> I also note the use of "birth canal" to describe the vagina as if a woman
> had an exit chute on her baby factory;
I think "birth canal" is a reasonable and common usage designating the
entire passage (cervix, vagina, vulva) through which the baby passes during
birth. I'm not sure of the context of the article, but it is probably not
appropriate at other times (we don't usually speak of menstrual blood or
contraceptive devices passing through the birth canal).
> and the use of "womb" in place of 'uterus'.
I think "womb" is a common usage, and a word I happen to like, and I don't
see how this vitiates the NPOV of the article any more than it would to use
"afterbirth" instead of "placenta;" but I agree that "uterus" is synonymous,
and I won't defend "womb" to the death - just long enough to say that our
articles are directed at a general audience, and I don't see how the word
"womb" is any more unscientific than "heart" or "eye."
However, I fully support you in changing factual errors that exist in the
article, about whose topic I am essentially uninformed. The article's "talk"
section will reach the widest audience for discussing the changes you make,
should you feel the need to do so in more detail than you can in the
"reasons for edit" box.
Welcome to the Pedia.
Matt (Montrealais)
Let's try to distinguish between three one-syllable male names:
Ec (Eclecticology) = Ray Saintonge
Ed (Uncle Ed) = Ed Poor
El (Eloquence) = Erik Moeller
Ray is the one with eclectic interests. Ed Poor is the maven of NPOV (or
"poor brainwashed cult victim" - ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer
choice). Erik is the eloquent writer.
Uncle Ed
"Ray Saintonge" <saintonge(a)telus.net> schrieb:
> Huh?? I've not been involved with the article. I agree that it can be
> trimmed down. Much of what is said about Keating should be removed as
> irrelevant. You must be thinking of someone else.
Sorry, I meant Eloquence.
Andre Engels
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
> It looks from the history as though there's an ongoing edit war, and so
> probably more eyeballs would be helpful.
Your wish is our command!
>> From: "Dr. Iris Steineck" <iris.steineck(a)aon.at>
>> My grandfather Erwin Komenda designed the VW-beetle and Porsche sport
>> car type 356.
>> ...
>> Both, the Volkswagen and the first Porsche sport car, the Porsche type
>> 356, were designed by Porsche's longstanding chief designer [[Erwin
>> Komenda]].
>> [[Erwin Komenda]], the longstanding Porsche chief designer, developed
>> the car body for the famous VW-beetle and Porsche 356.
I have checked in the "definitive" Porsche reference book:
Karl Ludvigsen, "Porsche: Excellence Was Expected"
and Erwin Franz Komenda was indeed Porsche's chief body stylist up until the
1960's. He joined up with Porsche in 1931, so it's quite credible that he
designed the bodies for the Beetle and 356.
I suspect that part of the problem is in the wording = Komenda wasn't really
the "chief designer" (as that term would normally be construed in English),
but rather the "chief body stylist"; also, he didn't "design ... both the
[Beetle] and [356}" (which implies he had overall responsibility for the whole
thing) - the latter wording "developed the car body" is probably fairly
accurate.
Someone (with more time than me :-) should research this in more detail...
Noel
"A Anthere" <anthere8(a)yahoo.com> schrieb:
> 1) When people vote, they inherently think
> "democracy". They set percentage for acceptance or
> reject. That implies we tolerate to set aside the view
> of minorities.
> Supposingly, we should work per consensus. I already
> said my opinion about what consensus was a while ago.
> As for me, it is not per majority, 51 % 75% 90%. I
> consider consensus is 100%, given that in the 100%,
> some do not care at all, some are not happy but can
> live the decision, and some are satisfied. A 90%
> satisfaction, leaving in utter madness and despair the
> leftover minority of 10 miserable % is a bad choice
> for and is not consensus. Everyone should make effort
> to be consensual, but veto should be a "right" to me.
But what do you do plan to do if everything is vetoed by someone?
Andre Engels
"Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com> schrieb:
> Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
> > Root causes of the "current upset" have everything to do with Wikipedia
> > policies and customs, in particular, the absence of some sort of means
> > for dealing with article disputes that cannot be solved within the Wiki
> > consensus editing model.
>
> Is there any evidence that this is the case in the current
> controversy? What I mean is that the article already seems much
> improved over the past several weeks. So in what way is it really
> true that the problem can't be solved within the Wiki consensus
> editing model?
It is not working in that the consensus editing model can make POV
lines and paragraphs NPOV, can correct factual errors and so forth,
but the issue with the page is that a number of people (me included)
are of the opinion that large amount of texts should be either
removed from the page or severely shortened, and others (in
particular Ec) will never get in consensus with such a change.
Andre Engels
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
> >That is to say, in my opinion, the root causes for
> this current upset
> >lie in failures of the institution (Wikipedia
> policies and customs)
> >rather than the individuals--though the individuals
> should be able to
> >transcend the current failures of the institution
> by avoiding such
> >temptations as calling for NPOV votes.
> >
> I agree to the point that I almost feel ashamed for
> having participated
> in some of those votes. The development of voting
> processes seems to
> lend support to the idea that voting is evil. In
> the wake of a highly
> complex process over the logo, the painful Votes for
> Deletion, and now
> NPOV votes on an individual article it becomes clear
> that voting is a
> technique for majorities to marginalize minority
> opinions.
>
> I would say that there is a failure of institutional
> custom in the face
> of institutional policy. As a custom NPOV works
> very well; as a policy
> it begins to cry for clear definitions that may in
> reality be unachievable.
>
> I believe that there is wide consensus that NPOV is
> something very
> positive. That tends to break down when we try to
> define what that
> means. Trying to impose NPOV is a very POV
> activity. NPOV is a natural
> by-product of open-mindedness and fair-mindedness;
> it's not about
> ensuring that critics and supporters of a particular
> POV have paragraphs
> of equal size. The latter only changes the search
> for NPOV into a
> pissing match.
