account. In addition, a link is on the
Main
> Page says "Mailing lists" and you might have noticed the same link at the
top
> of Recent Changes. Oh and on the "Mailing lists" page is a direct link to
the
> archives where every single post that has ever been made resides - we hide
> nothing here.
>

OK, bad choice of words on my part, I wasn't implying that there is a
shadowy coterie of all powerful wikipedians running the wiki world in a
covert way or anything, rather that there is alot of discussion away from
the actual wikipedia and it's talk pages that I wasn't previously aware of-
I dimly knew that there was a mailing list, but it wasn't until the link to
the mailing list appeared on the recent changes page (or at least until I
noticed it there...) that I actually made the effort to read it/subscribe.

> The case for Lir is very clear, crystal you might say. I in fact was one
of
> the people who advocated banning Lir. But I've been largely silent about
Vera
> and Susan because as bad as they were/are they both are improvements over
> Lir's outrageous behavior (I do believe that Susan = Lir but I haven't
seen
> undeniable evidence for this yet - but she does tend to stir-up more than
her
> fair share of trouble).

fair enough, but I'm uncomfortable with idea that anybody should be
considered 'iredeemable', if Lir is indeed now Susna Mason, but is actually
towing the line and is contributing to the project in a useful and
constructive way (and seems to be from the random samplings I've seen of
them, tho I admit I read far from all their edits & contributions, I'm going
mainly on the Rachel Corrie page (the wiki entry, not the user)), is it
right to remove that person because in another life they were Lir, so to
speak? Or do we take them on the merit of what they are doing NOW? If the
latter then there is far more case for removing Michael who is far more of a
nuisance to the project IMHO

> Below are links to the archives with the relevant subject titles below the
> links - happy reading (you could have just as easily looked this up BTW -
> that is one reason why some people have been impatient with these types of
> questions):

Thanks, I'll look at these.

Cheers Graham (Quercus robur)


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cunctator and slogan policy

body:
I think only Cunctator agrees with his proposed policy, while nearly half a dozen other oppose it (both as expressed here on the mailing list, as well as on various talk pages).

If the consensus goes against you, Mr. Cunctator, please be so gracious as to revert your undoing of Oliver's work. I would do the same.

Uncle Ed


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] LittleDan's question

body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 09:15, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Thanks for answering LittleDan's question. I was also
> interested in the answer, as you surmised.
>
> I agree that the word "anti-Semitic" is thrown around
> an awful lot. My own church has been hit by charges
> of anti-Semitism, despite what I regard as its
> exceptionally clear commitment to Israel's well-being
> and high regard for Jews and Judaism. Why, Abraham is
> the "father of our faith" and both Jacob and Joseph
> are considers models for us all to emulate in the
> modern era.

Although I *really* should follow my own advice, I can't help but
noting that some of the reason the Unification Church is hit by
charges of anti-Semitism is that its leader has said that the
Holocaust was caused by the Jews' indemnity for the death of Jesus.

See [[indemnity]].


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Nick Reinking

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page caching

body:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:28:53PM +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> >>(Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de>):
> >>1. Enhanced parser, probably in C++ (working on it)
> >
> >
> >Waste of time. Parsing is clearly not a significant factor in
> >the present CPU load, and even one written in C would spend most
> >of its time looking up links in the database just as the PHP
> >code does. And the overhead of linking the two would wipe out
> >any savings.

I tentatively agree, the parsing of the data itself is not a bottleneck.
Something like the Zend Optimizer or PHPA (as suggested on meta) could
certainly be worth a shot, especially since they are free.

> Most of the parser is already running in my offline reader, and could be
> adapted for "real" output. I'd like (some day) to write a "Phase IV" in
> C++, if I can figure out a nice way to link it with the web server
> (e.g., how to read <form> content). Is there a tutorial or something on
> the web?

This is generally done on a web server by web server basis.
You can read about:
Apache API (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/API.html)
ISAPI (http://www.microsoft.com/iis)
NSAPI (http://www.le-berre.com/nsapi/nsapi.htm)

Enjoy...

> >Caching known links in groups is indeed someting I will try, but
> >in their own table to reduce lock contention.
>
> OTOH, we're reading the article data from the database anyway;
> transmitting another field with it won't do much harm, I think.
>
> >Another thing I want
> >to look into is caching link lookups in a separate process outside
> >the page rendering, so the cache can be persistent across pages.
>
> Sounds like trouble to me :-)


from_name: Graham Burnett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is

body:
Ooops- my appologies to the list for not snipping away the rest of the
digest in my previous post...

Graham

> Message: 7
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:00:28 -0800
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Friendly Challenge to Sheldon Rampton

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is that it doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply *must* be true. "Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does so selectively, deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its hypotheses.
>
>I would love it, if someone would expand the Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience and junk science, in a scrupulously neutral way.
>
>For example, the [[global warming]] article has never clarified the relationship (if any) among solar activity, carbon dioxide levels, and observation of temperature at sea level, the lower atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere. Someone who knows what has been observed, and which observations have been deliberately hidden or ignored, could make a great contribution here.
>
As a first impression for distinguishing between the debates about
pseudoscience from those about junk science is as follow:

"Pseudoscience" tends to relate to theoretical concepts that are on the
fringes of science, and usually involve supporters of "mainstream"
science versus supporters of alternative theoretical concepts.

"Junk science" depends on divergent interpretations or applications of
principles which in themselves are already accepted by mainstream science.

"Pseudoscience" tends to focus on theory.  "Junk science" tends to focus
on application".

All parties to both debates tend to cite facts, or at least perceived facts.

There is nothing wrong with saying that a hypothesis must be true as
long as it remains nothing more than a hypothesis. i.e. a statement that
is subject to be tested, and a basis for experimental design.

Eclecticology


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cunctator and slogan policy

body:
I'm writing directly to you because I think it's time to tone down the
rhetoric.

On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 12:36, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I think only Cunctator agrees with his proposed policy, while nearly
> half a dozen other oppose it (both as expressed here on the mailing list,
> as well as on various talk pages).

<sarcasm>
I like "nearly half a dozen". I guess that sounds better than "possibly
3".

How could anyone have expressed opposition to a policy I just now
formulated? Has a nearly half a dozen people IM'ed you in the last 10
minutes?
</sarcasm>

Instead of argument by popularity, please discuss the merits of the
policy. The best place to do so is probably [[Talk:Slogan]].


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2003 09:23 pm, Graham Burnett
> wrote:
> > Well I'm quite new to this mailing list, so
> forgive my ignorance, but it
> > seems that alot goes on 'behind the scenes' of
> wikipedia here,
>
> Behind the scenes? This is a publicly readable,
> unmoderated mailing list that
> is open to anybody with an email account. In
> addition, a link is on the Main
> Page says "Mailing lists" and you might have noticed
> the same link at the top
> of Recent Changes. Oh and on the "Mailing lists"
> page is a direct link to the
> archives where every single post that has ever been
> made resides - we hide
> nothing here.

Of course we don't ! Every issue discussed is public,
that's the only way to take proper consensual
decisions on tough matters such as banning or deleting
inappropriate pages.

Quercus, you might wish to register to the main list
also, in case you have not done so yet. I would also
recommend that you drop by on meta from time to time.

And...thanks :-) ant

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sheldon, LittleDan and communism

body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 12:29, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Sheldon,
>
> The argument that "no communist regime has ever claimed
> to actually *be* communist" is already discussed in the
> Wikipedia article, and is IMHO opinion an example of
> exactly the sort of "disinformation" your other wiki
> is supposedly dedicated to exposing.
>
> Instead of trying to run verbal rings around LittleDan,
> why not take a moment to consider what he *meant*?

