from_name: John Knouse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking vandals

body:
1) Allow sysops to check the IP of new contributors
2) Allow sysops to block new contributors by IP/name
 3) Have IP blocks expire after a definable amount of time
 4) Use an additional cookie-based "soft blocking" mechanism
that should
 fool the technically challenged.
 5) In order to increase sysop accountability, log all sysop
actions
in the  recent_changes (e.g. user:foo banned, page xyz
protected)

I agree with these as long as there's no other new cookie
use or java use; I despise them both.  I do think it's
legitimate to block people trying to vandalize, and I think
that one vandalism incident is PLENTY enough, IF IT IS TRULY
VANDALISM.  For instance, cutting and pasting something from
one page to another completely unrelated page is obvious
vandalism, or inserting a sentence such as "You are gay" is
obvious vandalism.  However, in some of these edit wars,
I've looked at some older versions and sometimes can't
figure out what people were getting so upset about.  I've
mostly been impressed by the objectivity of Wikipedia
results, and know that there are people editing who are both
left-leaning and right-leaning, but it can still come out
pretty neutral.

I do think it's a good idea, too, to set up a nonprofit and
am willing to do whatever I can to help.

--
John Knouse
jaknouse at frognet.net


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article

body:
My understanding was that npov wasnt a consensus,
rather it was a collection of opinions, each presented
as OPINIONS, not facts, and that often, consensuses
were never reached, as they are usually never reached
in political or philosophical debate. There are many
different ideas of what art is, and as many as
possible should be presented.  The knowledge article
is still POV as of the time of this writing, and it
will remain so unill people present their arguments of
what knowledge is.  Personally, I don't believe with a
word on the knowledge article, and I plan on changing
it to include my philosophies. It should include every
philosophy. Don't be afraid to write yours down. It's
not POV unless you present it as a fact, like Larry
did.

--- Rotem Dan <rotem_dan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
> post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text,
> is
> inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
> obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
> remain merely a POV.
>
> It's like saying that by creating a wiki trying to
> "define" *what* is "art" , you will eventually (and
> ultimately) get to the point of consensus. that
> everyone will agree: "Yes, exactly, that is art".
> Great, all our problems solved, the wiki said Art is
> defined by X, Thought is Y and Knowledge is Z.
>
> Some things just shouldn't be written into a wiki.
>
> Rotem.

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


body:
I define knowledge much more broadly. Knowledge is
anything that can be known If you know what jesus had
on his last supper almost 2000 years ago, that's
knowledge. If you know what some guy had for lunch
last year, that's knowledge, that's knowledge too. If
you know a math theorem that you just finished but you
haven't told anyone, that's knowledge. If you know a
word that you invented but no one else in the world
knows, that's still knowledge.

--- Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I define knowledge as useful information.
>
> Knowing what some guy had for lunch last year, while
> technically
> knowledge, does very little in the way of
> usefulness.
>
> I define useful knowledge as information that allows
> critical
> thinking and analysis, as well as information that
> allows the solving
> of real world problems (supply chain management,
> solving crime,
> managing market economies, etc)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] JoanB is DW

body:
Well, once you get the foundation started... By the
way, how is that going?
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> I chuckled when I read that.  I get accused with
> some regularity of
> this all being a scam to make money (somehow!).
> Now, this would be
> the ultimate triumph -- I could require people to
> *pay me* to work on
> wikipedia.  :-) Sweet.
>
> --Jimbo

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Thomas Corell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Patch for LanguageDe.php (phase3 codebase)

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>>(Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>):
>>On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 11:35, Thomas Corell wrote:
>>>this patch corrects a type in LanguageDe.php.
>>Thanks! Patched in new (phase3) tree and installed on wiki.
>>>The typo exists in the phpwiki tree as well.
>>Hmm, is there any way we can mark that tree as deprecated?
>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> I suppose deleting all the files in it other than a README
> might be a good hint. :-)
>

No need, IMHO, to do this. I only mentioned this bug to Magnus some weeks
ago, but I think he was too busy to apply it. I only mentioned it, because
I did not know if any wiki still uses the old version.

Next paches will be phase3, without mentioning it ;)

Smurf
--
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] spammism

body:
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 21:38, Zoe wrote:
> We don't need to put every nonsense article on Votes for Deletion.  And besides, it's spelled wrong. Zoe
>
> Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:Wasn't Infogramation supposed to report it to
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion]] before deleting it? I
> think it's a valid topic and deserves an article.
> Sure, it doesn't have an article in Britannica, but so
> what? It's still information. It's not POV. I
> acknologed in my recreating of the article that it
> might be a joke.
>
Danny: just add the text to [[Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted
nonsense]].

And if you want a good project, that section needs some serious
attention, probably broken up into a few alphabetized sections.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database benchmarks

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Absolutely; lies, damned lies, and benchmarks, and all that. Disk
> I/O may well be a major culprit. Memory/CPU usage probably isn't.
> I'll run some more tests to check some of those things. I'll also run
> some tests for things like having the database on a separate machine,
> even PostgreSQL if I have the time (I'd appreciate it if the fellow
> who said he had it working would send me a patch).

If you meen me with the fellow, I thought I mentioned that I got the data
into a Postgresql DB, nothing more. To do this is easy, but that will not
result in a database you will run a 'speed' test with. And I don't have the
PHP Code running. I only use it to test queries.

To get a pg database which will give useful results, you have to modify the
db schemas in a appropriate way (and later the queries in the php pages).
Without this pg will loose in any test (especially speed measuring ones).

But my Server (a very fast Pentium 1 with 90 Mhz) is pretty happy with the
german wikipedia pages ;)

Nevertheless, I can help on questions concerning a proper implementation,
and I will continue to port the schemas. The next test I will work on is a
propper fulltext search, which is handled by a pg add on. But my Server is
a bit slow in moving of about 27MB data (german wiki) ;)

Smurf
--
Prayer: In the beginning there was IBM ... and IBM created SQL.
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Eric Demolli

body:
There is a whole branch of philosophy that deal with the nature
of science this is generally named as epistemology....

Knowlege is not science as knowledge as no obvious relationship
with truth. For instance  you can know a lot about conspiracy theories
or religion (I don't mean to hurt anybody.) even if they are false.
But science research truth.

Most advanced views about science will conclude that  :

"Science simply whatever is generally regarded as true
 these days by most experts"

With a minus, that is methodology. (I don't feel to explain more here
it's to late  and to much work for me to be understandable about this in
English)

In the previous sentence you can replace science with truth that works.
What can we conclude.... that truth doesn't exist it's just an aim.

A lot of people will jump to the conclusion that I have written that facts
didn't exists.
That's wrong, facts exists and the search of truth shoud rely on facts .

I don't know why I write this here, but they could be a lot a of good
articles about
think kind of subject.

As we are lacking some good lawyers in Wikipedia contributor we may
also lack some good philosophers.

Ericd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rotem Dan" <rotem_dan at yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:54 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article

> Just stumbled upon the "Knowledge" article, and was
> hit by shock and amazement:
>
> "You come to a gas station and the gas station
> attendant tells you: "I just heard from someone that
> there was a big accident just around the big curve on
> State Route 99. .."
>
> "So let's get down to business, and ask: What is
> knowledge? How can I define the word or the concept,
> 'knowledge'?"
>
> "In other words, by the word "knowledge," we don't
> mean simply whatever is generally regarded as true
> these days by most experts"
>
> In other words, a
> western-americo-centric-article-written-solely-in-
> the-point-of-view-an-almost-obscure-philosopher..
> (If this sounds like trolling, then I apologize, I am
> pretty angry right now.. :| )
>
> With all the respect for wikipedia's founders, please
> do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia.
> You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not
> an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite-
> philosopher.
> (Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
>
> Please consider leaving these type of texts as cites,
> or book references (drived by the usual
> wiki-consensus).
>
> Rotem
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] User Preferences

body:
Hello,
I found out (at german wiki) that in the 'special:preferences' is a
'translation error', but I looked at meta, and found the same missleading
sentence.

The Option 'Number of titles in recent changes:' (technically modifing
$wpRecent/$rclimit) is affecting more than 'recent changes'. It affects all
(?) generated lists.

This messages has a cc to wikipedia-l, if other languages will think about
a better 'translation' for their wiki's, too.

Smurf
--
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


subject: [Wikitech-l] User Preferences


body:
NPOV as nothing to do with consensus. And philosophy has is place in an
encyclopedia.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rotem Dan" <rotem_dan at yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article

> OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
> post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is
> inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
> obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
> remain merely a POV.
>
> It's like saying that by creating a wiki trying to
> "define" *what* is "art" , you will eventually (and
> ultimately) get to the point of consensus. that
> everyone will agree: "Yes, exactly, that is art".
> Great, all our problems solved, the wiki said Art is
> defined by X, Thought is Y and Knowledge is Z.
>
> Some things just shouldn't be written into a wiki.
>
> Rotem.
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>


from_name: Tony Wilson

subject: [WikiEN-l] JoanB is DW

body:
Jimbo posted to support Erik's suggestions:

> 1) Allow sysops to check the IP of new* contributors
> 2) Allow sysops to block new* contributors by IP/name
> 3) Have IP blocks expire after a definable amount of time
> 4) Use an additional cookie-based "soft blocking" mechanism that should
> fool the technically challenged
> 5) In order to increase sysop accountability, log all sysop actions
>in the  recent_changes (e.g. user:foo banned, page xyz protected)

Just adding my support for these very sensible suggestions. On first
sight I can't see the cookie thing working - it would fool any of my
better-informed customers for about 30 seconds - but then again, it
would completely bamboozle a good 50% of the others and it can't do any
real harm, so why not?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database benchmarks

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Ah, I see. Then testing PG is further away. Once you do get a
> reasonably efficient schema, fulltext search, etc., let me know
> and I'll see how easy it is to abstract those functions in the
> wiki software sufficiently to allow for a database comparison.
> For now I'll keep testing MySQL tweaks.

Just a question for optimizing the right way. Are the queries known used
mainly? This will help e.g. to setup helpful views. I think all queries
concerning the displaying of a page, e.g. Or is your test suite a proper
place to look for such queries?

Smurf
--
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


body:
But the article can expose non-consensual opinions in a balanced way....
The consensus should researched  about NPOV not about the subject of the
article.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rotem Dan" <rotem_dan at yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article

>
> --- Eric Demolli <demolli at unice.fr> wrote:
> > NPOV as nothing to do with consensus.
> NPOV causes consensus. An article that looks neutral
> causes the feeling of confidence which leads to a
> consnsus between the persons writing and viewing the
> aritcle.
>
> >And philosophy has is place in an
> > encyclopedia.
> >
>
> I agree, So I suggest writing like this
> ..
> In western philosophy
> [...]
> In eastern philosophy
> [...]
> ..
>
> See the famous works of the world-known western
> philosophers:
> Nietzsche, Friedrich ..
> Sanger, Larry (available online) ..
> Kant, Immanuel ..
> ..
> And respected works of chinese philosophers
> ..
> ..
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database benchmarks

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>>(Thomas Corell <T.Corell at t-online.de>):
>>
>>Just a question for optimizing the right way. Are the queries known
>>used mainly? This will help e.g. to setup helpful views. I think all
>>queries concerning the displaying of a page, e.g. Or is your test
>>suite a proper place to look for such queries?
> I'm sorry, I don't understand that question at all. There are no
> views at all used in the DB. All queries are composed by the software
> referring directly to the database tables, and are about as optimal
> as we could make them under the limits of MySQL, but it's quite
> possible that we've missed a number of optimizations.

Well, of course there are actually no views - MySQL don't support them. But
PostgreSQL does. And if you have for one often used operation (e.g.
displaying a wikipage) a select operation depending on a selection of
tables and rows, it can improve performance if you have a view with proper
indices exactly optimized for this operation.

Knowing these operations and the time they need to fullfill a successful
operation, plus the usage statistic of this operation, leads to the
knowlegde which of them will need as much performance as it can get.
Example:
                    DB-costs / operation     operations / hour   total time
Update of a page:         2sec                     1000           2000sec
Display a page            1sec                    100000         100000sec

If you can reduce the DB-costs/operation by 50% ( 1sec , 0.5sec ) you get
for the Update 1000sec benefit, for the Display 50000sec. This shows that
getting a better performance on Update operation is quite useless.

I hope this explanation was a bit more clearly. I will take a look at your
test suite and again at the php source. If I get a proper running
PostgreSQL configuration, I will tell you.

> The test suite interacts with the wiki over the web, just a user
> would, so it has no knowledge of any code internals.
>

Smurf
--
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Several Wikipedias now ready for download to Pocket PC, Palm or EPOC handheld or offline browsing under Windows

body:
TomeRaider versions of English, German and Dutch Wikipedias are now
ready for download
See [[Wikipedia:TomeRaider database]]

Would it be appropriate to mention this on the frontpage, e.g. next to
"DB download" and perhaps temporarily announce this as current event or
something like that?

Erik Zachte
epzachte at chello.nl

See also http://members.ams.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia


from_name: Rotem Dan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rotem Dan wrote:
>
> >With all the respect for wikipedia's founders,
> please
> >do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia.
>
>You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not
>
>an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite-
> >philosopher.
> >(Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
> >
> >
> >
> It isn't a tribute, AFAIK.
> Larry put a large quantity of what are, basically,
> lecture notes on
> Wikipedia to kick-start the philosophy area.
> It says *somewhere* that anyone should feel free to
> kick these into shape!
> If you feel you can rewrite them - do!

I am not a philosopher. I'm arguing that these texts
are inappropriate for an encyclopedia that tries to be
universal.  Another example would be putting
AxelBoldt's comparison of "US vs Germany", with a
comment like "I know this is biased, and sucks overall
and reflects the opinions of one person, so be bold
and add your own opinion and rewrite this!"
(I don't mean to say Axel's comparison sucks, it is
actually quite interesting, I've read the whole
thing..)

It's like constructing the basis of a round building,
and saying: "I know this is what I could do so be bold
an build over this..". What If another person wants a
square building or triangular building? or maybe they
want a small house and maybe there's a peculiar person
who wants to make this a bridge?

Think about it..

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text (was: Larry's text on the ..)

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm really behind in my email, sorry.
>
> That Ideapedia sounds really interesting, I'll tell
> you more about my opinion when I get around to
> reading
> your original ideapedia post. I still think an
> allpedia, allows anything short of shortening
> articles, would be better, and it would incompass
> your
> ideapedia.

I wasn't the one that posted about ideapedia, it was
someone else on this newsgroup. I actually like both
the "Ideapedia" concept, and "Allpedia" concept..

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


body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Well, if you consult Britannica what they do in
> philosophical articles is
> set forth the history of philosophical thought on a
> subject. Here we try,
> usually unsuccessully, to address the issue itself.

I argue this shouldn't be done as a principle, the
articles are complicated enough. This is also a matter
of quality vs quantity, I don't think the latter 80%
of the "knowledge" article, adds a significant insight
for the reader's understanding in proportion to the
amount of text given.

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


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia meetup!

body:
I just signed us up at meetup.com and I thought you
all might be interested in participating!  If you're
interested, it's going to happen on Monday, May 12 @
7:00PM at a city near you.  If you'd like to sign up
or find out more information, go to
http://wikipedia.meetup.com/.

See ya there,  ;-)
Chuck

=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
My homepage - http://www.ikso.net/~chuck
Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
> and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far -
> better than nothing.
I agree it's better than nothing, and contributions
should be welcomed (Especially by experts and
scholars), but is an *encyclopedia* the right place to
put this text in? I think that if you grant Larry to
put his texts on the site, than you should grant
*everyone* to put their own text. Then I should be
allowed to add my own text about "knowledge" meaning
nothing to me and the importance of smelly socks in
the stream of consciousness of an old couch..

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
> Actually I
> also think his text, indeed
> most of his philosophical writings could probably be
> deleted without
> reducing the amount of information in the
> encyclopedia. However reverts have
> occured when his material is deleted.
>
> Be careful, he has his supporters.

Well I'm not doing anything without the agreement of
the majority of other wikipedians. I'm arguing that
putting *any* of his text is a type of bias, and
unfare for other contributers who want their work
published in this way (In my example even if others
will probably dismiss my "writings" as psuedo-science
or just utter nonsense).

I think we should start a vote,

* either Larry's text is removed (or transfered to
ideapedia/allpedia previously suggested). I am willing
to compormise even more to say it wouldn't be linked
to and wouldn't possibly be found by a casual
wikipedia user. (i.e. on searches, inlined in other
articles like
"knowledge" etc..)

* or: Larry's text is adopted and inlined/linked as
"de facto" philosophical literature. (As it is today,
or even more) and "peer-reviewed" by wiki readers.

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


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Well, when I edited the article, (adding most of the first 20%) I did not
disturb Larry's text because I knew who he was and didn't want trouble. (I
found it later with him at "reality". Actually I also think his text, indeed
most of his philosophical writings could probably be deleted without
reducing the amount of information in the encyclopedia. However reverts have
occured when his material is deleted.

Be careful, he has his supporters.

Fred

> From: Rotem Dan <rotem_dan at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 03:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
>
>
> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> Well, if you consult Britannica what they do in
>> philosophical articles is
>> set forth the history of philosophical thought on a
>> subject. Here we try,
>> usually unsuccessully, to address the issue itself.
>
> I argue this shouldn't be done as a principle, the
> articles are complicated enough. This is also a matter
> of quality vs quantity, I don't think the latter 80%
> of the "knowledge" article, adds a significant insight
> for the reader's understanding in proportion to the
> amount of text given.
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
At this point, may I suggest you either edit the article or drop the
subject. If as you say you don't know the area perhaps you should edit
articles in areas you do know. Generic articles in the philosophical area
depend to a certain extent on life experience so almost anyone can edit
them, but as you implicitly point out not all experience is significant.

Fred

> From: Rotem Dan <rotem_dan at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text
>
>> and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far -
>> better than nothing.
> I agree it's better than nothing, and contributions
> should be welcomed (Especially by experts and
> scholars), but is an *encyclopedia* the right place to
> put this text in? I think that if you grant Larry to
> put his texts on the site, than you should grant
> *everyone* to put their own text. Then I should be
> allowed to add my own text about "knowledge" meaning
> nothing to me and the importance of smelly socks in
> the stream of consciousness of an old couch..
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fair use (was Using RachelCorrie's name as a user name - sickening)

in_reply_to: <20030417173120.10390.qmail@web41807.mail.yahoo.com>; from littledanehren@yahoo.com on Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:31:20AM -0700

body:
I don't mean to sound harsh, but issues of the law and copyright are
complicated and fairly important, and "fair use" in particular is a
thorny issue for us.  People ought not to make dramatic pronouncements
without citing court cases or legislation to back up those
pronouncements.

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> I think Wikipedia should consider the fair use doctrine null and
>void.

I think it would be pretty impossible for us to go that far.  Whenever
you quote even a sentence from a book, you're relying on "fair use" --
and as far as I know, the doctrine of fair use is not "null and void"
in the law, not even close.

At the outer limits of fair use there are many unresolved questions,
of course.  And for our purpose (i.e. the intention that people may
repurpose our content in ways that we can't anticipate) we should be
cautious.  But there is no serious sense in which the fair use
doctrine is null and void.

>Under the DMCA, pretty much any distribution of copywrighted
>material is illegal.

This sentence is just outrageously false.  The DMCA is a mixed bag,
with some good provisions and some bad provisions.  But it doesn't
do what you say it does.

>(I know I shouldn't be saying this on the list, but the RIAA is suing
>someone for distributing software in Yale that emulates Napster and
>they're trying to get 97.8 trillion dollars.)

Whatever the merits, or lack thereof, of that case, it in no way
implies that the fair use doctrine is null and void.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Censorship article

body:
It seems like this is a good discussion topic for a talk page, not
really a policy discussion topic for the list, unless it becomes just
completely unresolvable in that format.

Two thoughts:

1.  Putting this information under "censorship in the United States"
doesn't really make sense, because although this is generally related
to problems of information reliability, it isn't really censorship nor
evidence of censorship.

2.  If it is true that the phrase "media distraction" is a neologism
more or less coined here at wikipedia, then it's not a good article
title.

It strikes me that the right thing to do is more research, to find out
what academics who study these kinds of things call them.  And then
have an article about that.

Tannin wrote "Any introductory Media Studies course will cover this
sort of thing.  Alas, it's been a long, long time since I did Media
101 and I've forgotten all the proper terms."

Probably the best thing to do is for someone to dig up just such a
book and reword the article from there.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: JoanB is DW

in_reply_to: <20030417181254.66021.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com>; from obchodnakorze@yahoo.com on Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 11:12:54AM -0700

body:
koyaanis qatsi wrote:
> Wow.  This is very nearly the last thing I'd want to
> happen to wikipedia.  In fact, I'd rather see Jimbo
> decide to close the site altogether.

Don't worry, it won't happen.  The last thing I need is to be calling
up every crank in the world to see if they are real people.

I think a useful analogy can be made to gun control.  Adding barriers
to entry will discourage most normal people, but will only discourage
some of the cranks, who tend to be highly motivated.  So rather than
regulations actually helping the problem, they just make it worse.

--Jimbo


body:
Rotem Dan wrote:
> OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
> post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is
> inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
> obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
> remain merely a POV.

It's on Larry's user page, right?  We've always taken a *fairly* lax
view of what can be on user pages, and this seems to fall well within
our normal boundaries.

User pages are not _in_ the encyclopedia.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:

> So, reiterating what I've said twice: it's not
> "larry's OWN text". It's
> been called "Larry's text" as an abbreviation.

Hmm.. I think I overreacted to the use of the "'s",
like Larry "owns" this text, still, I think
wikipedia's
ethics should not allow contributors to write under
their own name, this is a part of the GFDL. If Larry
or anyone wants to be recognized, they can publish
this on their personal website.

> Please don't let's turn
> this into a huge issue where there is none.
> oh, wait, it already has been.
It is not a "huge" issue, just something i'm trying to
point out.

Maybe it's not about Larry (nothing here is personal
anyway). Maybe it's about the introduction of highly
pre-mature (and somewhat biased and misorienting)
*SCIENTIFIC* texts/text-books/papers into the 'pedia,
why should this be done? If the contributor already
knows his/her addition is of a specialized field, in
which chances are low that fellow peers literate in
the field will review and modify, I think they
shouldn't have added that in the first place.

I'd rather 20 lines of accurate information, than 500
lines of
"unreviewed-unsupported-somewhat-scientific-text-of-
undergraduate-lectures"

Wikipedia seems to work for encyclopedic articles, not
for scientific papers or text-books. As for the
Knowledge article, I think a book reference would have
been suffice.

>
>  > you should grant *everyone* to put their own text
>
> well, we already do.... note the "Edit text of this
> page" link ;-)

Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher (or pretending
to be) and that is not the point.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
Wikipedia does not allow most people to insert their personal views on any
matter into any article. If Larry has to a certain extent been an exception
because of unique circumstances, the general rule remains valid. Simply edit
his material as you would anyone elses, with proper respect and eventualy
the problem will go away. After all Larry's texts are lectures from
undergraduate philosophy courses and do have value that can be added to.

Fre

> From: tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:05:14 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text
>
>
>
> Rotem Dan wrote:
>
>>> and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far -
>>> better than nothing.
>>>
>>>
>> I agree it's better than nothing, and contributions
>> should be welcomed (Especially by experts and
>> scholars), but is an *encyclopedia* the right place to
>> put this text in? I think that if you grant Larry to
>> put his texts on the site, than you should grant
>> *everyone* to put their own text. Then I should be
>> allowed to add my own text about "knowledge" meaning
>> nothing to me and the importance of smelly socks in
>> the stream of consciousness of an old couch..
>>
>>
>>
> I don't think that is what this is about.
> Larry's text was posted here in the first few *weeks* of Wikipedia.
> It was, AFAIK, posted to give the philosophy section a quick start. It
> just so happens that no decent philosopher has come along to rewrite it
> to read more like an encyclopedia article and less like Larry's personal
> notes.
>
> Larry disagreed with Fred Bauder's edits of [[Reality]], largely because
> they were lousy. Even I could tell that with only philosophy 101 in my
> back pocket; if I had felt a little more compentent I would have helped
> at the time.
>
> So, reiterating what I've said twice: it's not "larry's OWN text". It's
> been called "Larry's text" as an abbreviation. Please don't let's turn
> this into a huge issue where there is none.
> oh, wait, it already has been.
>
>> you should grant *everyone* to put their own text
>
> well, we already do.... note the "Edit text of this page" link ;-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


in_reply_to: <BAC559B8.1925%fredbaud@ctelco.net>; from fredbaud@ctelco.net on Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 07:28:56AM -0600

body:
URL?

Fred Bauder wrote:

> In this particular case it follows the Wikipedia article and is entitled,
> "philosophical discussion, larry's text"
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> > Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:56:26 -0700
> > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
> >
> > Rotem Dan wrote:
> >> OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
> >> post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is
> >> inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
> >> obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
> >> remain merely a POV.
> >
> > It's on Larry's user page, right?  We've always taken a *fairly* lax
> > view of what can be on user pages, and this seems to fall well within
> > our normal boundaries.
> >
> > User pages are not _in_ the encyclopedia.
> >
> > --Jimbo
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> URL?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

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


body:
I apologize to everyone, had I read more closely, I would have
understood that we are discussing this page:

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

I certainly agree that the "Larry's text" portion of the article needs
to be moved and edited into encyclopedic form.  It's an informal set
of notes for a philosophy 101 lecture, not an encyclopedia article.

There isn't any particular "privileged" reason why it's there -- it's
a historical artifact of very early development.  It should be edited
or (probably) moved.

The point has been raised that Larry's discussion of "knowledge" is
centered around justified true belief, Gettier problems, and the like,
rather than a more broad discussion which might encompass Eastern
views and so on.  It seems that this portion of text might be salvaged
by formalization and by moving it to something like "Knowledge in
Analytical Philosophy".

(Note: I don't recommend that title, exactly, because I'm not sure
that 'analytical' is the right word.  I'm not a professional
philosopher!)

--Jimbo


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

> rather than a more broad discussion which might
> encompass Eastern
> views and so on.

This is only one of the different points I brought up,
I will try to sum them all:

1. Giving the western philosophical views of
"Knowledge" should be paired by eastern ones (In the
same amount of detail) -- I don't expect this to be
done soon, as I've said on previous posts, the
majority of writers origin from western cultures, but
this should change.

2. Creating a wiki that tries to form a consensus
regarding the matter itself (by addressing the matter
directly, not the different views and historical
timeline) is an impossible task.

3. Encyclopedic articles should not try define the
matter (e.g. "What is knowledge?") unless it is
trivial (Like in Wikipedia's Knowledge article, as
opposed to Brittanica)

4. Encyclopedic article should cite and base the ideas
and concepts presented, preferably by reference to
known experts in the field (In this case
World-recognized philosophers)

5. One person's thought process may lead into
completely different "philosophical" discussion. So
stating that the "following discussion" presented is
the only "correct" one is a biased treatment of the
subject.

6. In this specific case (as an example), I argued
that
the latter 80% of the article doesn't add a
significant  insight on the matter, in proportion to
the amount of text given. (Quantity vs. Quality)

7. I propose another definition of what Wikipedia is
NOT: Wikipedia is NOT a collaborative project of
writing scientific papers or text-books, or any
debatable cognitive material for that matter.

I hope this explains it

Rotem

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


body:
In this particular case it follows the Wikipedia article and is entitled,
"philosophical discussion, larry's text"

Fred

> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:56:26 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
>
> Rotem Dan wrote:
>> OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
>> post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is
>> inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
>> obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
>> remain merely a POV.
>
> It's on Larry's user page, right?  We've always taken a *fairly* lax
> view of what can be on user pages, and this seems to fall well within
> our normal boundaries.
>
> User pages are not _in_ the encyclopedia.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
I'm still behind on my email, sorry.

Larry's text on the knowledge article reports on
knowledge from an epistemological point of view.
Epistemology is a very western belief, but even many
westerners (me, for example) don't believe it. Larry's
text doesn't report on any of the other philosophies,
most of which are from eastern cultures

--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Huh?  I'm afraid I'm totally at a loss as to why
> this is even remotely western centric, nor why it
> would make you angry.  Please explain. Zoe

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


body:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/knowledge

> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:31:14 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
>
> URL?
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> In this particular case it follows the Wikipedia article and is entitled,
>> "philosophical discussion, larry's text"
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
>>> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:56:26 -0700
>>> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
>>>
>>> Rotem Dan wrote:
>>>> OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
>>>> post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is
>>>> inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
>>>> obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
>>>> remain merely a POV.
>>>
>>> It's on Larry's user page, right?  We've always taken a *fairly* lax
>>> view of what can be on user pages, and this seems to fall well within
>>> our normal boundaries.
>>>
>>> User pages are not _in_ the encyclopedia.
>>>
>>> --Jimbo
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Sure, yeah, none of what you're saying is new or controversial.
I agree, and I guess just about everyone does.

--Jimbo

Rotem Dan wrote:

> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
> > rather than a more broad discussion which might
> > encompass Eastern
> > views and so on.
>
> This is only one of the different points I brought up,
> I will try to sum them all:
>
> 1. Giving the western philosophical views of
> "Knowledge" should be paired by eastern ones (In the
> same amount of detail) -- I don't expect this to be
> done soon, as I've said on previous posts, the
> majority of writers origin from western cultures, but
> this should change.
>
> 2. Creating a wiki that tries to form a consensus
> regarding the matter itself (by addressing the matter
> directly, not the different views and historical
> timeline) is an impossible task.
>
> 3. Encyclopedic articles should not try define the
> matter (e.g. "What is knowledge?") unless it is
> trivial (Like in Wikipedia's Knowledge article, as
> opposed to Brittanica)
>
> 4. Encyclopedic article should cite and base the ideas
> and concepts presented, preferably by reference to
> known experts in the field (In this case
> World-recognized philosophers)
>
> 5. One person's thought process may lead into
> completely different "philosophical" discussion. So
> stating that the "following discussion" presented is
> the only "correct" one is a biased treatment of the
> subject.
>
> 6. In this specific case (as an example), I argued
> that
> the latter 80% of the article doesn't add a
> significant  insight on the matter, in proportion to
> the amount of text given. (Quantity vs. Quality)
>
> 7. I propose another definition of what Wikipedia is
> NOT: Wikipedia is NOT a collaborative project of
> writing scientific papers or text-books, or any
> debatable cognitive material for that matter.
>
> I hope this explains it
>
> Rotem
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Sure, yeah, none of what you're saying is new or
> controversial.
> I agree, and I guess just about everyone does.

Ok, then what is the prefered course of action on
these matters? regarding the fact that almost all of
Wikipedia's articles about philosophy (and possibly
other subjects) suffer from some or all or this
faults?

I am beginning to think these are just defects
inherited from mistreatment in the early days of
wikipedia.

I've had problems implementing my suggestions on the
cultural issues (see earlier posts) in wikipedia's
policies, maybe because I think this will look like
concealed politically correctness, I don't know.

I'm reverting myself to the "Ignore all rules"
guideline.

Ohh what a relief :-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] New additions to the guidelines/policies (was:Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article)

body:
Ok then, now that jimmy agrees with this points (and
supposedly everyone), I will present what refinements
I'm adding to the policies and guidelines:

I am writing here from memory, so correct me if i'm
wrong..

> 1. Giving the western philosophical views of
> "Knowledge" should be paired by eastern ones (In the
> same amount of detail) -- I don't expect this to be
> done soon, as I've said on previous posts, the
> majority of writers origin from western cultures,
> but
> this should change.

Not adding, this seems like political correctness,
this is the type of rules I don't like, you cannot
force americans to write enthusiastically about
African cultures (or eastern philosophy for this
example).

> 2. Creating a wiki that tries to form a consensus
> regarding the matter itself (by addressing the
> matter
> directly, not the different views and historical
> timeline) is an impossible task.

Not really explained well in the rules, (AFAIK), I
will add this.

> 3. Encyclopedic articles should not try define the
> matter (e.g. "What is knowledge?") unless it is
> trivial (Like in Wikipedia's Knowledge article, as
> opposed to Brittanica)

I have yet to see this in the guidelines (maybe in a
subtle way).

> 4. Encyclopedic article should cite and base the
> ideas
> and concepts presented, preferably by reference to
> known experts in the field (In this case
> World-recognized philosophers)

Already written in the guidelines.

> 5. One person's thought process may lead into
> completely different "philosophical" discussion. So
> stating that the "following discussion" presented is
> the only "correct" one is a biased treatment of the
> subject.

Hmm.. I don't know about this.. seems like a regular
POV issue.

>
> 6. In this specific case (as an example), I argued
> that
> the latter 80% of the article doesn't add a
> significant  insight on the matter, in proportion to
> the amount of text given. (Quantity vs. Quality)

This is Quantity vs. Quality, I believe it's written.

>
> 7. I propose another definition of what Wikipedia is
> NOT: Wikipedia is NOT a collaborative project of
> writing scientific papers or text-books, or any
> debatable cognitive material for that matter.

Not written in the "What wikipedia is NOT"  article,
though it mentions "Original Research", I will broad
that definition.

If you have suggestions/objections please comment.

Rotem

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


body:
Rotem Dan wrote:
> Ok, then what is the prefered course of action on
> these matters?

"Edit this page"  :-)

It's good to be sensitive and kind to the work of others, and to try
on talk pages to be understanding and accomodating.  And it's also
good to "Be bold in updating pages".  Somewhere in the tension between
those two lies the genuis of wikipedia.

> I am beginning to think these are just defects
> inherited from mistreatment in the early days of
> wikipedia.

