Matt R wrote:
>Doesn't seem overly "spikey" to me, unless I've missed further debate
>elsewhere. Why exactly do these Wikipedians need to "cool it"? As AfD goes, it
>seems pretty harmless. I'm sorry, but I don't really think it's constructive to
>shout and swear at Wikipedians based on what appears to be an unconvincing
>example of us treating outsiders badly.
Whether he's overreacting or not is actually not so relevant. When we
piss off people with an audience, they will tend to say so to their
audience. Is this something to be avoided if possible?
[ ] yes
[ ] no
Feel free to stay in self-righteous denial about a PR nightmare.
- d.
I welcome Jimbo's forthright statement that "political or, more
broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project", and his
thoughtful and considerate request that editors contemplate helping to
reduce the userbox culture by "simply removing your
political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same.
This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the
userbox wars."
I know this is going to meet resistance, so I'm trying to think of a
way in which those who think that expressing their opinions on their
userpages helps wikipedia and have so far chosen to do so using
userboxes, can be asked to do so in a way that doesn't contribute to
the very divisive culture that has ground up specifically around
userboxes.
I've come up with a suggestion as follows:
1. that if he disagrees with Jimbo's request, the user should instead
consider using the subst command to place the content of the template
directly into his userpage. This would reduce the "viral"
transmission of userboxes somewhat and, for the user, it would have
the benefit of divorcing the fate of parts of his userpage from the
fate of individual userboxes--whether editing or deletion.
2. that having done this, he should take the opportunity to edit the
text so that it more precisely expresses his individual views. In my
opinion this would be more in keeping with the *good* effects of
userboxes in enabling self-expression, while being more in keeping
with the principle that Wikipedia is a wiki in which we edit content,
and not a cookie-cutter website in which we reduce our complex beliefs
as individuals into regimented blocs that serve no purpose but to
emphasize the cultural divisions.
I think of this as "grandfathering". Ultimately we should be able to
foster a benign culture of fearless expression of our editorial
biases, without enabling the subversion of our relatively fragile
neutrality principle by alliances between single-issue
campaigners--however justifiable they may feel this subversion to be.
Just some blue sky thinking:
Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion at [[WP:NPOV]]
recently, and this has got me thinking:
We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or someone
is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an "opinion" and
note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up term POV
is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are wrong,
I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-negotiable, which isn't
a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far too many
people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make
the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes without
saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain completely
unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would enhance
people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint, rather than no
viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy in positive terms
and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content disputes escalating
in scale and viciousness.
Kind regards
Jon
(jguk)
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
Because in 45 minutes this morning I could create and fill with 40 articles
[[Category:Fixed points]], ranging from work of John Nash to quantum field
theory, touching on voting systems and [[Common knowledge]] on the way.
Charles
sorry i accidently sent more than one message. it wasn't clear to me
that my first message got through. now i know better how to use this
tool (i think).
in response to your e-mail, you gave one of six incidents i observed this
past week where Eliezer silenced a dissenting voice. most of them
involved different users. let me focus upon my own problem with
Eliezer. he currently has me under a 24-hour block because he claims i
violated the 3rr rule (though the 3rr rule permits me to revert vandalism
by OpenInfo. e.g. "he claims to be from the knesset" "opinion of ONE
israeli", etc. instead of permitting me to entitle my own comments
"reason for alert" and the like) if i violated the 3rr rule, then so did
OpenInfo and the 3rr rule specifies Eliezer must apply the rule fairly to
all offending parties. Eliezer deleted my tags, blocked me without
warning and did not block OpenInfo. what's the difference between
OpenInfo and me? OpenInfo shares Eliezer's anti-messianic agenda and
admits on the talk page that he supports outreach judaism - an
anti-messianic group. i expressed the mainstream voice of judaism that
is pluralistic.
on this same note, i tagged the alert and went to the talk page to
explain the reason for my tag. as i was typing part 2 of my reason,
Eliezer blocked me. my full explanation never saw the light of day. the
partial explanation i managed to get onto the talk page was ignored by
Eliezer and criticized by OpenInfo. this certainly does not represent
the voice of the community who watches this article.