He did. Please don't attack Sheldon.

Sheldon's point is that "communism" is an amorphous concept. Before one
can make assertions about the truth of the statement "communism doesn't
work", one needs to have a working definition of "communism".

NPOV is more than reporting on what other people say. That's part of it,
but not the only part.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] acapedia ?

body:
Where does that address comes from ?

http://acapedia.org/aca/Ecozone ?

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Sheldon, LittleDan and communism

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>Instead of trying to run verbal rings around LittleDan,
>why not take a moment to consider what he *meant*?

I did.

>Which was, apparently:
>
>* putting communist ideas into effect by creating what
>   pro-Marxists might call "building socialism" in a country.

I don't think it was at all clear that this was what he meant.
*You're* the person who is rewriting Dan's comments to make them mean
something different from what he actually wrote. Many people, for
example, would argue that the introduction of socialized medicine in
Europe and other countries was a communist measure, and it was
certainly supported at the time by "pro-Marxists." Dan's statement
that "communism never works in practice" is the sort of ideological
argument that one hears even today in the United States as a reason
to oppose socialized medicine here. However, socialized medicine is
quite different from "building socialism" in a country.

>The fact that these "socialist" experiments collapsed
>in the former Soviet bloc would seem to support the POV
>that communism never works in practice.

Here, Ed manages to ignore the example I provided of China, which
*hasn't* collapsed. He must be using some strange definition of the
word "never" that isn't in my dictionary. ;)

>Anyway, the question is still whether:
>
>* the Wikipedia ought to assert the fact that communism
>   doesn't work, or
>* the Wikipedia ought to REPORT that various observers
>   have concluded that communism doesn't work
>
>My understanding of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that we should
>not assert communism's unworkableness as fact but rather
>report that observers say it doesn't work.

Agreed, for the most part.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: We should not stifle legitimate scientific discussion

body:
Robert wrote:

>The position I disagreed with was an attempt to stifle
>legitimate scientific discussion of controversial issues.
>I strongly urge Wiki Users to read some of the articles
>below - yet not for the article content as such. Rather, I
>want to illustrate that the term "pseudoscience" has a
>specific use, and is used in a scientific context. It is
>not hatespeech; it in fact has a legitimate use.  This word
>should not be banned from our vocabulary.

I agree that the term "pseudoscience" has a legitimate place in
discussions of science. Some terminology is necessary to mark the
boundaries between what is science and what is not science. The
Wikipedia article on pseudoscience is actually quite good.

I would contrast "pseudoscience" with the term "junk science," which
is clearly a pejorative term that is designed to attack the character
and qualifications of its alleged practitioners. Moreover, the term
"junk science" is always used in reference to allegedly poor science
by environmentalists and public health advocates. By contrast, it
almost never gets used in reference to scientific misinformation
coming from corporate polluters or even from the tobacco industry
(arguably the worst single corrupting influence on science of the
20th century). In fact, the tobacco industry has been the
behind-the-scenes sponsor of many of the organizations that purport
to attack "junk science"!
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] An apology

body:
>Some slogans, even hateful slogans, are of sufficient historical
>(or other) importance that they can deserve a separate article.

I respectfully disagree with this. It does seem to be a vague "policy", and
begs for a test as to its consistency. But the tribe has spoken.

And my adding the second "slogan" article was to see if the informal
consensus was consistent, or if there was some sort of anti-gay complacency.
Given the controversial nature of the subject, not to mention that I did it
hastily and in what amounts to very, very, poor taste, I owe all an apology.

I was surprised to find that despite my explanations, my stated intent was
completely misunderstood and misrepresented. Nevertheless, this is not the
place for such frustrated experiments, and I was, as Vicki said,  guilty of
'not being clear.'  I am guilty, also of letting myself be distracted into
arguments for which there are no winners, and for which there is nothing to
gain, without willingness for mutual understanding. Ed was completely
correct in his description of my excess zeal; and I was wrong to treat Vicki
and Robert in a condescending manner for what, to them, were valid
questions.

>Are you accusing him of using sysop powers "in a fight" or >merely of using
ordinary wiki editing in a way that you don't like?

If you read the text attachment of the background of the VFD page, regarding
these articles, it shows some degree on Cuncators part of being a bit
monolithic in his treatment of the article. James even at one point, was
left to ask Cuncator himself to delete a useless page he made so he could
revert it back. I dont know how bad that got, or if its even the way i
characterize it.. nor do I expect you to be everyones babysitter and private
investigator... This is just an explanation. I wouldnt mind if it simply
rested here.

I generally find that if I keep my mouth shut for awhile, NPOV
emerges.  In this cases, we went over all this with the "Aids" slogan, and I
thought the result was fine.  I said my piece there.

Yes, I'm finding this out. -S


subject: [WikiEN-l] Toe to toe with the Cunctator - not!

body:
I'd love to turn this mailing list into a debate forum, and I consider it an honor to have attracted the attention of such an awesome exponent of personal liberty as the Cunctator.

But Jimbo would probably not like it.

So I guess I'll just get back to work.

Pacifically,

Uncle Ed


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder and academic dishonesty

body:
I have been having a problem with user Fred Bauder on the
Chiropractic medicine article, and it has no reached the
point of vandalism. He is openly and repeatedly committing
academic fraud; i.e. bald-faced lying.

In recent days he kept repeatedly citing a paper that
specificly attacks chiropractice as frauduent...and somehow
claimed that this paper *supported* chiropractic practice.
He also rewrote the article to make it sound as if all
spinal manipulation was chiropractic, which again is a
bald-faced lie.  In fact, many medical doctors would
consider it actionable libel if their spinal manipulation
was referred to in print as "chiropractice".  Most medical
doctors do not want their work to be tarred with a label
that see as pseudoscience.  And, in fact, chiropractic
theory has nothing to do with mere spinal manipulation.
Plenty of medical doctors totally reject chiropractic
theory, yet still will manipulate the spine for a limited
number of medical conditions.

It gets worse.  After being told about these gross erros,
Fred Bauder has refused to discuss the issue, refused to
address the specific points raised, and has engaged in a
series of reverts:  Again and again he footnotes and quotes
from an article *attacking* chiropractice fradulent, and he
dishonestly is using it as if it offers support for
chiropractice.

My previous comments to him noted this error, but his
continued reversions of the article, and his repetition of
this falsehood, now leaves us little choice but to assume
that he is deliberately lying. This is vandalism.

If someone wants to cite a peer-reviewed medical report
that supports chiropractic theory, fine.  If someone wants
to cite an article critical of chiropractic, that is fine
to.  But no one has the right to lie about the views of
people who are against something (e.g. chiropractice), and
who explicitly write that it has no medical support.
Deliberately lying about the views of people (all of whom
are medical doctors and scientists) is grossly dishonest.

RK

=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com


body:
>It's not really enough to use the bare phrase "observers say...".   In
>the absence of knowing just who the observers are, you've just passed
>the buck to somebody that can't be identified, and whose facts can't be
>checked.
>
>Eclecticology

I agree that the article should _name_ the observers who have concluded that communism doesn't work, rather than passing the buck.

Ed


body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 14:08, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I'd love to turn this mailing list into a debate forum, and I consider
> it an honor to have attracted the attention of such an awesome
> exponent of personal liberty as the Cunctator.
>
> But Jimbo would probably not like it.
>
> So I guess I'll just get back to work.
>
What an excellent example of paralipsis (or as the Romans would say,
praeteritio).


from_name: Richard Grevers

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV

body:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:52:49 -0700, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

>> Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something
>> similar)
>
> No, just a simple fact-based observation.

But one that might be better phrased as: "By commonly accepted measures, no
communist regime to date has been successful."
The inhabitants of some former Soviet republics might well argue that
communism was doing quite a bit better than the current free
market/criminal anarchy that they are living under.
And from discussions with Chinese students here, China is doing pretty well
on most fronts other than political freedom and human rights, give the
problems inherent in governing and feeding 1.3 billion people.

If a sentence in Wikipedia that does not refer to someone/thing dead,
extinct, destroyed or completed contains the word "never" then it is in
need of a rewrite. For example, we cannot tell that there won't be a
successful communist regime in the future.
--
Richard Grevers


body:
My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is that it doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply *must* be true. "Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does so selectively, deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its hypotheses.

I would love it, if someone would expand the Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience and junk science, in a scrupulously neutral way.

For example, the [[global warming]] article has never clarified the relationship (if any) among solar activity, carbon dioxide levels, and observation of temperature at sea level, the lower atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere. Someone who knows what has been observed, and which observations have been deliberately hidden or ignored, could make a great contribution here.

I think Sheldon is the best-qualified person to do this, as he has the most facts at his command.

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A Friendly Challenge to Sheldon Rampton

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is
>that it doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply
>*must* be true. "Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but
>does so selectively, deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict
>its hypotheses.

I think Ed is using an entirely personal definition of
"pseudoscience" that doesn't have much in common with the term as it
is generally used. The Wikipedia article on "pseudoscience" does a
good job of explaining it, but if you want some further explanation,
here's how I discussed the term in my book, "Trust Us, We're Experts":

>The very prestige that science enjoys, however, has also given rise to
>a variety of scientific pretenders--disciplines such as phrenology or eugenics
>that merely claim to be scientific. The renowned philosopher of science
>Karl Popper gave a great deal of consideration to this problem and
>coined the term "pseudoscience" to help separate the wheat from the
>chaff. The difference between science and pseudoscience, he concluded,
>is that genuinely scientific theories are "falsifiable"--that is,
>they are formulated
>in such a way that if they are wrong, they can be proven false
>through experiments. By contrast, pseudosciences are formulated so
>vaguely that they can never be proven or disproven. "The difference between
>a science and a pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be
>proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot," says Robert Youngson
>in his book Scientific Blunders: A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists
>Can Sometimes Be. "By this criterion you will find that a surprising
>number of seemingly scientific assertions--perhaps even many in which
>you devoutly believe--are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is
>not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may
>be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the
>cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific
>facts."
>      Judged by this standard, many of the "social sciences"--including
>the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, Jung, and others--are actually
>pseudosciences
>rather than the real thing. This does not mean that Freud and
>Jung were charlatans or fools. Both were creative thinkers with fascinating
>insights into the human psyche, but a research methodology that derives
>its data from the dreams of mentally ill patients is a far cry from the
>orderly system of measurements that we associate with hard sciences like
>physics and chemistry.

These points, including Popper's criterion of "falsifiability," are
already clear in the Wikipedia article as it currently stands.
"Falsifiability" is an excellent conceptual tool. It avoids character
assassination and sticks strictly to the question of whether a
purported "scientific" claim can be tied to the empiricist
methodology that we expect from science.

"Junk science," by contrast, is quite a different beast. Here are a
couple of examples of the term in actual use:

>Unfortunately, and increasingly today, one can find examples of junk
>science that compromise the integrity of the field of science and,
>at the same time, create a scare environment where unnecessary
>regulations on industry in general, and on the consumer products
>industry in particular, are rammed through without respect to rhyme,
>reason, effect or cause.
---Michael A. Miles, former CEO of the Philip Morris tobacco company

Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute defines "junk science" as "a
hodgepodge of biased data, spurious inference and logical
legerdemain, patched together by researchers whose
enthusiasm for discovery and diagnosis far outstrips their skill" and
accuses its practitioners of "data dredging, wishful thinking,
truculent dogmatism, and, now and again, outright fraud."

Steven Milloy (who calls himself the "Junkman" and runs the "Junk
Science Home Page" at www.junkscience.com) defines junk science as
"bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,'
environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and
unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky
social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and
fortune." He habitually refers to the alleged practitioners of "junk
science" using language such as "psychologically challenged,"
"bogus," "scare mongers," "blowhards," "turkeys," "wacko enviros,"
etc.

What is striking about all three of these examples is that (unlike
the "falsifiability" standard used to define "pseudoscience") they
offer no methodological test for distinguishing between "good
science" and "bad science." Instead, the authors rely on name-calling
and ad hominem attacks on the motives, morals, or competence of
people whose conclusions differ from their own. This is fairly
typical of people who use the term "junk science," but it isn't
typical of people who use the term "pseudoscience."

As for Ed's invitation that I do something with the global warming
article -- right now I'm pretty busy with the Disinfopedia and some
other projects, but I'll try and take a look at it when I get some
time.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cunctator and slogan policy

body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 15:11, Zoe wrote:
>
> Cunctator has already stated previously that he does not believe in
> consensus, and will do whatever he damn well pleases.

As they say in the world of peer review, please cite.

Believe me, you can't imagine what Wikipedia would be like if I did
whatever I damn well pleased.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slander against scientists

body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 15:05, Zoe wrote:
>
> I am appalled that you continue to hide behind your own personal
> definition of science to make personal attacks on  people you
> disagree with.
> Zoe
>  Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:I am appalled that you publicly
> slander scientists, instead of dealing with the issues.

Okay, everyone's appalled. Congratulations. Can we tone down the
rhetoric now?

It's not nice or appropriate to compare the term "pseudoscience" to the
terms "kike" and "faggot".

It's implausible (or shows a lack of equanimity) to be appalled at every
inappropriate statement other Wikipedians make.

We'll do much better if people try to engage in argument here without
resorting to the words "slander", "appall", "pig-headed", "attack", and
vulgarities, etc.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pseudoscience vs. 'junk science'

body:
Eclecticology wrote:

> As a first impression for distinguishing between the
> debates about pseudoscience from those about junk science
> is as follow:
>
> "Pseudoscience" tends to relate to theoretical concepts
> that are on the fringes of science, and usually involve
> supporters of "mainstream" science versus supporters of
> alternative theoretical concepts.
>
> "Junk science" depends on divergent interpretations or
> applications of principles which in themselves are
> already accepted by mainstream science.
>
> "Pseudoscience" tends to focus on theory.  "Junk science"
> tends to focus on application".
>
> All parties to both debates tend to cite facts, or at
> least perceived facts.
>
> There is nothing wrong with saying that a hypothesis must
> be true as long as it remains nothing more than a
> hypothesis. i.e. a statement that is subject to be
> tested, and a basis for experimental design.

Thanks. If that info is not in the [[pseudoscience]] and
[[junk science]] articles, it should be.

Uncle Ed


from_name: cprompt

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 14:08, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>
>>> I'd love to turn this mailing list into a debate forum, and I consider
>>> it an honor to have attracted the attention of such an awesome
>>> exponent of personal liberty as the Cunctator.
>>>
>>> But Jimbo would probably not like it.
>>> So I guess I'll just get back to work.
>>>
>> What an excellent example of paralipsis (or as the Romans would say,
>> praeteritio).
>>
> Excellent words.  They deserve to be in Wiktionary!
>
> Ec

They are now...at least paralipsis is.