I wouldn't use the word "mistreatment", but it's certainly true that
Wikipedia can be improved, and in some areas it can be markedly
improved with a little bit of effort.

> I've had problems implementing my suggestions on the
> cultural issues (see earlier posts) in wikipedia's
> policies, maybe because I think this will look like
> concealed politically correctness, I don't know.

A love for the task at hand, and the fundamental and unshakable
convention that the bulk of Wikipedia participants want to do the
right thing will carry us all a long way.

Earlier, you posted in anger with what appeared to me to be a basic
assumption that we're trying to be biased or sucky or something.  Such
an approach -- leading with hostility rather than love -- tends to
raise hackles unnecessarily.  We're all guilty of it on occassion --
no big deal.  I'm just making a recommendation here.  :-)

--Jimbo


body:
Rotem Dan wrote:
> Ok then, now that jimmy agrees with this points (and
> supposedly everyone), I will present what refinements
> I'm adding to the policies and guidelines:

?  Pretty much everything you've said is perfectly consistent with
existing policies and guidelines, as far as I know.  So I don't think
you're updating those.

> > 2. Creating a wiki that tries to form a consensus regarding the
> > matter itself (by addressing the matter directly, not the
> > different views and historical timeline) is an impossible task.

> Not really explained well in the rules, (AFAIK), I
> will add this.

Be careful.  Rather than phrase this as a rule, it should be phrased
as a suggested route to achieve NPOV.  Achieving NPOV on
matters-in-themselves is often more difficult than achieving NPOV on
what-has-been-said-about-matters-in-themselves.

But this is not a new technique, we have long called it "going meta".

--Jimbo


body:
> Earlier, you posted in anger with what appeared to
> me to be a basic
> assumption that we're trying to be biased or sucky
> or something.  Such
> an approach -- leading with hostility rather than
> love -- tends to
> raise hackles unnecessarily.  We're all guilty of it
> on occassion --
> no big deal.  I'm just making a recommendation here.
>  :-)

Yes, I frequently have (so called) problems of
negative attitude (and over-suspicion).. But this
seems to be the way I can keep a critical eye on the
goings, instead of falling into the mundane "groupthinking".

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


body:
> Yes, I frequently have (so called) problems of
> negative attitude (and over-suspicion).. But this
> seems to be the way I can keep a critical eye on the
> goings, instead of falling into the mundane
> "groupthinking".

Or maybe just a sophisticatedly-concealed troll.. some
people just can't understand the depth of their
un-informednesness (new word) and lack of education
(in my case)

My self-doubts again :)

Rotem

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Eric Demolli wrote:

>But the article can expose non-consensual opinions in a balanced way....
>The consensus should researched  about NPOV not about the subject of the
>article.
>
No.  An article is about a particular subject, and about reaching NPOV
on that subject.  NPOV is a subject all by itself which shouldn't need
to be the wheel that's reinvented in articles on every subject.

Eclecticology


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
This would be a great place for the ideapedia or the allpedia, which could exist if someone responded about them.

Rotem Dan <rotem_dan at yahoo.com> wrote:
Wikipedia seems to work for encyclopedic articles, not
for scientific papers or text-books. As for the
Knowledge article, I think a book reference would have
been suffice.

---------------------------------
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/wikien-l/attachments/20030418/e0d825f6/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: JoanB is DW

body:
I don't agree with that analogy or even the original content of your message. It would be very hard for someone to get around it, and it would prevent most cranks.  But it would be very dammaging to both the values and user base of Wikipedia. (furthermore, I think the gun problem was small, but exagerated by the media, which makes people think that it won't be that weird if I shoot someone, so they feel less held back, and then the media overreports it again. It's a vicious cycle.)

Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:Don't worry, it won't happen. The last thing I need is to be calling
up every crank in the world to see if they are real people.

I think a useful analogy can be made to gun control. Adding barriers
to entry will discourage most normal people, but will only discourage
some of the cranks, who tend to be highly motivated. So rather than
regulations actually helping the problem, they just make it worse.

--Jimbo

---------------------------------
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/wikien-l/attachments/20030418/4fc174d6/attachment.htm


from_name: tarquin

body:
Rotem Dan wrote:

>With all the respect for wikipedia's founders, please
>do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia.
>You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not
>an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite-
>philosopher.
>(Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
>
>
>
It isn't a tribute, AFAIK.
Larry put a large quantity of what are, basically, lecture notes on
Wikipedia to kick-start the philosophy area.
It says *somewhere* that anyone should feel free to kick these into shape!
If you feel you can rewrite them - do!


from_name: koyaanis qatsi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: known experts (was re: Larry's text)

body:
Rotem writes:
> 4. Encyclopedic article should cite and base the
> ideas and concepts presented, preferably by
> reference to known experts in the field (In this
> case World-recognized philosophers)

As an aside, I'm still excited and surprised to find
topics wikipedia hasn't yet covered.  I just wrote a
brief stub on [[ephemeral film]] a few days ago--a
very new field of study.  Before 1982, when Rick
Prelinger began to collect the films, they were almost
universally mocked and dismissed.  But, in Prelinger's
view, these films--industrial, social guidance, driver
safety, drug prevention films etc.--all serve as
unintentional documentaries of the social environment
of the time and place they were made.

I bring this up because sometimes the known experts in
a field are very few indeed.  In this case, it's both
fun & daunting to start an article on the subject and
hope to cover it accurately and fairly.  On the one
hand, it's nice to know (and feel a bit smug) that it
will be years, perhaps decades, before Britannica
covers what you've just written about.  And, on the
other hand, I'm sure Britannica has an article on
[[D.A. Pennebaker]].

kq

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


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Paging user "Ryo"

body:
posted on our pump

--- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> wrote:
>
> From a little log-sleuthing it looks like user "Ryo"
> ran a few
> SQL queries on the French database this morning,
> causing the site
> to slow to a crawl for a while. They seem to be
> finished now, and
> no harm done, but I'd like to suggest that if there
> are some
> particular statistics you're looking for and you
> suspect that a
> particular query might be expensive, ask about it on
> one of the
> mailing lists. We might be able to help optimize it,
> or get the
> statistics another way, or even ust suggest a better
> time to run.
>
> --
> Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>
> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
> "All inventions or works of authorship original to
> me, herein and past,
> are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may
> be used or modified
> for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or
> notification."--LDC
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
Rotem Dan wrote:

>>It isn't a tribute, AFAIK.
>>Larry put a large quantity of what are, basically,
>>lecture notes on
>>Wikipedia to kick-start the philosophy area.
>>It says *somewhere* that anyone should feel free to
>>kick these into shape!
>>If you feel you can rewrite them - do!
>>
>>
>
>I am not a philosopher. I'm arguing that these texts
>are inappropriate for an encyclopedia that tries to be
>universal.  Another example would be putting
>AxelBoldt's comparison of "US vs Germany", with a
>comment like "I know this is biased, and sucks overall
>and reflects the opinions of one person, so be bold
>and add your own opinion and rewrite this!"
>(I don't mean to say Axel's comparison sucks, it is
>actually quite interesting, I've read the whole
>thing..)
>
>
>
I gave Larry's text a cursory read a long time ago, so I could be wrong.
But it seemed to me that it was a general overview, written in a fairly
informal style, rather than Larry's *own* opinion.
and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far - better than nothing.


from_name: Lee Daniel Crocker

subject: [Wikitech-l] Slow again

body:
> (Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck at easynet.be>):
> Is there someone playing with (unmastered) SQL queries?
> Wikipedia is again very sll ooo wwww.

Seems to be back now. Looks like an expensive SQL query again.
I couldn't even get MySQL to give me a process list--it was
running about 300 mysqld processes. Now it's down to a manageable
180 or so.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Paging user "Ryo"


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
Rotem Dan wrote:

>>and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far -
>>better than nothing.
>>
>>
>I agree it's better than nothing, and contributions
>should be welcomed (Especially by experts and
>scholars), but is an *encyclopedia* the right place to
>put this text in? I think that if you grant Larry to
>put his texts on the site, than you should grant
>*everyone* to put their own text. Then I should be
>allowed to add my own text about "knowledge" meaning
>nothing to me and the importance of smelly socks in
>the stream of consciousness of an old couch..
>
>
>
I don't think that is what this is about.
Larry's text was posted here in the first few *weeks* of Wikipedia.
It was, AFAIK, posted to give the philosophy section a quick start. It
just so happens that no decent philosopher has come along to rewrite it
to read more like an encyclopedia article and less like Larry's personal
notes.

Larry disagreed with Fred Bauder's edits of [[Reality]], largely because
they were lousy. Even I could tell that with only philosophy 101 in my
back pocket; if I had felt a little more compentent I would have helped
at the time.

So, reiterating what I've said twice: it's not "larry's OWN text". It's
been called "Larry's text" as an abbreviation. Please don't let's turn
this into a huge issue where there is none.
oh, wait, it already has been.

 > you should grant *everyone* to put their own text

well, we already do.... note the "Edit text of this page" link ;-)


body:
I still think that consensus can never be reached on
any of these issues.  Simply QUOTE opinions, and make
it clear that they aren't facts.

--- Eric Demolli <demolli at unice.fr> wrote:
> I may have been unclear I we write an article about
> "The existence of God",
> we would never get a consensus about the existence
> of God, thus we will have
> to find some consensus about reaching NPOV for
> article taht will deal with
> non-consensual opinions.

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


from_name: Nick Reinking

subject: [Wikitech-l] Slow again

body:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:08:21PM +0200, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> >
> >
> >Is there someone playing with (unmastered) SQL queries?
> >Wikipedia is again very sll ooo wwww.
> >
> >
> *pleads NON guilty, this time*
>
> i've noticed (and other on the french part at least) that it slows down
> around that time, maybe starting a few hours earlier than now...
> maybe many people start using the site ?
>
> Nicolas

There is a definite difference between 'overloaded' and 'ground to a
halt by a blocking SQL query'.  I think this was one of the latter.

--
Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN


body:
>...un-informednesness (new word)...

This is a bit off-topic, but I believe the word is malcognance.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] New additions to the guidelines/policies

body:
> Not adding, this seems like political correctness,
> this is the type of rules I don't like, you cannot
> force americans to write enthusiastically about
> African cultures (or eastern philosophy for this
> example).

We should acknowledge, before writing the things about
the Western views, that other Eastern views exist, and
ask readers to report on it, mixing it with the
current article in the fashion described in the first
proposed addition for Wikipedia policy.

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


from_name: Luc Van Oostenryck

subject: [Wikitech-l] Slow again

body:
Is there someone playing with (unmastered) SQL queries?
Wikipedia is again very sll ooo wwww.

--
Looxix


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] anonymous users

body:
I can't find any way to contact an anonymous user.  I
think anonymous users should have talk pages assigned
to their IP adress so that people can respond to their
changes. I can't think of how this would curtail
anonymity.
LittleDan

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


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject: [Wikitech-l] Slow again

body:
>
>
>Is there someone playing with (unmastered) SQL queries?
>Wikipedia is again very sll ooo wwww.
>
>
*pleads NON guilty, this time*

i've noticed (and other on the french part at least) that it slows down
around that time, maybe starting a few hours earlier than now...
maybe many people start using the site ?

Nicolas


from_name: K Forstner

subject: [WikiEN-l] JoanB, DW, Larry's text etc.

body:
I found it rather strange being inundated with e-mails concerning individual
users' identities. Now a new topic seems to have arisen out of nowhere. I
read parts of "Larry's text" some time ago and thought it was the exact
opposite of "encyclopaedic": If I ever posted such a text it would
immediately be removed, and I'd be crucified as the POV guy par excellence.

I wanted to reread portions of Larry's text now to see if I was wrong then,
but again there is no way. Is Wikipedia down again? Wouldn't it be more
pressing to solve those technical problems?

Kurt Forstner aka KF


subject: [WikiEN-l] anonymous users

body:
Also, on the recent changes page, for some reason, it
doesn't let me just click on the ip adress of the
editing user.  Instead, I have to go into the article,
then into the page history, then click on the IP
adress. If a talk page like that were made, would it
show up for the person saying you have new messages on
the top of every screen?

--- Lee Pilich <pilich at btopenworld.com> wrote:
> They do. They're linked to from contributions on
> Recent Changes, or else
> you can directly edit a URL to get something like
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3A123.45.678.90
>
> It would be nice if they were linked to from a anon
> user's contributions
> page as well, but heck, I'm not going to program it.
>
> lp (camembert)
> WikiKarma: [[Peter Blake (artist)]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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


from_name: Eric Demolli

body:
I may have been unclear I we write an article about "The existence of God",
we would never get a consensus about the existence of God, thus we will have
to find some consensus about reaching NPOV for article taht will deal with
non-consensual opinions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article

> Eric Demolli wrote:
>
> >But the article can expose non-consensual opinions in a balanced way....
> >The consensus should researched  about NPOV not about the subject of the
> >article.
> >
> No.  An article is about a particular subject, and about reaching NPOV
> on that subject.  NPOV is a subject all by itself which shouldn't need
> to be the wheel that's reinvented in articles on every subject.
>
> Eclecticology
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] anonymous users

body:
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 19:35, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> Also, on the recent changes page, for some reason, it
> doesn't let me just click on the ip adress of the
> editing user.

Could you be more specific? Clicking on an IP address in recentchanges
should give you the user contributions list for that IP.

If it's not doing that, then you're going to have to describe what it
*is* doing.

>   Instead, I have to go into the article,
> then into the page history, then click on the IP
> adress.

Should work exactly the same as on RC, but note that there aren't talk
links provided next to the username/IP links.

>  If a talk page like that were made, would it
> show up for the person saying you have new messages on
> the top of every screen?

Same as for logged-in users, yes.

-- 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/20030418/42a9f225/attachment.pgp


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [WikiEN-l] anonymous users

body:
At 17:55 18/04/2003 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
>I can't find any way to contact an anonymous user.  I
>think anonymous users should have talk pages assigned
>to their IP adress so that people can respond to their
>changes.

They do. They're linked to from contributions on Recent Changes, or else
you can directly edit a URL to get something like
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3A123.45.678.90

It would be nice if they were linked to from a anon user's contributions
page as well, but heck, I'm not going to program it.

lp (camembert)
WikiKarma: [[Peter Blake (artist)]]


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text is being unfairly criticised

body:
I have been silent reading a mass of misinformed and silly
attacks on Larry's fine article on philosophical knowledge
and epistemology. Some attacks on his work are even
motivated by a misplaced desire to be politically correct,
and I can stay silent no longer.

Let's state the problem simply:  Larry did NOT write an
article on: The many ways that people in all cultures and
ethnic groups use words that may be translated as
"knowledge."

If Larry did write such an article, then I agree his text
was very poorly written, and culturally biased. However, he
never wrote such an article.  Instead, he wrote an article
on what philosophers mean by term knowledge; specifically,
how can human beings be _certain_ that what we think we
know is actually true.

This is a very precise meaning of the term "knowledge", and
is a part of a 3000 year old Western philosophical
tradition, which also happens to be multicutural. (In
dozens of nations, we see that Jews, Christians, Muslims,
atheists, Humanists, Unitarians, etc. all believe that
classical and modern western philosophy is a valid way, if
not the most valid way, of making responsible statements
about knowledge.)

Some people here on this Wikipedia list are saying that
people in various Eastern religions happen to use words
that might be translated into English as knowledge, and use
these words in ways that are different than Larry's text
shows.  Well, duh. They also are using the word in a
different context, to describe something quite different.
In fact mystics of all traditions (both Western and
Eastern, by the way) often use terms like "knowlege" in
ways that are obviously contrary to what philosophers mean
by the term.

Somehow people have failed to notice that Larry's text
*already* presupposes that people use the word "knowledge"
to mean different things. His article is a fine summary of
how philosophers *respond* to those uses of the words.
Larry is not ignorant, and neither are all the philosophers
that have lived for the last 3000 years.  We know that
people make many claims of "knowing" facts. His article
goes on from ther to ask "HOW do we know with any certainty
that what we think is true, actually is true?"  "How do we
know that what we claim to be knowledge really is
knowledge?"  And the article builds from there.

So people are criticising him because they don't understand
what he was writing about. Further, his article happens to
be NPOV.  It is not, by any means, his personal point of
view. It is a good summary of the current philosophical
consensus at this time.

Can this article grow, develop and be improved?  Yes.
Should we link together the ways that other people use the
word "knowledge", and compare and contrast them to how
philosophers use this term?  Yes.  But we shouldn't tear
Larry's text apart for sins he just never committed.

Robert (RK)

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


from_name: Rotem Dan

body:
--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have been silent reading a mass of misinformed and
> silly
> attacks on Larry's fine article on philosophical
> knowledge
> and epistemology.

I have confessed being misinformed on the subject of
philosophy (and other various cognitive subjects), and
I apologize about the hostile attitude I have shown
towards larry's text and this mailing-list's
participants in general.

