I have undertaken the largest study of the process of orbs, working with
published physicists and a biochemist for the pharmaceuticals companies. The
findings will not be accepted as many major advancements throughout time
have been rejected sometimes only begin accepted years after the discovers
death. The study is observational and links orbs to string theory with one
exception, string theory is not only working at a quantum level. What is
more surprising is that prehistoric man knew theses processes. You can
understand why it will not be accepted. And yet the worlds leading plasma
scientist recognises plasma formations drawn on prehistoric rock art. What I
wanted is to add to our understanding of the orb process by correcting the
current misunderstandings. I would like a wikipedian to look at my
forthcoming book and then hand it over to others so that a comment could be
made to correct the mis understanding of orbs. I have added one image from
the observational study, the main image is of bronze age rock art , the
overlaid pictures are from my study.
http://www.nabble.com/file/7417/rockart.jpg
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Study-of-Orbs%2C-tf3466146.html#a9670646
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Blu Aardvark [mailto:jeffrey.latham@gmail.com]
> Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
I have no obligation to support administrators who don't have a commitment to protecting other editors. Or fail in any other way to accept the responsibilities associated with being an administrator.
Fred
Charlotte Webb wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Angela Anuszewski <angela.anuszewski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My earlier reading made me consider whether or not school districts
>> are notable simply because they exist, or some more significant event
>> or achievement should be required to create or retain an article on the
>> subject.
>>
>
> If a wealth of verifiable information about a school or district...
>
>
> If information exists, somebody will add it. Try not to be too quick
> in completely writing off certain topics. Stub templates exist for a
> reason.
>
> —C.W.
The inclusion of non-notable schools is not, by itself, the problem.
The real problem we have on Wikipedia with school articles, in my
opinion, is the amount of vandalism they receive relative to the number
of editors repairing them. Since school-aged kids are a main source of
vandalism this isn't a surprise. However since this vandalism often
takes the form of derogatory remarks about living people it's a serious
matter. Reducing the number of school articles which aren't being
watched would help.
I tried "prodding" a vandalized article about a junior high school and
found that there are editors who watch the PROD category just to remove
school articles. While I appreciate that the matter of school notability
is hotly debated, I don't think anyone likes having hundreds or
thousands of school articles that are unattended targets of libelous
vandalism. Other than reducing the number of school articles I don't see
a good solution. Perhaps a compromise would be to favor merging school
articles into school district articles.
Will Beback
Slim Virgin wrote:
> As I said earlier, the problem with the worst of the sites is that
> practically every link will lead to a page containing a serious
> personal attack, even if that's not the comment being linked to.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. Better yet, let's
suppose that a site exists called "Slim Virgin Is Evil and Must Be
Destroyed Along With the Rest of Wikipedia," and that they have a
rigorously enforced rule requiring that every link on the entire site
must contain a vitriolic, hurtful, untrue, threatening attack on some
Wikipedian.
Now suppose that Slim Virgin's twin sister, Fat Virgin, creates a
user page where she states, "I'm thoroughly disgusted with the
revolting attacks that continually appear on 'Slim Virgin Is Evil.'
Check it out." and gives a link to a particularly nasty example.
Under those circumstances, do we REALLY need a policy enticing
officious Wikipedians to waste their time deleting the link from Fat
Virgin's page? Maybe someone might want to quietly advise Fat Virgin
that it's not a good idea to help call attention to the ravings of a
jerk, but if she disagrees for some reason, Wikipedia doesn't need a
policy that forces her to comply. It's only one link on a user page,
and it isn't going to make "Slim Virgin Is Evil" famous.
Of course it's a different matter entirely if someone on Wikipedia
links to "Slim Virgin Is Evil" with the evident intent to attack Slim
Virgin. In that case, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks provides
sufficient basis to handle the situation.
The question here is not whether it is generally advisable to link to
sites that attack Wikipedia. The question is whether Wikipedia needs
a POLICY that forbids such links. Adopting such a policy means that
we think preventing such links is so important that we cannot simply
trust the case-by-case discretion and good judgment of individual
Wikipedians and therefore need to impose a judgment uniformly across
the board.