--cprompt


body:
Sheldon Rampton brilliantly wrote:

>The very prestige that science enjoys, however, has also given rise to
>a variety of scientific pretenders--disciplines such as phrenology or eugenics
>that merely claim to be scientific. The renowned philosopher of science
>Karl Popper gave a great deal of consideration to this problem and
>coined the term "pseudoscience" to help separate the wheat from the
>chaff. The difference between science and pseudoscience, he concluded,
>is that genuinely scientific theories are "falsifiable"--that is,
>they are formulated
>in such a way that if they are wrong, they can be proven false
>through experiments. By contrast, pseudosciences are formulated so
>vaguely that they can never be proven or disproven. "The difference between
>a science and a pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be
>proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot," says Robert Youngson
>in his book Scientific Blunders: A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists
>Can Sometimes Be. "By this criterion you will find that a surprising
>number of seemingly scientific assertions--perhaps even many in which
>you devoutly believe--are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is
>not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may
>be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the
>cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific
>facts."
>      Judged by this standard, many of the "social sciences"--including
>the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, Jung, and others--are actually
>pseudosciences
>rather than the real thing. This does not mean that Freud and
>Jung were charlatans or fools. Both were creative thinkers with fascinating
>insights into the human psyche, but a research methodology that derives
>its data from the dreams of mentally ill patients is a far cry from the
>orderly system of measurements that we associate with hard sciences like
>physics and chemistry.

I beg you to donate this passage, which is from your book "Trust Us We're Experts" to Wikipedia, Sheldon. May we have your permission to incorporate it into the [[pseudoscience]] article?

For that matter, what are the legal technicalities involved in the case where a published author wants to donate a tiny portion of a copyrighted work, to the public via the GPL? (I'm not saying Sheldon would want to do so in this case: this is brilliant prose, and he's entitled to make money off it; more power to him!)

Jimbo, Cunctator, do you know whether an author can simply announce something like the following?

* "I hereby license the following text under the GPL."

Or is it more complicated than that? I'd hate to have to spend an hour or two massaging Sheldon's brilliant prose into unrecognizeability just to evade copyright restrictions. And it wouldn't be brilliant any more either. :-(

exhaustedly,

Uncle Ed


body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 17:54, Robert wrote:
>
>>I have been having a problem with user Fred Bauder on the
>>Chiropractic medicine article, and it has no reached the
>>point of vandalism. He is openly and repeatedly committing
>>academic fraud; i.e. bald-faced lying.
>>
>You really need to chill out.
>
>It's a bit difficult to commit academic fraud on Wikipedia. We're not
>exactly part of the academy.
>
... yet! :-)


body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 16:35, Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> Jimbo, Cunctator, do you know whether an author can simply announce something like the following?
>
> * "I hereby license the following text under the GPL."
>
It depends on the author's contract with his publisher.

Publishers generally try to get exclusive rights to publication; in a
sense, while the author may "own" the copyright, he doesn't control it.


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
So whether or not somehting is "science" or "pseudoscience" depends on the
context, not the content?

>My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is that it
>doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply *must* be true.
>"Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does so selectively,
>deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its hypotheses.
>
>I would love it, if someone would expand the Wikipedia articles on
>pseudoscience and junk science, in a scrupulously neutral way.
>
>For example, the [[global warming]] article has never clarified the
>relationship (if any) among solar activity, carbon dioxide levels, and
>observation of temperature at sea level, the lower atmosphere, and the
>upper atmosphere. Someone who knows what has been observed, and which
>observations have been deliberately hidden or ignored, could make a great
>contribution here.
>
>I think Sheldon is the best-qualified person to do this, as he has the most
>facts at his command.
>
>Uncle Ed
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 17:12, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> So whether or not somehting is "science" or "pseudoscience" depends on the
> context, not the content?
>

No. Falsifiability is the central distinguisher.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Here, (I think) is the offending reference it is contained within:

http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html

"There is substantial evidence that manipulative therapy has value in
treating back pain. Although it may not be any more effective than other
modalities in the long term, manipulation may offer short term benefits when
compared to other commonly used modalities. Several studies have found that
about one-third of patients will experience more rapid relief with
manipulation than with other modalities.(2-4) Manipulation is probably not
utilized as fully as it might be in relieving the symptoms of some chronic
disorders.? It has been reported to be beneficial in controlling migraine
pain.(5) Because manipulation involves the laying on of hands, a procedure
employed throughout history by folk and faith healers, it enhances
suggestibility and the placebo effect.(6,7) Occasionally, manipulation
produces dramatic results. An example involves immediate recovery from
paraplegia caused by an auto accident.(8) Manipulative therapy is not
without risk. Many cases of serious complications following manipulative
therapy have been reported in the medical literature. (9-15)

Chiropractic Manipulation
Chiropractors probably are more skilled in the art of manipulation than
other practitioners since it constitutes the major emphasis of their
training.? Chiropractors are usually the most accessible manipulative
therapists in a community, and some receive referrals from medical doctors.
However, many physicians are reluctant to refer patients to chiropractors.
This may be due to a fear that the chiropractor may attempt to indoctrinate
patients in deviant health beliefs, a disbelief in the value of manipulative
therapy, or an apathy to non-medical practitioners.(5)"

Despite the cricical tenor of the aricle it sets forth both that spinal
manipulation is effective for the treatment of low back pain, but points out
that to get that treatment the easiest way is to consult a chiropractor.

I really fail to see what is dishonest in citing this passage as a
reference.

Fred

> From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:54:14 -0800 (PST)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder and academic dishonesty
>
> I have been having a problem with user Fred Bauder on the
> Chiropractic medicine article, and it has no reached the
> point of vandalism. He is openly and repeatedly committing
> academic fraud; i.e. bald-faced lying.
>
> In recent days he kept repeatedly citing a paper that
> specificly attacks chiropractice as frauduent...and somehow
> claimed that this paper *supported* chiropractic practice.
> He also rewrote the article to make it sound as if all
> spinal manipulation was chiropractic, which again is a
> bald-faced lie.  In fact, many medical doctors would
> consider it actionable libel if their spinal manipulation
> was referred to in print as "chiropractice".  Most medical
> doctors do not want their work to be tarred with a label
> that see as pseudoscience.  And, in fact, chiropractic
> theory has nothing to do with mere spinal manipulation.
> Plenty of medical doctors totally reject chiropractic
> theory, yet still will manipulate the spine for a limited
> number of medical conditions.
>
>
> It gets worse.  After being told about these gross erros,
> Fred Bauder has refused to discuss the issue, refused to
> address the specific points raised, and has engaged in a
> series of reverts:  Again and again he footnotes and quotes
> from an article *attacking* chiropractice fradulent, and he
> dishonestly is using it as if it offers support for
> chiropractice.
>
> My previous comments to him noted this error, but his
> continued reversions of the article, and his repetition of
> this falsehood, now leaves us little choice but to assume
> that he is deliberately lying. This is vandalism.
>
> If someone wants to cite a peer-reviewed medical report
> that supports chiropractic theory, fine.  If someone wants
> to cite an article critical of chiropractic, that is fine
> to.  But no one has the right to lie about the views of
> people who are against something (e.g. chiropractice), and
> who explicitly write that it has no medical support.
> Deliberately lying about the views of people (all of whom
> are medical doctors and scientists) is grossly dishonest.
>
>
> RK
>
>
> =====
> "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who
> knows he is righteous".
> The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 17:54, Robert wrote:
> I have been having a problem with user Fred Bauder on the
> Chiropractic medicine article, and it has no reached the
> point of vandalism. He is openly and repeatedly committing
> academic fraud; i.e. bald-faced lying.
>
You really need to chill out.

It's a bit difficult to commit academic fraud on Wikipedia. We're not
exactly part of the academy.

Remember the adage about honey and vinegar.

If arguments or discussions are getting nowhere, then just edit pages.
Spin off distinct subtopics into individual entries.

As it is, the current entry on [[chiropractic medicine]] doesn't have
nearly enough info on what chiropractice is yet.