Nevertheless, the discussion has diverged to other
topics not necessarily related to larry or his
writing. For example, I have recently added a new
addition to the "What Wikipedia is Not" article, from
what was criticism of the very suitability of these
types of texts to wikipedia, the guideline/rule in its
current form goes like this:

What Wikipedia is not
.
.

19.  An educational textbook. Though Wikipedia
attempts to explain many non-trivial scientific and
philosophical topics, articles should not be written
merely with the intention of teaching the subject,
this is what book references are for.

I plan to add more refinements to the policies and
rules in the next weeks.

-- Rotem

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


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Correct. Disambiguation is necessary.

Fred

> From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 06:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text is being unfairly criticised
>
>
> I have been silent reading a mass of misinformed and silly
> attacks on Larry's fine article on philosophical knowledge
> and epistemology. Some attacks on his work are even
> motivated by a misplaced desire to be politically correct,
> and I can stay silent no longer.
>
> Let's state the problem simply:  Larry did NOT write an
> article on: The many ways that people in all cultures and
> ethnic groups use words that may be translated as
> "knowledge."
>
> If Larry did write such an article, then I agree his text
> was very poorly written, and culturally biased. However, he
> never wrote such an article.  Instead, he wrote an article
> on what philosophers mean by term knowledge; specifically,
> how can human beings be _certain_ that what we think we
> know is actually true.
>
> This is a very precise meaning of the term "knowledge", and
> is a part of a 3000 year old Western philosophical
> tradition, which also happens to be multicutural. (In
> dozens of nations, we see that Jews, Christians, Muslims,
> atheists, Humanists, Unitarians, etc. all believe that
> classical and modern western philosophy is a valid way, if
> not the most valid way, of making responsible statements
> about knowledge.)
>
> Some people here on this Wikipedia list are saying that
> people in various Eastern religions happen to use words
> that might be translated into English as knowledge, and use
> these words in ways that are different than Larry's text
> shows.  Well, duh. They also are using the word in a
> different context, to describe something quite different.
> In fact mystics of all traditions (both Western and
> Eastern, by the way) often use terms like "knowlege" in
> ways that are obviously contrary to what philosophers mean
> by the term.
>
> Somehow people have failed to notice that Larry's text
> *already* presupposes that people use the word "knowledge"
> to mean different things. His article is a fine summary of
> how philosophers *respond* to those uses of the words.
> Larry is not ignorant, and neither are all the philosophers
> that have lived for the last 3000 years.  We know that
> people make many claims of "knowing" facts. His article
> goes on from ther to ask "HOW do we know with any certainty
> that what we think is true, actually is true?"  "How do we
> know that what we claim to be knowledge really is
> knowledge?"  And the article builds from there.
>
> So people are criticising him because they don't understand
> what he was writing about. Further, his article happens to
> be NPOV.  It is not, by any means, his personal point of
> view. It is a good summary of the current philosophical
> consensus at this time.
>
> Can this article grow, develop and be improved?  Yes.
> Should we link together the ways that other people use the
> word "knowledge", and compare and contrast them to how
> philosophers use this term?  Yes.  But we shouldn't tear
> Larry's text apart for sins he just never committed.
>
>
> Robert (RK)
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> http://search.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text is being (unfairly?) criticised

body:
--- K Forstner <kurt.forstner at chello.at> wrote:

> Why should articles not be written "merely with the
> intention of teaching
> the subject"? If we really wanted to embark on a
> discussion of whether
> Wikipedia should, at least in part, be able to
> replace coursebooks, we would
> have to come up with a very good and unambiguous
> definition of "teaching" --
> and "learning", for that matter -- first.

I have not said my phrasing was final, others can and
should review it, and possibly change the style of
writing/definitions.

>
> Printed encyclopaedias do have different types of
> articles these days. They
> include the short, basic information type as well as
> essay type entries. So
> what's the problem?

Well, I am not clearly set on what you meant by "essay
type" but Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition of
"essay":

essay, noun;
"a: an analytic or interpretative literary composition
usually dealing with its subject from a limited or
personal point of view b : something resembling such a
composition <a photographic essay>"

-- Rotem

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


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Not teaching?

body:
--- Rotem Dan <rotem_dan at yahoo.com> wrote:

> For example, I have recently added a new
> addition to the "What Wikipedia is Not" article, from
> what was criticism of the very suitability of these
> types of texts to wikipedia, the guideline/rule in its
> current form goes like this:
>
> What Wikipedia is not
>
> 19.  An educational textbook. Though Wikipedia
> attempts to explain many non-trivial scientific and
> philosophical topics, articles should not be written
> merely with the intention of teaching the subject,
> this is what book references are for.

I don't see the point of this addition and I disagree with it. The main
reason people use an encyclopedia is to educate themselves, and the
article writers should take that into account. A good article, in my
view, is one that manages to "teach" the subject well.

Axel

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Rotem Dan wrote:

>19.  An educational textbook. Though Wikipedia
>attempts to explain many non-trivial scientific and
>philosophical topics, articles should not be written
>merely with the intention of teaching the subject,
>this is what book references are for.
>
>
>I plan to add more refinements to the policies and
>rules in the next weeks.
>
The subtleties which Rotem seeks to apply appear to be beyond my grasp.
 Most of us would probably not make a distinction between an educational
and an encyclopedic article.  IMHO the two would have such a
considerable overlap to the point where a distinction verges on the
meaningless.

I believe that I echo the thoughts of several other Wikipedians across
the POV spectrum when I say that Rotem's time would be better spent
working on the [[knowledge]] article that he criticizes and not on
endless debates on the minutiae of Wikipedia theory.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please do not respond to my posts

body:
I have logically deducted my behaviour on this
mailing-list was troll's behaviour. So I suggest a the
reader's not not to respond to my posts.

It is ridicules to impose rules that limit legit
user's freedom on wikipedia. Wikipedia needs legit
contributers with common sense, and Doesn't need
spammers/vandals/trolls (ahem).

My acts were unintentional and I apologize for the
damage
I may have created.

Rotem, recovering Internet troll.

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


from_name: Zoe

subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text

body:
Why is all of this being discussed in the mailing list, instead of on the article's Talk page? Zoe

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030419/d4d604cc/attachment.htm


body:
So what?  It's Wikipedia, not stone.  Add the information that's missing, don't just sit there and bitch about it.  Or, are we back to the philosophy, "If it doesn't agree with my world view it shouldn't be here, and I'm not going to do anything to fix it."  I've seen that here a lot. Zoe

Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:I'm still behind on my email, sorry.

Larry's text on the knowledge article reports on
knowledge from an epistemological point of view.
Epistemology is a very western belief, but even many
westerners (me, for example) don't believe it. Larry's
text doesn't report on any of the other philosophies,
most of which are from eastern cultures

--- Zoe wrote:
> Huh? I'm afraid I'm totally at a loss as to why
> this is even remotely western centric, nor why it
> would make you angry. Please explain. Zoe

__________________________________________________
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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030419/26bc5517/attachment.htm


body:
No, we shouldn't.  That's why Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.  Others with more knowledge can add what they know, which we do not.  It's not a user's responsibility to cover all material if they don't know it. Zoe

Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:> Not adding, this seems like political correctness,
> this is the type of rules I don't like, you cannot
> force americans to write enthusiastically about
> African cultures (or eastern philosophy for this
> example).

We should acknowledge, before writing the things about
the Western views, that other Eastern views exist, and
ask readers to report on it, mixing it with the
current article in the fashion described in the first
proposed addition for Wikipedia policy.

__________________________________________________
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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030419/b752c916/attachment.htm


body:
Oh, nonsense.

You stretched us, exercised us, not easy to do. Keep it up and quit
whinning.

Fred

> From: Rotem Dan <rotem_dan at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Please do not respond to my posts
>
> I have logically deducted my behaviour on this
> mailing-list was troll's behaviour. So I suggest a the
> reader's not not to respond to my posts.
>
> It is ridicules to impose rules that limit legit
> user's freedom on wikipedia. Wikipedia needs legit
> contributers with common sense, and Doesn't need
> spammers/vandals/trolls (ahem).
>
> My acts were unintentional and I apologize for the
> damage
> I may have created.
>
> Rotem, recovering Internet troll.
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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:
Rotem wrote:

> [...] Nevertheless, the discussion has diverged to other
> topics not necessarily related to Larry or his
> writing. For example, I have recently added a new
> addition to the "What Wikipedia is Not" article, from
> what was criticism of the very suitability of these
> types of texts to wikipedia, the guideline/rule in its
> current form goes like this:
>
> What Wikipedia is not
>
> 19.  An educational textbook. Though Wikipedia
> attempts to explain many non-trivial scientific and
> philosophical topics, articles should not be written
> merely with the intention of teaching the subject,
> this is what book references are for.
>
> I plan to add more refinements to the policies and
> rules in the next weeks.
>
> -- Rotem
>
Why should articles not be written "merely with the intention of teaching
the subject"? If we really wanted to embark on a discussion of whether
Wikipedia should, at least in part, be able to replace coursebooks, we would
have to come up with a very good and unambiguous definition of "teaching" --
and "learning", for that matter -- first.