(please note: i never stated that i personally sibscribe to any of the
above-mentioned views. Eliezer and OpenInfo ASSUME i'm expressing my own
religious views. while i have my own religious convictions this forum is
not the appropriate place since all of us are supposedly neutral.)
finally, your question about the messianic jews executed during the
spanish inquisions is a valid question (though i never got the chance to
address that issue either in the article or on the talk page.) the
inquisions exclusively tagerted jews who were in the church - i.e. jews
who confessed belief in Jesus. while the majority of jews in spain at
that time refused to join the church or confess belief in Jesus, the
spaniards focused exclusively on jews within the church. they rounded up
1500, killed 500 who refused to renounce their jewish identity while
believing in Jesus and released 1,000 under a death threat who agreed to
renounce their jewish identity while believing in Jesus (at least
publicly). did the term "messianic jew" exist at the time? no. by
PROPER definition, were their religious beliefs and practices consistant
with messianic judaism or hebrew christianity? they certainly weren't
behaving like orthodox jews (though they could have). if we apply a
consistant and fair logic, then the article inaccurately asserts
messianic judaism "began" in the 1860's and came from the church of
england. the term "messianic jew" didn't exist at that time, either.
we'd have to say messianic judaism started in the 1970's when the
movement adopted the name and was clearly in full swing for a long time.
if we more appropriately analyze the CHARACTERISTICS of messianic
judaism, then we find this unique religious expression has existed 2,000
(which predates christianity by over 300 years). we further discover
messianic judaism has always existed over the past 2,000 years - whether
in large or small numbers.
give unbiased third parties who have done over 10 years research into
messianic judaism a voice in this article and i believe the end result
will be an article that preserves the intrigrity of wikipedia and does
not serve the radical agenda of Eliezer and OpenInfo.
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:32:05 +0100
From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Eliezer is not a suitable administrator
To: English Wikipedia
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sending one message to the list is quite enough.
If you are talking about reversions like
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Judaism&diff=36540336&o…
then
Eliezer was quite right to make them. Articles are about facts, and
questioning the validity of any of them, should happen on the talk
page.
Where and when did you post those concerns on the talk page? Just
tagging is
not enough.
I've seen several people tag the article as totally disputed without
putting
any discussion on the talk page.
It would help a lot of you posted diff links to the edits you are
referring
to see WP:DIFF.
About the first editorial comment. If the article says Messianic
Judaism
started in the 1800s, then are you sure Judaism was actually called
Messianic in the 1490s? Jews may have died during Crusades or at the
hands
of Queen Isabelle, but they may simply be a completely different form
of
Judaism altogether.
Mgm
On 1/26/06, david weiss wrote:
>
> eliezer imposes an unfair, seriously biased and inaccurate article
> dealing with messianic judaism. when i had previously raised my
concerns
> in the discussion page and point out the gross misinformation in
the main
> article, eliezar would delete my tag. (as a side note, i observed
others
> tag this article as violating the npov policy only to have their
tags
> deleted without explanation.)
>
> i expressed my concerns on the talk page, only to be vandalised by
> OpenInfo and blocked by Eliezer. Eliezer prevented me from
explaining:
> 1. where the npov policy was violated in several places; 2. show
where
> the facts were seriously inaccurate and, 3. show where the author
> contradicted himself. eliezer blocked me without sufficient warning
per
> the blocking policy.
>
> while i strongly disagree with eliezer's anti-messianic agenda, i
do not
> feel i vandalized the article or site in any way. this site's
policy
> allows me the freedom to edit articles that violate the npov in a
good
> faith effort to make them more accurate.
>
> i believe eliezer will only force his anti-messianic agenda upon
the
> public and a new administrator needs to be appointed who will
fairly
> address the topic. thank you for your prompt and open-minded
attention
> to this matter.
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
All,
CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert
copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals,
etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of
"the news media." I don't know how much material we might have that could
fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would consider
Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar with
Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing to
grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said
that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as
encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically from
their use. But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
-k
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html
Matt R wrote:
>Personally, I don't think it's a PR problem to have deleted a vanity page from
>some podcaster whose best claim for notability appears to be he "has listeners,
>so is doing better for notability than a lot of podcasters".
No, it's an example of larger broadcasters. They do get their stuff
deleted too. This is a taster of the sort of relations it creates.
>How about we talk about something that vaguely matters? I think it's a much
>more serious PR problem for the English Wikipedia that the German Wikipedia is
>lightyears ahead of us in distributing CDs/DVDs/print editions.
Yeah, it's not like we'll have to work with anyone else or have any
sort of good image in the world to get that accomplished.
- d.
I'm relaying the following message, which was posted at
[[Wikipedia:WikiReader]]. -- Matt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Wikipedia Users,
I am the Senior Sales Manager of a company called myphotobook GmbH. Recently, I
have been thinking a lot about how myphotobook could help support Jimmy Wales
vision. His idea is to make the knowledge on Wikipedia available for people in
Africa who cannot access the Internet or cannot pay for it. It goes without
saying that this help should be free.
Kurt Jansson, from WikiMedia Germany, approves my project and has advised me to
discuss it with you here so as to get your feedback.
I would like to propose printing and binding the Encyclopedia into a real book,
which would be sold in the First World. For every copy sold, a free copy will
be printed and delivered in Africa. This would be a great way to support the
Third World.
Since we print every copy on demand (from one up to as many as required), it
would not cost the Wikipedia Foundation anything, contrary to normal printing
solutions.
A few questions are yet to be answered, such as how the whole work should be
published or whether all entries should be included or not.
I would really appreciate it if you could send me your suggestions.
Those of you who wish to contact me directly can send an email to:
wikipedia(a)myphotobook.de
Many thanks in advance!
Friendly regards,
Mike Zimmermann
myphotobook GmbH
___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
eliezer imposes an unfair, seriously biased and inaccurate article
dealing with messianic judaism. when i had previously raised my concerns
in the discussion page and point out the gross misinformation in the main
article, eliezar would delete my comments. (as a side note, i observed
others tag this article as violating the npov policy only to have their
tags deleted without explanation.)
i wove my editorial comments into the main article and eliezer deleted my
comments- saying it belonged on the discussion page (though he had
already deleted my comments from the discussion page). i attempted to
repost my woven comments on the discussion page and he deleted there
again. i attempted to repost my comments woven into the main article to:
1. highlight where the npov policy was violated in several places; 2.
show where the facts were seriously inaccurate and, 3. show where the
author contradicted himself. eliezer blocked me without sufficient
warning per the blocking policy.
while i strongly disagree with eliezer's anti-messianic agenda, i do not
feel i vandalized the article or site in any way. this site's policy
allows me the freedom to edit articles that violate the npov in a good
faith effort to make them more accurate.
i believe eliezer will only force his anti-messianic agenda upon the
public and a new administrator needs to be appointed who will fairly
address the topic. if no other unbiased third party is willing to take
that responsibility, i am willing to volunteer. (just tell me what i
need to do to qualify) thank you for your prompt and open-minded
attention to this matter.
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
I did an interview yesterday and got a taste of the effects of AFD on
Wikipedia's relations with the outside world. The guy's a podcaster of
minor notability - http://bicyclemark.org/ . (Though he has listeners,
so is doing better for notability than a lot of podcasters.)
The thorny bit was talking about WP:AFD and its ... little ways. He
sprung on me in the interview that he had created an article on
himself, it was deleted as "vanity", several of his readers recreated
it, it was deleted all those times too, and apparently some of the
deletion discussion comments were more than a little spiky. I think I
talked my way past that one OK ("this user is a native speaker of
Bullshit"), but it was a tricky moment. I explained that if he got
referenceable notice from third parties, that may show that he was
notable enough to probably rate an article; that next month he might
become vastly popular and clearly rate an article; and emphasised that
the edge cases are always the painful ones.
(He says the podcast should be up tonight or Saturday morning.)
This is a minor podcaster, not broadcast media. But the point remains
that this sort of thing causes real problems. Many think we shouldn't
care about media image, but those dealing with our sometimes shaky
relations with the outside world are understandably sensitive to
potential PR disasters of this sort. It would be almost no effort at
all to go through AFD and find a hundred diffs "proving" that
Wikipedians are rude bastards, for example. (I'm sure someone can
suggest it to Mr Orlowski at the Register.)
So please, when discussing things on AFD ... FOR FUCK SAKE, COOL IT IN
YOUR COMMENTS AND TREATMENT OF OUTSIDERS. AND PEER-PRESSURE OTHERS TO
DO SO. Thanks.
- d.