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slogan policy

body:
> AKFD has similarly elicited cries of outrage. I'm sympathetic enough to
> the cries to think that it's not unreasonable to disambiguate the entry
> (though hardly enough to delete it). But if we do so, then we should do
> so in conformance to the standard Wikipedia naming policy; that is,
> [[AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan)]].

For once, I agree with Cunctator. Alternatively, the slogan title could be
put in quotes. Or all such slogans could be discussed in one article (e.g.
hate speech).

I do get the impression that Steve is deliberately trolling here.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:

> Ed Poor wrote:
>
>> My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is
>> that it doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply
>> *must* be true. "Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does
>> so selectively, deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its
>> hypotheses.
>
> I think Ed is using an entirely personal definition of "pseudoscience"
> that doesn't have much in common with the term as it is generally
> used. The Wikipedia article on "pseudoscience" does a good job of
> explaining it, but if you want some further explanation, here's how I
> discussed the term in my book, "Trust Us, We're Experts":
>
>> The very prestige that science enjoys, however, has also given rise to
>> a variety of scientific pretenders--disciplines such as phrenology or
>> eugenics
>> that merely claim to be scientific. The renowned philosopher of science
>> Karl Popper gave a great deal of consideration to this problem and
>> coined the term "pseudoscience" to help separate the wheat from the
>> chaff. The difference between science and pseudoscience, he concluded,
>> is that genuinely scientific theories are "falsifiable"--that is,
>> they are formulated
>> in such a way that if they are wrong, they can be proven false
>> through experiments. By contrast, pseudosciences are formulated so
>> vaguely that they can never be proven or disproven. "The difference
>> between
>> a science and a pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be
>> proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot," says Robert
>> Youngson
>> in his book Scientific Blunders: A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists
>> Can Sometimes Be. "By this criterion you will find that a surprising
>> number of seemingly scientific assertions--perhaps even many in which
>> you devoutly believe--are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is
>> not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of
>> them may
>> be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to
>> claim the
>> cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in
>> scientific
>> facts."
>>      Judged by this standard, many of the "social sciences"--including
>> the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, Jung, and others--are actually
>> pseudosciences
>> rather than the real thing. This does not mean that Freud and
>> Jung were charlatans or fools. Both were creative thinkers with
>> fascinating
>> insights into the human psyche, but a research methodology that derives
>> its data from the dreams of mentally ill patients is a far cry from the
>> orderly system of measurements that we associate with hard sciences like
>> physics and chemistry.
>
> These points, including Popper's criterion of "falsifiability," are
> already clear in the Wikipedia article as it currently stands.
> "Falsifiability" is an excellent conceptual tool. It avoids character
> assassination and sticks strictly to the question of whether a
> purported "scientific" claim can be tied to the empiricist methodology
> that we expect from science.

If all people were consistently on the same page in how they defined
pseudoscience, our problem would not arise, and even I could accept its
usage.  As much as some of us may accept to use the word "pseudoscience"
in the non-pejorative Popper sense, it doesn't stop people with strong
points of view from using it pejoratively.  Add to that that they also
prefer to look on falsifiability as somehow being directly linked with
fraud, and we've got a barrom brawl.

As I see Popper's doctrine of falsifiability, it is enough to be able to
imagine the experiment that would prove a hypothesis to be false.
 Nothing is ever proved true, and a hypothesis only develops credibility
through a series of failed experiments.  Some experiments may even
require techniques that have not yet been developed or require equipment
more sensitive than what already exists.  In astrology, for example, a
conceivable hypothesis might be that Scorpios are more sexually active.
 It is easy to imagine an experiment to test this.  The hypothesis may
eventually be proved false, but as long as that process follows
scientific means, the epithet "pseudoscience" does not apply. -- at
least in the example.

And what can be said of acupuncture.  Here is a practice which has
developed in an entirely different theoretical and cultural context.
 Must it be subject to and adopt western cultural bias about science?

What I find most irritating is those people who throw around the word
"pseudoscience" without any regard or even bknowledge of Popper's
concepts.  It is often applied to any subject with which they disagree.
 Because of these attitudes, I prefer to avoid using the word at all.

> "Junk science," by contrast, is quite a different beast.

Oddly enough, I don't find as much controversy in the concept of junk
science.  Even though there may be some dispute about the specific
practices to be included under that rubric, there does not tend to be
the sort of philosophical and definitional problems found with
pseudoscience.

Eclecticology


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page caching

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>>(Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de>):
>>1. Enhanced parser, probably in C++ (working on it)
>
>
> Waste of time. Parsing is clearly not a significant factor in
> the present CPU load, and even one written in C would spend most
> of its time looking up links in the database just as the PHP
> code does. And the overhead of linking the two would wipe out
> any savings.

Most of the parser is already running in my offline reader, and could be
adapted for "real" output. I'd like (some day) to write a "Phase IV" in
C++, if I can figure out a nice way to link it with the web server
(e.g., how to read <form> content). Is there a tutorial or something on
the web?

> Caching known links in groups is indeed someting I will try, but
> in their own table to reduce lock contention.

OTOH, we're reading the article data from the database anyway;
transmitting another field with it won't do much harm, I think.

> Another thing I want
> to look into is caching link lookups in a separate process outside
> the page rendering, so the cache can be persistent across pages.

Sounds like trouble to me :-)

Magnus


from_name: Tom Parmenter

body:
|From: The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>
|Sender: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: 20 Mar 2003 14:56:52 -0500
|
|On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 14:08, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
|> I'd love to turn this mailing list into a debate forum, and I consider
|> it an honor to have attracted the attention of such an awesome
|> exponent of personal liberty as the Cunctator.
|>
|> But Jimbo would probably not like it.
|>
|> So I guess I'll just get back to work.
|>
|What an excellent example of paralipsis (or as the Romans would say,
|praeteritio).
|

Public service (meaning, I had to look it up)

     Paralipsis -- A rhetorical figure in which the speaker emphasizes
     something by affecting to pass it by without notice, usually by
     such phrases as "not to mention", "to say nothing of".

What's the term for attempting to overpower through use of obscure
pedantic words?

TomP
O88


subject: [WikiEN-l] Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and other similar entries

body:
Sounds good, but only a sysop could change that status of the page.  Or
maybe there could be a cookie identifier on each person's computer so we
could track them? The cookie would be blockable.

>I see the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and related entries are
>taking a POV hammering again. TUF-KAT, Zoe,  and I have had to do
>reverts to it to restore balance in the past, and now Cferrero is doing
>revert duty tonight. A big problem with this stuff is that many of us
>(I am certainly one) sometimes lack the detailed knowledge to be 100%
>confident we are reverting POV ranting and not removing real
>information. (This particular entry has not been too bad so far, no
>massive edit wars and just one IP ban, but there is a whole class of
>broadly similar stuff, and this one will serve as an example of the
>general class as well as any.)
>
>Maybe it is worth considering having a special class of Wikipedia
>article that is not a completely protected page, but can only be edited
>by logged-in contributors. I'm not sure if this would work or not, or
>if it would be practical to implement. I'm just thinking aloud. Any
>bright ideas out there? Comments?
>
>
>Tony Wilson
>(Tannin)
>list at redhill.net.au
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


subject: [WikiEN-l] An apology

body:
|From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo at attbi.com>
|X-Priority: 3
|X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
|X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
|Sender: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:51:13 -0800
|
|>Some slogans, even hateful slogans, are of sufficient historical
|>(or other) importance that they can deserve a separate article.
|
|I respectfully disagree with this. It does seem to be a vague "policy", and
|begs for a test as to its consistency. But the tribe has spoken.
|

Slogans worth an article:

"54-40 or fight." -- settling the northern border of US

"Pedicaris alive, or El-Rasaouli dead."  -- early venture into middle
eastern affairs

"We are Republicans and we don't propose to identify ourselves with
the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism and
rebellion." US  1884 election

There are many more.