Printed encyclopaedias do have different types of articles these days. They
include the short, basic information type as well as essay type entries. So
what's the problem?

I'd agree, however, that it does not look good if in a Wikipedia article you
get too many empty phrases such as "As we have seen in the previous chapter
...".

Anyway: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper.

Kurt Forstner aka KF


from_name: John Knouse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia not educational

body:
My three cents worth (inflation, you know):

Any article in Wikipedia should present information in such
a way that a person of average intelligence who's motivated
to learn can interpret it and use it.  In the process, some
education is absolutely necessary.  A number of articles
start with arcane, technical language that even a polymath
genius would have trouble deciphering if that isn't one of
his/her knowledge areas.  Presenting knowledge is a process
of education.  I assume that Rotem Dan meant that entries
should not be pedantic in nature, with which I agree, but
they must be educational by way of being accessible.  For
instance, if an article states something like "The
geological history of sedimentary rock is stratigraphic in
nature," (not a real example in W.), then it should be
rephrased to say something like "The geologic history of
sedimentary rock is stratigraphic in nature; that is, the
history is shown by the succession of strata, or layers."
Then stratigraphic may be re-used without explanation,
because it's been adequately explained.  Simply putting in a
link for stratigraphy is not sufficient (though it should be
there) and invites the user to get lost in a maze of
multiple open windows and computer stress.

--
John Knouse
jaknouse at frognet.net


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia not educational

body:
I agree.  I do that sometimes (that is, writing
definitions within articles) in math articles, but
sometimes I feel I write too much and get slightly
off-topic. Also with math, there should be links on
the  tops of math pages to some glossary of math
notation, because you can't just put a link in every
(actually, any) mathematical symbol. Although it's
probably impossible to have a *complete* set of math
notation, I think having the basics down would help.
I'm not sure if this would work, though, so please
tell me if it is feasible for me to work on.

> My three cents worth (inflation, you know):
>
> Any article in Wikipedia should present information
> in such
> a way that a person of average intelligence who's
> motivated
> to learn can interpret it and use it.  In the
> process, some
> education is absolutely necessary.  A number of
> articles
> start with arcane, technical language that even a
> polymath
> genius would have trouble deciphering if that isn't
> one of
> his/her knowledge areas.  Presenting knowledge is a
> process
> of education.  I assume that Rotem Dan meant that
> entries
> should not be pedantic in nature, with which I
> agree, but
> they must be educational by way of being accessible.
>  For
> instance, if an article states something like "The
> geological history of sedimentary rock is
> stratigraphic in
> nature," (not a real example in W.), then it should
> be
> rephrased to say something like "The geologic
> history of
> sedimentary rock is stratigraphic in nature; that
> is, the
> history is shown by the succession of strata, or
> layers."
> Then stratigraphic may be re-used without
> explanation,
> because it's been adequately explained.  Simply
> putting in a
> link for stratigraphy is not sufficient (though it
> should be
> there) and invites the user to get lost in a maze of
> multiple open windows and computer stress.
>
> --
> John Knouse
> jaknouse at frognet.net

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


body:
I wasn't saying that anyone writing an article on
knowledge should write a book of every philosophy of
knowledge. I'm just saying that people should
acknowledge that there are others, and ask people to
write on those. For example:

The literal definition of '''knowledge''' is something
that can be known, but there are many other
philosophies about what knowledge really is and what
it can be.

==Epistemology==
Epistemology says knowledge is...

==Other philosophies about knowledge==
There are many other philosophies about knowledge.
(''More to come'')

Do you write just from memory? Your post seems to
imply it.  I usually research to find most of the
content of my articles.

--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, we shouldn't.  That's why Wikipedia is a
> collaborative effort.  Others with more knowledge
> can add what they know, which we do not.  It's not a
> user's responsibility to cover all material if they
> don't know it. Zoe

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


body:
Well, I want to just delete the whole thing and
replace it with a short paragraph or two about
epistemology. But then people would complain, and I
don't like to do things if they are going to be
disliked by everyone. If it's OK for me to completely
rewrite the article, then I will.  I would also like
to do the same with [[Information warfare]], but the
shortening of articles seems to be discouraged.

--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So what?  It's Wikipedia, not stone.  Add the
> information that's missing, don't just sit there and
> bitch about it.  Or, are we back to the philosophy,
> "If it doesn't agree with my world view it shouldn't
> be here, and I'm not going to do anything to fix
> it."  I've seen that here a lot. Zoe

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is it possible to delete an item from the article history?

body:
User 213.136.111.101 wrote a treatise on stealing credit card numbers in [[Leet]] which was reverted, but the information is still there in the history.  Can we get it out of there? Zoe

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030420/17a1c5e7/attachment.htm


body:
Please edit the article if you are moved to, but don't trash it. I wrote
most of the first portion and certainly will expect you to incorporate the
material in that part in any rewrite you do.  A rewrite that simply trashes
the whole preceeding article is just an invitation to trouble. I agree that
it would be very difficult to incorporate Larry's text, but there is a body
of knowledge behind what he wrote which with research could be set forth.

Fred

> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
>
> Well, I want to just delete the whole thing and
> replace it with a short paragraph or two about
> epistemology. But then people would complain, and I
> don't like to do things if they are going to be
> disliked by everyone. If it's OK for me to completely
> rewrite the article, then I will.  I would also like
> to do the same with [[Information warfare]], but the
> shortening of articles seems to be discouraged.
>
> --- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So what?  It's Wikipedia, not stone.  Add the
>> information that's missing, don't just sit there and
>> bitch about it.  Or, are we back to the philosophy,
>> "If it doesn't agree with my world view it shouldn't
>> be here, and I'm not going to do anything to fix
>> it."  I've seen that here a lot. Zoe
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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:
Anything can be removed from the database permanently by those with access
to it. However if the item has been spidered and stored elsewhere, it may be
a permanent addition to the internet's store of "knowledge".

Fred

From: Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 03:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Is it possible to delete an item from the article
history?

User 213.136.111.101
<http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&targe
t=213.136.111.101>  wrote a treatise on stealing credit card numbers in
[[Leet]] which was reverted, but the information is still there in the
history.  Can we get it out of there?

Zoe

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com>  - Faster.
Easier. Bingo.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030420/4eadc378/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bug -- half-deleted image

body:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, Tim Starling wrote:
> Navigating from [[:Image:Rach3.jpg]] to
> http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/e/e9/Rach3.jpg produces a 404 error: "The
> requested URL /upload/e/e9/Rach3.jpg was not found on this server". I'm not
> sure how it got that way, but obviously the image table of the database
> needs to be updated to reflect reality. Don't bother trying to find or
> recover the missing file.

Apparently something funny about the deletion. Okay, I've plucked out this
entry:

+-----------+----------+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------------+
| img_name  | img_size | img_description               | img_user | img_user_text | img_timestamp  |
+-----------+----------+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------------+
| Rach3.jpg |    25434 | please don't bring it to this |     8814 | BigFatBuddha  | 20030319010149 |
+-----------+----------+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------------+

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
I would ignore it.  Luckilly, the information is incomplete and will probably not be used to cause any real dammage.

Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:User 213.136.111.101 wrote a treatise on stealing credit card numbers in [[Leet]] which was reverted, but the information is still there in the history.  Can we get it out of there? Zoe

---------------------------------
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/wikien-l/attachments/20030420/16bbb4a0/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia not educational

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also with math, there should be links on
> the  tops of math pages to some glossary of math
> notation, because you can't just put a link in every
> (actually, any) mathematical symbol. Although it's
> probably impossible to have a *complete* set of math
> notation, I think having the basics down would help.

See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_symbols

Axel

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


body:
--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
> User 213.136.111.101 wrote a treatise on stealing credit card numbers
> in [[Leet]] which was reverted, but the information is still there in
> the history.  Can we get it out of there? Zoe

It is a hoax. They are trying to get your credit card number, not
telling you how to steal someone else's credit card number.
Maybe even a candidate for [[Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense]].

Axel

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