And what's the harm that people are seeking to prevent by having such
a policy? We already know that the policy can't prevent attack sites
from EXISTING. All it purports to accomplish is a marginal reduction
in the amount of traffic that such sites receive, on the basis of
theorized but unproven assumptions about the amount of traffic that
they might get from a few links on Wikipedia. Of course, the harm we
CAUSE in pursuit of this minor and mostly hypothetical benefit is
that we make Wikipedia look ridiculous by saying in effect, "We'll
censor anyone who even mentions anyone who criticizes Wikipedia, but
we're perfectly happy to serve as a repository for links to sites
that vigorously attack Hillary Clinton or Jerry Falwell or Jews or
homosexuals or in fact anyone who happens not to be us."
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Regards
Keith Old
Sent to you by Keith via Google Reader: Royal Academy of Music
innovates with new online music encyclopaedia - PublicTechnology.net
via music - Google News on May 29, 2007
Royal Academy of Music innovates with new online music encyclopaedia
PublicTechnology.net, UK - 2 hours ago
The Royal Academy of Music has signed a deal to use NetworkedPlanet's
TMCore information management solution to power its new online
multi-dimensional music ...
Things you can do from here:
- Visit the original item on music - Google News
- Subscribe to music - Google News using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all all your
favorite sites
#wikipedia is a wasteland of stupidity and a public relations disaster
in lots of ways. It's also a lively and useful hangout for a lot of
editors.
I welcome your thoughts on what, if anything, to do about this.
- d.
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> BADSITES had existed in spirit for about 18 months and had been
> practised without fuss for the most part. Then a troll turned up and
> decided to write it down, and cleverly chose a shortcut that in itself
> would make most people cringe. The troll's concept was that the best
> way to get rid of a law you don't like is to enforce it rigorously.
I really didn't want to get involved in this mailing list, but seeing
as how SlimVirgin has taken to talking about me behind my back....
Anyway, this claim is quite incredible. I have seen no evidence that
this is so, or for that matter any prior claims that this is so. As
far as I can tell, DennyColt just took it upon himself to turn the
ArbCom statements into a policy and then began enforcing it against
Wikipedia Review (which the ArbCom decision pointed to). He stepped on
my tail by erasing a citation from Expert Retention, the first point
at which I knew anything about all of this.
I'm getting heartily sick of having to police this. As it has turned
out, mostly this seems to have been used for presumptive edits (like
erasing someone's link to their blog) or personal attacks (Will
Beback's vendetta against Teresa Nielsen Hayden's site, which is/was
used to cite dozens of articles). And it isn't being done by admins;
all of the problem edits have been done by regular editors.
I am guessing that I am the person she mentions as participating in
this in bad faith. The truth, as I've said several times, is that I
only found out about WR because of this "policy". I am not wholly
sympathetic to them; it seems to me that most of those there who got
banned committed some sin. However, it also seems to me that some of
their criticisms are not without foundation. In any case, it has
passed out of the focus, which has now turned, in the scattershot way
that the opposition to it predicted, to other random victims. There's
no need to protect WR if only because nobody is really trying to
delete the 193 remaining links to it.
Fred Bauder wrote:
> This sort of thing, banning links to external sites, if done at
> all, needs to be limited to sites that extend their activities
> beyond criticism of Wikipedia to actions that hurt individual
> Wikipedia users. The blog seems to focus on publicizing Will
> Beback's real name which she got from ED. She is offended at his
> interactions with her when she edits.
Actually, banning links to external sites should not be done AT ALL.
I don't care if the external site in question is run by someone who
has a personal dungeon where they flay Wikipedia users with flaming
razors. Banning links to their site is just bad policy, no matter
what they are doing. If they are doing something ILLEGAL that "hurts
individual Wikipedia users," they can be prosecuted for it in an
actual court of law, but banning links to their site just turns
otherwise sensible Wikipedians into stupid bureaucrats and makes
things worse. It also invites the question, "What makes Wikipedia so
damn special?" As the essay that was recently posted here points out,
Wikipedia has no problem linking to Nazi websites and a host of other
sites that promote violence, hurt people and break the law. It's
ridiculous and embarrassing to have a policy that says "we don't care
who else you hurt as long as you don't hurt Wikipedians." Finally,
the question of what it means to "hurt" someone is impossible to
define adequately for the purpose of making this policy practical --
especially since some people can be very thin-skinned about criticism.