That said, the AKFD thing has all the aspects of a troll, a patently
offensive, superficially defensible sucker play for attention,
disturbance, distortion, and endless dispute.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88


subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo and anti-Semitism

body:
Sorry, I just misinterperated him.

>This exchange really does not belong on the mailing list.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


from_name: Tony Wilson

body:
I see the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and related entries are
taking a POV hammering again. TUF-KAT, Zoe,  and I have had to do
reverts to it to restore balance in the past, and now Cferrero is doing
revert duty tonight. A big problem with this stuff is that many of us
(I am certainly one) sometimes lack the detailed knowledge to be 100%
confident we are reverting POV ranting and not removing real
information. (This particular entry has not been too bad so far, no
massive edit wars and just one IP ban, but there is a whole class of
broadly similar stuff, and this one will serve as an example of the
general class as well as any.)

Maybe it is worth considering having a special class of Wikipedia
article that is not a completely protected page, but can only be edited
by logged-in contributors. I'm not sure if this would work or not, or
if it would be practical to implement. I'm just thinking aloud. Any
bright ideas out there? Comments?

Tony Wilson
(Tannin)
list at redhill.net.au


body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 19:42, Tom Parmenter wrote:
> Public service (meaning, I had to look it up)
>
>      Paralipsis -- A rhetorical figure in which the speaker emphasizes
>      something by affecting to pass it by without notice, usually by
>      such phrases as "not to mention", "to say nothing of".
>
> What's the term for attempting to overpower through use of obscure
> pedantic words?

Seqsuipedalianism.


from_name: tarquin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slander against scientists

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>
> That something cannot be proven does not make it false.  In the spirit
> of Kurt G?del there are always things that cannot be proven withinn a
> finite set of principles.  Fermat's Last Theorem could not be proven
> for 300 years, did that make it false during all that time?  Were all
> the people who insisted on its truth for three centuries to be called
> pseudoscientists, or even more slanderously, frauds?

that really isn't the same thing at all.
mathematical proof is very different scientific proof.


from_name: Zoe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Okhrana and Google

body:
I think the problem was that Google had cached our page, and I just deleted it.  You therefore got sent to a nonexistent entity.
Zoe
 sannse <sannse at delphiforums.com> wrote:I just did a search on Google for "Okhrana" and came up with
www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Okhrana&action=edit as the 10th hit.
But that's a link to an edit page (and for some reason one without the
"You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist.." explanation.)

If edit pages show up in Google like this, that must really increase the
number of confused nonsense edits. (It was looking for information for a
stub to replace one of these that made me do the search in the first place.)

Isn't there some way excluding edit pages from being seen by Google?

sannse

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030320/c26b66c4/attachment.htm


body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>I beg you to donate this passage, which is from your book "Trust Us
>We're Experts" to Wikipedia, Sheldon. May we have your permission to
>incorporate it into the [[pseudoscience]] article?

Feel free to use or adapt it as you see fit. However, the Wikipedia
article already contains most of the ideas in the passage I cited. It
already mentions Karl Popper, it already talks about
"falsifiability," and it has quite a bit of other information that is
actually quite a bit more detailed than the passage I quoted from my
book.

>For that matter, what are the legal technicalities involved in the
>case where a published author wants to donate a tiny portion of a
>copyrighted work, to the public via the GPL? (I'm not saying Sheldon
>would want to do so in this case: this is brilliant prose, and he's
>entitled to make money off it; more power to him!)

I'm not an attorney, but U.S. copyright law, as spelled out in 17 USC
107, says that "fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright." It goes on to specify
the following criteria to be used in judging whether the use made of
a work constitutes fair use:

>(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
>is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
>the copyrighted work as a whole; and
>(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
>the copyrighted work.

With regard to points (1) and (4), Wikipedia would be on solid ground
in quoting brief excerpts from a book or other published work of
significant length. Wikipedia isn't a commercial venture, and a brief
quotation or adaptation from a book wouldn't hurt sales. Assuming
attribution is given, it would probably *contribute* to sales. No
harm, no foul.

I'm not sure what point (2) is intended to address, but I think it
applies to unauthorized use of confidential documents or trade
secrets.

On point (3), the "amount and substantiality" of an excerpt is
subject to varying court interpretations, depending on the nature of
the work. Quoting a brief poem in its entirety could be a copyright
violation, but a 1,000-word passage from a book probably isn't.

If you wish to research this further, the following URLs may help:

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/clasguid.htm
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov96/96a0357p.06.html
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------


in_reply_to:
<3E7A868C.3030006@telus.net> (message from Ray Saintonge on Thu,
	20 Mar 2003 19:27:08 -0800)

body:
|From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
|Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:27:08 -0800
|
|Sheldon Rampton wrote:
|
|> Ed Poor wrote:
|>

<megasnip>
|
|> "Junk science," by contrast, is quite a different beast.
|
|Oddly enough, I don't find as much controversy in the concept of junk
|science.  Even though there may be some dispute about the specific
|practices to be included under that rubric, there does not tend to be
|the sort of philosophical and definitional problems found with
|pseudoscience.
|
|Eclecticology
|
|

The difference is that nobody either believes, or believes in, junk
science, as it it is usually simply being trotted out to win a lawsuit
or criminal trial, sell some machine, pass a law or some other easily
discerned purpose.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Okhrana and Google

body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 22:52, Zoe wrote:
>> sannse <sannse at delphiforums.com> wrote:
>> I just did a search on Google for "Okhrana" and came up with
>> www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Okhrana&action=edit as the 10th
>> hit. But that's a link to an edit page
>
> I think the problem was that Google had cached our page, and I just
> deleted it.  You therefore got sent to a nonexistent entity.

That wouldn't have gone to an edit page, just to a blank page. The
problem here is that an actual edit URL got into google at some point
and is still coming up in results.

Sannse, we *do* exclude edit pages from google's and other bots'
spiders, doubly:

* robots.txt excludes access to the /w/ subdirectory, and thus all
  direct script actions (edits, histories, diffs, printable mode,
  changing options/length on recentchanges, etc), so it shouldn't be
  touching them at all.

* edit pages and such have meta tags telling robots "noindex,nofollow";
  ie that if they do end up with that page, they shouldn't index it, and
  shouldn't follow links from it, but should just toss the page out and
  go back where it came from.

A few have somehow gotten through. I'm not sure how. They may be old and
not yet flushed (googlebot is still going over the site and hasn't
reindexed every page yet). Note that in the google results there's no
summary extract, no cache, no notice of the size. It's just a raw URL
sitting there in the results. That's weird and wrong, and to me
indicates a problem in their index.

>> (and for some reason one without the "You've followed a link to a
>> page that doesn't exist.." explanation.)

Hmm, I *do* see that message when I follow the link.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030320/f5af7c8a/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Search engine disabled - google cannot find
	every wiki page

body:
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 22:46, james duffy wrote:
> One problem with relying on google. It still does not carry all wikipedia
> pages. ....

That's why it's a temporary emergency measure, not a permanent
deliberate change.

I've restored the regular search during off-peak hours (04:00-16:00 UTC;
20:00-08:00 US west coast; for the aussies, this should be 14:00-02:00
Canberra time if I'm reading my timezone chart right).