>
> Ec
Someone wrote me offline, to ask me what I thought of
voting, because he noticed I rather rarely did, in
particular very rarely on vfd. He pointed out that
mail from Ec and TC to me.
I had not read it.
I recently aged up a lot on the english wikipedia, so
I am now 8 instead of 6, and isolated this mailing
list here, while I stayed younger in other places.
I think voting is generally bad. Really bad. I can see
an advantage in voting when it is to try to see better
where people stand, as a poll. But a binding vote is
something that imho should just not exist on
wikipedia.
For two reasons
1) When people vote, they inherently think
"democracy". They set percentage for acceptance or
reject. That implies we tolerate to set aside the view
of minorities.
Supposingly, we should work per consensus. I already
said my opinion about what consensus was a while ago.
As for me, it is not per majority, 51 % 75% 90%. I
consider consensus is 100%, given that in the 100%,
some do not care at all, some are not happy but can
live the decision, and some are satisfied. A 90%
satisfaction, leaving in utter madness and despair the
leftover minority of 10 miserable % is a bad choice
for and is not consensus. Everyone should make effort
to be consensual, but veto should be a "right" to me.
Believing that an article could be said "neutral" by
voting per majority upon it, is just something beyond
me. A poll to clarifies things, and perhaps put the
finger on the root points is absolutely ok, but a
binding vote, where the final state of the article is
chosen because 5 people agree when 1 disagree is just
non-sense. NPOV votes ! I think it is hard to believe
! NPOV comes from all of our inputs, all together,
about giving all opinions and trying to mix them so
well we can ALL be satisfied with the result. This
can't come from voting, each person isolated in his
little idea, just happy he finally was able to put in
name in front of a point. So bad ! So desctructive, so
limitative. So uncreative.
2) Voting has a very dangerous drawback, that I often
see on the fr wikipedia, less on en. It had become
classical at some point (less now) that each time a
point had to be discussed, someone set a page, and
divided it in three parts.
1st part : the problem was described in a couple of
lines
2nd part : a collection of choices was proposed by the
initiator, where each one could put his name
3rd part, a heading : discussion
Even before starting discussing a point, most of what
people could see what this vote area. With all mashed
options, just as if there were none others. The
initiator inconsciously manipulating people in
believing these were *the* options, and none else.
Then voted they did, put their names, and without a
comment, hit the button with the comment "my vote !".
So proud.
And gone they were, happy to have done what they were
asked to. Voted. How surprising that after a while,
when results were not showing consensus that
discussion was tough to get started !
A vote (be it a binding vote, or even a poll) should
never be proposed until sufficient discussion has
occurred, so that the various propositions and ideas
of people have erupted, even the wildest ones, which
could feed other people in having themselves other
wild or very bright ideas. That is what brainstorming
is ! If a vote, with the propositions is already
there, all prepared, the brightest enlightment just do
not come, that's all. Asking people to vote is just
the best way to risk not finding the best solution.
Just as shutting up people who have the crazy ideas is
just the way to risk that the problem does not
progress.
I prefer crazy suggestions to any vote.
Just as I would prefer that french people participate
to saying what rules they want to monitor blocking
process, instead of just signing their names and
saying "yes, I want blocking, but only with serious
procedure rules", and just go away waiting for others
to set these rules for them. I should even suggest
stupid rules just to promote reaction :-)
The last point is about votes for deletion.
I have on purpose, never looked at the discussions
over what changes some of you are suggesting to solve
that huge black point that is vfd on en.
Here is just what I do on fr.
I meet something bad, irrelevant, non interesting, I
boldly delete (I must admit, I very boldly delete
since deleted article can be restored easily). My
assumption : if someone is not happy, he will
complain. Then I can restore. Honestly, it did not
happen often.
When I think the content or the title is likely to
promote an interesting discussion (that is not often),
I list it.
In all other cases, I just blank it (usually move the
content in the discussion). I assume that an involved
author watches his article, so will notice the change
occurring. If he has a problem, he will say so in the
talk page or revert. If he was just a bugger, or is
not really interested in what he wrote (?), well, it
is gone (blanked). If nobody restores anything, well,
that was not very important.
Once in a while, I go to short pages, and I delete all
those with 0 bytes (I check discussion pages of
course, but usually, those who raised discussion were
already treated, hence not at 0 bytes anymore).
This way, I am sure not to forget any. I clean up the
place quickly and without pain. It could nearly be
automated, but I do not like the idea.
I consider this way much quicker and much cleaner than
vfd, which I reserve for limited cases where I am in
doubt. Our vfd is short. It's crude, but I think that
is just as effective than spending so much time voting
for articles to be kept or deleted. And somehow, just
as consensual.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
LOL, I *knew* you were going to say that!
Uncle Ed
<<After bringing up talk of banning, and before talking about quitting,
Erik did "grow tired of the deadlock over the article and bow out,
asking for others to take on the work for a while." Hadn't you noticed?
It's a bit strange to predict something that's already happened.>>
I don't think what JTD and Eloquence are doing is any cause for alarm.
As Louis said, it's a content dispute.
And as Uncle Ed said (quoting myself like Gandalf! :-) they are actually
doing rather well at keeping cool while the editing gets hot.
So let's stop all this talk of banning or quitting.
Perhaps in coming weeks, one or both will grow tired of the deadlock
over the article and bow out, asking for others to take on the work for
a while. (I've started a sidebar on Hitchens's anti-MT book, which I
gather is a primary source for one side of the conflict.)
Ed Poor