This is the sort of situation where I think it would be good if Jimbo
stepped in and played God to put an end to this nonsense.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 06:33 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on
>
>On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect
>> the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much
>> protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up
>> for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
>
>Putting the issue of "links to attack sites" aside, I would love to
>see the admins of these "attack sites" institute a "no meatspacing"
>rule. That is, say anything you want about Wikipedia or an
>editor/admin's behavior on wiki but there will be no attempt to reveal
>or talk about the real life identity of any editor unless it has
>already been revealed by the editor himself or a news source. (ie
>Essjay)
>
>This would do 2 things. It would give the "detractor sites" a chance
>to demonstrate that they are simply critics of Wikipedia and not out
>to "get" the people involved with it and Wikipedians a chance to
>demonstrate that they don't suppress honest criticism.
You really don't get it. That's not the game.
Fred
G'day SV,
> On 5/28/07, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would you support the inclusion of a sentence in NPA indicating
> that links
> > to content that meets the definition of personal attacks will be
> treated in
> > the same way as a direct personal attack?
>
> As I said earlier, the problem with the worst of the sites is that
> practically every link will lead to a page containing a serious
> personal attack, even if that's not the comment being linked to. It's
> the site we want to prevent links to, not just particular pages.
It's reasonable to say that there are valid reasons for wanting to link to
many websites that contain personal attacks. It could be as part of an
academic (for want of a better word) discussion --- "this is what the kids
are saying about us now, what can we do about it?" It could be that
someone on Wikipedia Review turned out to be smarter than expected
and has genuinely proposed a Really Good Idea for improving Wikipedia. It
could be that ... well, that's all I can think of this morning, but it's enough ...
and I'm sure there's more.
We need to take into account the intent of the linker and the purpose of the
link. If I link to Wikipedia Review as a "subtle" way of saying, "Take that,
SlimVirgin!", then I am being a Dick and should be treated as one who has
made a personal attack. If I link to Wikipedia Review because Blu Ardvaark
has, against all the odds, posted something worth reading, and I want to
encourage on-wiki discussion of his idea, this should not be prevented.
> The other problem with your proposal is if we equate on- and off-wiki
> attacks, it would mean we could ban people for off-wiki attacks,
> something the community has not previously supported. Similarly, the
> systematic removal of on-wiki attacks is not fully supported.
Erm, not exactly. If David Gerard were to say on Wikipedia Review, "I
think Jimbo Wales is a big poopy stinkhead" (something he's been known
to do, I hear), then I could not be blocked for it (and neither could David)
for making on-wiki personal attacks. If, however, I were to post a link to
that page, and say, "David Gerard is bang-on in his assessment of
Jimbo Wales", then - hey presto! Personal attack. If I choose to link to
an off-wiki personal attack, I am bringing that attack into the realm of Wikipedia.
You have a point about removing on-wiki attacks.
> What we are talking about are the sites, not particular attacks.
We are unlikely to hurt sites like Wikipedia Review simply by snubbing them.
Other attack sites, like Daniel Brandt's abhorrent attempt to "out" admins,
will likely only go away by convincing him to give it up --- perhaps through
legal action --- because, whether it's popular or not, he's got a personal stake
in keeping it there (that's a nicer way of calling him a loony).
The only thing to be gained from banning links altogether is to make us feel a
bit better about ourselves, Bravely Combating the Nasty People on the Internet.
Now, there's a lot to be said about making us feel better about ourselves
(particularly those of us who have been targetted by attack sites), but I don't
agree that it is sufficient reason to ban all reference to an attack site.
Let's stop the people who are using the attack sites maliciously on-wiki
(e.g. advertising Brandt's website and saying "help him expose the admins
you hate!"), but let's do it with a bit more finesse than "never link to a bad site."
Cheers,
--
[[User:MarkGallagher]]