We should be able to dump the google crutch entirely soon. We've a new
second server on the way to spread out the work over two machines; a new
stable MySQL release is out which should be able to search faster (if
I'm to believe what I'm told) which we will be testing shortly; and load
is down a bit thanks to PHP Accelerator, which I've installed on
Marumani's advice. (It seems more stable than the Alternative PHP Cache,
which we had used off and on in the past, but which we had some problems
with and had to remove.)

>  And if those two pages don't exist according
> to goodle,  what other wiki pages does it not recognise and why?

It won't recognize anything that didn't exist when google last crawled
our site. It might not recognize things that had errors when it last
checked them.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030321/cd68535c/attachment.pgp


body:
 >I'm not an attorney, but U.S. copyright law, as spelled out in 17 USC
107, says that "fair use of a
 > copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or
 > research, is not an infringement of copyright." It goes on to specify
the following criteria to be used in
 > judging whether the use made of a work constitutes fair use:

You seem familiar with copyright law. I have considered making Wikipedia
a little prettier by finding suitable pictures for some articles. If I
find a photograph of, say, a koala, and I want to add it to [[Koala]],
is that permissable (if I can attribute the photo)?


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 00:26, cprompt wrote:
>  >I'm not an attorney, but U.S. copyright law, as spelled out in 17 USC
> 107, says that "fair use of a
>  > copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
> reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or
>  > research, is not an infringement of copyright." It goes on to specify
> the following criteria to be used in
>  > judging whether the use made of a work constitutes fair use:
>
> You seem familiar with copyright law. I have considered making Wikipedia
> a little prettier by finding suitable pictures for some articles. If I
> find a photograph of, say, a koala, and I want to add it to [[Koala]],
> is that permissable (if I can attribute the photo)?

You really should try not to. Others think we can get away with it; but
it's certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

But there is tons of discussion on this issue already on Wikipedia...can
someone pull up the links?


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Let's all relax a notch or two

in_reply_to: <1048191968.23322.40.camel@venus.mit.edu>; from cunctator@kband.com on Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:26:08PM -0500

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> Okay, everyone's appalled. Congratulations. Can we tone down the
> rhetoric now?

I second the motion.  I've been a bit behind in my wiki-emails, and
I'm just catching up.  Had I been around, I would have posted soothing
comments about WikiLove long ago.

Let's all cut each other some slack, huh?

--Jimbo


body:
cprompt wrote:
> You seem familiar with copyright law. I have considered making Wikipedia
> a little prettier by finding suitable pictures for some articles. If I
> find a photograph of, say, a koala, and I want to add it to [[Koala]],
> is that permissable (if I can attribute the photo)?

Fair use is a grey area for us.  As a non-profit encyclopedia, we are
in a fairly strong position to make fair use of materials so long as
the *other* factors for fair use are reasonably met.

Here's a good article about it for those who need background:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html

(Interestingly, this article was written by Condoleeza Rice, not
normally famous for copyright analysis!)

HOWEVER, we are also producing a GNU FDL work that we anticipate being
licensed widely, and not everyone who licenses our content will have
the same "fair use" status.  This is at least potentially problematic.

Additionally, if we view part of our charitable mission here as
"expanding the intellectual commons", then we ought to be biased
against "fair use" and in favor of "GNU FDL" images.

The issue is similar to the question of including non-free software
bundled with free software.  I think we should tend to be purists in
this regard.

It's worth noting, though, that we can't be *absolute* purists unless
we are willing to forego even quoting of sources.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: A Friendly Challenge to Sheldon Rampton

in_reply_to: <oprmdeuvhak4g8ki@news.gmane.org>; from dramatic@xtra.co.nz on Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:57:57PM +1200

body:
Richard Grevers wrote:
> And if you really want a photo of a Koala, I have one I took myself,
> which I amd happy to release, also kangaroos, wombats and a dingo.

I have often thought that a fun website would be for amateur
photographers who are willing to release images under the GNU FDL or
similar.  To be really good, it would be great if such a site had
forms for people to print and sign and paper-mail in, formally
attesting to their taking the picture and releasing it under GNU FDL.

There are a great many images that would be nice to have in an
encyclopedia -- photos of famous buildings, landmarks, celebrities,
news events, etc.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <20030321142549.GQ35591@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk>; from jason@jasonandali.org.uk on Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:25:49PM +0000

body:
Jason Williams wrote:
> I think following US copyright law is a mistake - much better to
> follow a policy of complying with the law in as many countries
> as feasible. (I've no idea if in this case it makes a difference,
> I just wanted to raise the point)

I like this suggestion generally, but I'm not sure what differences
there might be.  U.S. copyright law is pretty restrictive, so if we
adhere to U.S. copyright law, we're probably not violating anyone
else's copyright laws.  Are there counter-examples?

And I'd make a distinction (philosophically questionable, but we're
trying to get work done here 'on the ground') between complying with
laws that are _copyright_ restrictions versus complying with laws that
are _censorship_.  In that case, I have to insist that we not worry
too much wether NPOV articles might be illegal in some other
countries.  Individual contributors should do what they need to do to
stay out of jail, of course.

For example, there was a brief controversy about whether certain types
of articles about racism might be illegal in France.  I don't really
care, although I certainly encourage our French wikipedians to do what
they need to do to obey the law in their own country.

On the other hand, most of the censorship laws in Europe don't really
impact NPOV articles anyway.  In France, it's illegal to insult the
President.  But insulting people is not NPOV anyway, so there's really
no conflict.

--Jimbo

Article on French censorship:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,900093,00.html


from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Search engine disabled - google cannot find every wiki page

body:
One problem with relying on google. It still does not carry all wikipedia
pages. I wanted to check something on the Papal Coronation page but google
couldn't find it. I also wanted to check something on the Papal Tiara page.
Again google never heard of it. Yet these pages definitely do exist. I know.
I created them. I have been in them since I first created them. And I could
find them on our search engine but not via google. (I ended up using my
watchlist to track them down.) And if those two pages don't exist according
to goodle,  what other wiki pages does it not recognise and why?
JT
>
>And for any doubters, this is NOT NOT NOT intended to be permanent or
>semi-permanent. It should be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
><< signature.asc >>

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: sannse

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Okhrana and Google

body:
I just did a search on Google for "Okhrana" and came up with
www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Okhrana&action=edit as the 10th hit.
But that's a link to an edit page (and for some reason one without the
"You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist.." explanation.)

If edit pages show up in Google like this, that must really increase the
number of  confused nonsense edits. (It was looking for information for a
stub to replace one of these that made me do the search in the first place.)

Isn't there some way excluding edit pages from being seen by Google?

sannse


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Okhrana and Google

body:
Zoe wrote:

>>I think the problem was that Google had cached our page, and I just
deleted it.  You therefore got sent to a nonexistent entity.

I don't think so, because the link on Google was to the edit page itself,
not to the article (see the end of the link, "&action=edit") - that's what
worried me.

The page only existed for a short time, I noticed it on "recent changes" and
blanked it, then Googled to find replacement text.  You deleted it while I
was gone (quite rightly of course :)  So I don't think Google would be
likely to have picked it up in that short time anyway.

I did a little more looking around.  Google searches for some other
non-existant pages have the same problem (I added "wikipedia" to the search
to speed things up)

wikipedia "Spinal tumor"
www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Spinal_tumor&action=edit

wikipedia "Alexander disease"
www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alexander's_disease&action=edit

It doesn't come up with all non-existant pages though: wikipedia "Benign
Essential Blepharospasm" was OK for example.

sannse


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Okhrana and Google

body:
Brion wrote (in part):

>>Hmm, I *do* see that message when I follow the link.

So do I now (could have sworn it wasn't there before).  That must reduce the
confusion factor somewhat.

So I guess we just wait for Google to catch up.  In most cases I don't think
it will matter anyway, the links will be very low down on the list of hits.
"Okhrana" was unusual in that the link was visible on the first page of the
search - and that made me wonder if the page had been created by someone
following that link.

Thanks for the explanation,

sannse


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

body:
At 12:26 AM 3/21/03 -0500, cprompt wrote:
> >I'm not an attorney, but U.S. copyright law, as spelled out in 17 USC
> 107, says that "fair use of a > copyrighted work...for purposes such as
> criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or
> > research, is not an infringement of copyright." It goes on to specify
> the following criteria to be used in
> > judging whether the use made of a work constitutes fair use:
>
>You seem familiar with copyright law. I have considered making Wikipedia a
>little prettier by finding suitable pictures for some articles. If I find
>a photograph of, say, a koala, and I want to add it to [[Koala]], is that
>permissable (if I can attribute the photo)?

Probably not. I am not a lawyer, but the criticism and comment part of fair use
is criticism or comment about the work in question--that is, you can quote
part of
a novel in a review of said novel, or a photo of a koala if you're writing
a critical
article about the photographer's work.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Okhrana and Google

body:
At 11:41 PM 3/20/03 -0800, Brion wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 22:52, Zoe wrote:
> >> sannse <sannse at delphiforums.com> wrote:
> >> I just did a search on Google for "Okhrana" and came up with
> >> www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Okhrana&action=edit as the 10th
> >> hit. But that's a link to an edit page
> >
> > I think the problem was that Google had cached our page, and I just
> > deleted it.  You therefore got sent to a nonexistent entity.
>
>That wouldn't have gone to an edit page, just to a blank page. The
>problem here is that an actual edit URL got into google at some point
>and is still coming up in results.
>
>Sannse, we *do* exclude edit pages from google's and other bots'
>spiders, doubly:
>
>* robots.txt excludes access to the /w/ subdirectory, and thus all
>   direct script actions (edits, histories, diffs, printable mode,
>   changing options/length on recentchanges, etc), so it shouldn't be
>   touching them at all.

Google is in the habit of ignoring robots.txt files. (This keeps coming
up on LiveJournal, where the support volunteers have to explain to people
that even if they've asked not to be indexed, they'll have to contact
Google and ask to be removed.)
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

body:
cprompt wrote:

>You seem familiar with copyright law. I have considered making Wikipedia
>a little prettier by finding suitable pictures for some articles. If I
>find a photograph of, say, a koala, and I want to add it to [[Koala]],
>is that permissable (if I can attribute the photo)?

My familiarity with copyright law is limited to having a general idea
of how the law affects my work as someone who writes primarily for
media outside the GNU Public License (GPL). I'm not an attorney, and
I don't claim special expertise. If anyone here challenges anything I
have written about copyright and fair use, I'll defer to their
judgment.

That said, I think there's a difference between a photograph as
opposed to text. To begin with, reproducing a photo amounts to
reproducing the entire work, not just an excerpt. In the field of
music, I believe there are strict rules against reproducing even
brief excerpts of someone else's work without express permission.
There's been a fair amount of legal wrangling over the practice of
"sampling" by Hip Hop artists.

When it comes to trademarks or brands, there are other issues. Disney
is very aggressive against anyone who uses the image of Mickey Mouse
without their permission, and McDonald's has taken people to court
for allegedly infringing their proprietary ownership of the letters
"Mc." In one case, they sued a guy in California for calling his
organic fast-food restaurant "McDharma's."

Personally, I think some of these restrictions are ridiculous. In
fact, I've been toying with the idea of starting an online open
source fiction novel, using the Wiki rules that allow anyone to
contribute and edit. It would be a murder mystery, set at Disney
World and titled "Steal This Mouse." The plot would revolve around a
series of murders that appear to be linked to some coverup within the
company. The protagonist would be a Disney PR consultant who is torn
by the conflict of having to defend the company's reputation while
simultaneously trying to help the cops catch the killer. The novel
would use Disney-branded characters and symbols and would also
comment on the company's obsession with controlling its brands. In
addition to discussing issues of censorship and intellectual
property, "Steal This Mouse" would itself constitute an act of civil
disobedience, daring the company to crack down in the real world and
mocking any attempts to do so.

I haven't done it yet, though...just an idea... ;)
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------


subject: [Wikipedia-l] eo visitor statistics?

body:
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 02:54, Chuck Smith wrote:
> I've just been asked for the visitor statistics to the
> Esperanto Wikipedia for an article about Esperanto
> webpages.  Can someone please pass this information on
> to me?  I asked for it several months ago and from
> what I remember, no one replied.

http://eo.wikipedia.org/stats/

Unfortunately, I haven't yet put the eo stats into the update queue, so
they only go up to january at the moment. I'll get those updated...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030321/013ca735/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Take your own dang pictures (was Re: A Friendly Challenge to
 Sheldon Rampton)

body:
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 04:05, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I have often thought that a fun website would be for amateur
> photographers who are willing to release images under the GNU FDL or
> similar.  To be really good, it would be great if such a site had
> forms for people to print and sign and paper-mail in, formally
> attesting to their taking the picture and releasing it under GNU FDL.

Sounds like a job for wikimedia.org!

In the meantime, of course, we have the underutilized
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_pictures

I highly encourage people to replace disputed images with ones of known
compatible license, which is most easily ensured by taking them
yourself.

Of course things like album covers and historical events might be
tricky. ;)

> There are a great many images that would be nice to have in an
> encyclopedia -- photos of famous buildings, landmarks, celebrities,
> news events, etc.

I keep meaning to wander around LA with a camera and snap some pictures.
Hopefully I won't get picked up on suspicion of planning terrorist acts!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030321/10b413b5/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:

> Personally, I think some of these restrictions are ridiculous. In
> fact, I've been toying with the idea of starting an online open source
> fiction novel, using the Wiki rules that allow anyone to contribute
> and edit. It would be a murder mystery, set at Disney World and titled
> "Steal This Mouse." The plot would revolve around a series of murders
> that appear to be linked to some coverup within the company. The
> protagonist would be a Disney PR consultant who is torn by the
> conflict of having to defend the company's reputation while
> simultaneously trying to help the cops catch the killer. The novel
> would use Disney-branded characters and symbols and would also comment
> on the company's obsession with controlling its brands. In addition to
> discussing issues of censorship and intellectual property, "Steal This
> Mouse" would itself constitute an act of civil disobedience, daring
> the company to crack down in the real world and mocking any attempts
> to do so.
>
> I haven't done it yet, though...just an idea... ;)

Great idea!  I believe that this is where the "nature of the work"
factor in determining fair use comes into play.  This has to do with the
transformational nature of the derivative work, and how much is changed
from the original.  Satire has certainly been accepted as fair use, and
people in the public eye (including Mickey) are open to satire far more
than individuals whose lives are exclusively private.  I do think that
making it a "murder" mystery may be a little too restrictive on the
plot.  Something a little more obscure, where the nature of the "crime"
itself is a mystery, might be more appropriate to circumstances where
creative activity is restricted in the name of creative activity.

"Steal this Mouse" is not an act of civil disobedience, and that's
precisely why it's so subversive -- in the same way as Abbie Hoffman's
"Steal This Book"  There was also the story of the Dadaist artist in the
1930s who created a sculpture that included a ceramic figure, a hammer
and a sign saying "break me".  He sold the sculpture for big bucks to a
major cultural institution, who then put it on display.  When a visitor
picked up the hammer and broke the ceramic figure he was criminally
charged for his act, but defended himself successfully in court because
he was only following instructions.

"The Mouse's" reputation would more be far more damaged would be more
readily damaged if its actions were seen as un-American.  Common murder
does not qualify for this award.

Eclecticology