Interesting examples. For both O.J. and Phil I would assume we can create
fairly complete biographies using appropriate souces.
I am doubtful that we could really make a "biography" for Gary Glitter
without a lot of unacceptable sources being used, or a too full reliance on a
single source.
Will
In a message dated 8/7/2009 12:17:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk writes:
As you say, Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples. When it comes, for
example, to [[O J Simpson]], it becomes more moot, although I could
suggest
others, such as [[Gary Glitter]] and [[Phil Spector]].
**** Hoi,
I think this is relevant and of interest to us all...
Thanks,
GerardM
Report and related press release of interest...
The Minority Rights Group International (MRG) in collaboration with UNICEF
has recently released their "State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous
Peoples 2009," which includes a full chapter on Multilingual Education.
Links to the report:
http://www.minorityrights.org/7948/state-of-the-worlds-minorities/state-of-…
A press release focusing on Language:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47693
EDUCATION: Mother Tongue Absent in Thousands of Classrooms by Haider Rizvi
Article: Indigenous Languages: A View from UNICEF
http://www.minorityrights.org/download.php?id=664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all!
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of
structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force, to work
together to come up with some firm recommendations and guidelines for
dealing with the issue, to be made to the Wikipedia community,
Foundation board and staff.
In that respect, I'd like to solicit members of the community to take
part in this project. If you are interested, please send me a brief
email summarizing what your involvement in BLPs in the past has been
and your own opinion as to why BLPs are such a problematic area. You
can email me direct at cary(a)wikimedia.org. Initially, this task force
should focus on the English Wikipedia, but its recommendations may
also be applicable for other projects; so anyone with an interest may
be appropriate.
I'm putting this out there now, because my availability over the
coming weeks before Wikimania will be somewhat limited, so forgive me
if you respond with interest immediately and I don't get back to you
right away. I expect development of this task force to go into high
gear in September.
Thank you for your interest.
Very truly yours,
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkp5w1AACgkQyQg4JSymDYnJ6QCgmR4fDzBDLJIe5dXNS1s9Salr
MxsAoOB+YewbKawBdMtFtzqnkWKvrfJJ
=82hc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Or perhaps you are misunderstand what I requested.
Being flip and hyperbolic isn't an effective way to argue.
I am not stating that *some* psychologists aren't saying that publishing
the (effective) answer-sheet is harmful.
I am stating that "Psychologists" are not saying this. That is, where is
the indication that the majority or even a large percentage of psychologists
feel this way? Ad-hoc discussion pages really don't offer proof of what
any certain percentage of a population believes.
Will
In a message dated 8/4/2009 12:55:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
You're making a highly disingenuous request. Professionals who want the
pictures removed don't claim it's because of money. They give other
reasons,
which have already been repeated. The only way you can get the idea that
it's money is by deciding that since you don't believe their stated
reasons,
it has to be money instead.
You may as well ask for evidence that they're not really doing it because
they're space aliens.
Insufficient. Being rude isn't going to win converts to the cause.
In a message dated 8/4/2009 8:50:38 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
Of what? Complaints not based on money? Read the discussion page,
sheesh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html
"Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet?"
' Yet in the last few months, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has
been engulfed in a furious debate involving psychologists who are
angry that the 10 original Rorschach plates are reproduced online,
along with common responses for each. For them, the Wikipedia page is
the equivalent of posting an answer sheet to next year’s SAT.
They are pitted against the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s
users, who share the site’s “free culture” ethos, which opposes the
suppression of information that it is legal to publish. (Because the
Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost
their copyright protection in the United States.)'
...
'Trudi Finger, a spokeswoman for Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, the
German company that bought an early publisher of Hermann Rorschach’s
book, said in an e-mail message last week: “We are assessing legal
steps against Wikimedia,” referring to the foundation that runs the
Wikipedia sites.
Skip to next paragraph
“It is therefore unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia,”
she said, “to on one hand point out the concerns and dangers voiced by
recognized scientists and important professional associations and on
the other hand — in the same article — publish the test material along
with supposedly ‘expected responses.’ ”
Mike Godwin, the general counsel at Wikimedia, hardly sounded
concerned, saying he “had to laugh a bit” at the legal and ethical
arguments made in the statement from Hogrefe.
Hogrefe licenses a number of companies in the United States to sell
the plates along with interpretative material. One such distributor,
Western Psychological Services, sells the plates themselves for $110
and a larger kit for $185.'
I'm starting to think maybe the Signpost or Foundation should start
soliciting donations from Noam Cohen - he only ever seems to write
based on them...
--
gwern
'lo,
Had a few days of posts to catch up on, but have now finally seen
people's responses to my question regarding where I should devote my
energies on en:wp. The answer: providing citations.
Yes, I can see how this is an area that needs help. My energy levels
and ability to concentrate are hindered by health problems and I think
providing good citations for statements in articles will sometimes be
a bit of a challenge. However, I do have good days, so when I'm
feeling capable I'll look to work on that area.
Thanks for the input.
bnb
Todays New Scientist (vol 203 no 2718 page 20/21) has an interesting article
on the veracity of online medical information; with several somewhat
inconsistent references to wikipedia.
It admits that several studies have found us "almost entirely free of
factual errors", though does criticise us for incompleteness, alleging that
some drug firms have been removing negative info about their products. But
it also finds it disconcerting that 50% of doctors use Wikipedia.
It ends with the assertion that "The Wikipedia of the future, it seems,
looks set to become a far more reputable place." Having quoted one pundit
who thought it would be easier to improve wikipedia.
One interesting contrast is with sites that only allow qualified Doctors to
edit them, but it seems that New Scientist's current substantive criticism
is our incompleteness, not our veracity.
--
WereSpielChequers
Hi folks:
This is just a reminder: Eugene and I will be having our regular
weekly office hours to discuss strategic planning. The time for this
week is:
Tuesdays from 20:00-21:00 UTC, which is: Tuesday, 1-2pm PDT or
Tuesday, 4-5pm EDT.
The office hours will be held in #wikimedia on the IRC freenode network.
You can get more information at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Office_Hours
Hope to see you there!
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategic Planning
Wikimedia Foundation
pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate