The article [[incivility]] is likely the worst I have started.
Please help a needy page.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Hello,
I've just written a brief essay on the relationship between reliable
sources and verifiability (and, ultimately, the worth of the article.)
This is my first essay, and comments and constructive criticisms are
more than welcome on the essay's talk page.
The essay is entitled "No reliable sources, no verifiability, no
article" and it can be found at [[WP:NRSNVNA]].
Cheers,
Evan Jones
User:Chardish
According to Simetrical:
"It is now possible for wikis to require a certain number of edits, as well
as a certain registration time period, for users to become autoconfirmed.
Thus, for instance, accounts that have existed for several weeks but have
made fewer than five edits might be prevented from moving pages or so on. If
a particular wiki would like this enabled for them, it can file a bug report
after community agreement."
I think we should enable this with a threshold of 10 edits. 10 edits is
reasonable for a vandal to go through the whole warning system and get
blocked, while at the same time not too much so as to discourage new
contributors.
--Mets501
I see a problem case for our "Mediation Cabal" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Bei…
Mediator's result:
"Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed.
Wiki<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikizach>
e <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EA>Zach|
talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach>19:20, 26 January
2007 (UTC)"
There are two main problems with this:
#1 - the dispute was never about the "First Amendment", but about whether
the photos and quotations in question were violations of NPOV standards (and
for that matter, whether they were genuine or not). This is not looked at at
all by the mediator's result, nor commented on anywhere by the mediator.
#2 - As referenced by another thread on this mailing list, Wikipedia is not
bound by the US Constitution nor the First Amendment thereof. Therefore, the
"result" of the Mediation has no basis in policy.
I find it to be a bad mediation.
Parker
Hello,
Recently the Mayor of a small town in Texas tried to pass an ordinance
making it against the law to use the ³N² word within the city limits. Fine:
$500 for each offense.
He went into this believing the ordinance¹s passage would be a slam dunk
it wasn¹t. The vast majority of the multiracial citizens of the town
protested to such a degree that he finally gave up and abandoned the idea.
The citizens' basic argument: what word is next?
I bring this up because, when I first came to WP, the one policy I found
most disturbing was the one concerning ³incivility². Most especially the
practice of banning (punishing) members of the WP community for using words
and phrases considered by whoever made up the policy to be ³offensive².
This, to me, made WP free in every thing but speech.
I know this issue has been touched upon several times in this Mailing List
just since I started participating in it, but I wanted to speak directly to
the policy and its practice at this time.
If a particular word or phrase offends you hit delete and move on.
What are your thoughts and feelings about this?
Marc Riddell
Seeing how a few detractors here have been throwing around the term
"groupthink" I have to ask, is there any real difference between the
two or does it depend on which side of a "consensus" decision you are
on? That is, if an article you wrote/are involved with survives AFD,
then it's "consensus", if it gets deleted, it's "groupthink". Of
course it's the other way around if it's an article you don't like.
Same with an edit to an active article. If the edit stands, it's
"consensus" if it's constantly reverted and your persistence gets you
banned by a "rogue admin (tm)", it's "groupthink".
Therefore, I have to wonder if "groupthink", as long as it doesn't
lead to an [[Abilene paradox]] might not just be another way of saying
"consensus" which can either be good or bad. Good if the "consensus"
decision squares with previously established policies, bad if it
doesn't.
Given the recent hubub about Universities banning Wikipedia, I thought I
would share my own class policy -- not approved by my department or
university in any way. You can also comment on it here:
http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/career/teaching/citing-wikipedia?showcomments…
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Bibliography and Wikipedia
Date: Thursday 01 February 2007 11:20
From: Joseph Reagle
To: "Impacts"
Hello everyone, I'll speak more about this in the coming week or so.
[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/2007/impacts/bp-bibliography.html
Like most professional practice, bibliography can and should be a
sensible thing. It shouldn't be a technicality or hassle, but integral
to your work in leading the reader through your scholarly context and
sources. This is why I provide you with the course readings formatted
(so you could copy and paste) and structured (so you can import it
into a tool like RefWorks). Unfortunately, bibliography is often
presented to students as a series of technical hurdles without much
thought given to the role it performs. Listing ones sources can
perform at least one the following functions: a citation identifies
the subject of a claim, it substantiates a claim, or it identifies an
influence. For example, consider the following three sentences:
1. Lanier (2006) believes Wikipedia is a form of online collectivism.
2. Because science related articles on Wikipedia are roughly as
accurate as Britannica (Giles 2005) they should be recommended as
a reference work.
3. The notion of an Internet encyclopedia dates back to 1993
(Wikipedia 2006i; Wilson and Reynard1994 ).
In the first example, the reference is the subject of the sentence,
that is all. In the second sentence I am incorporating an external
authoritative claim into the body of a (hypothetical) argument. In the
third example, I am documenting the influence of Wikipedia (so as not
to plagiarize) and substantiating the claim via an external authority
(a primary source).
In other classes, you might be restricted from using reference works,
including the Wikipedia. Instructors might be concerned that Wikipedia
is not authoritative or reliable. You certainly have to respect the
policies of other instructors, but I want you to ask in this
class: what, then, is authoritative? There are many books and articles
as likely, or more so, to contain nonsense as an encyclopedia. Instead
of simply excluding a genre of work, we need to be media literate;
this is an important skill to develop as a scholar and citizen.
Furthermore, I believe to forbid the citation of a reference work
contributes to a form of dishonesty posing as pretense. (How does the
person who only reads original sources find those sources?) Finally,
some worry that web pages can change and be touched by many. Indeed,
this is a great opportunity to appreciate that all knowledge is a
reflection of a society and its time.
Instead of barring citations of reference works I have a simple
alternative. Unless vetted by an instructor (e.g., as part of the
syllabus) a reference article should never be cited alone. As I often
say, a Wikipedia article is only as reliable as its sources, and those
should be consulted, carefully considered, and cited in addition to
Wikipedia. Reference to Web resources should include the date of
access and the specific version consulted, which Wikipedia articles'
provide via the "permanent link" in the left sidebar.
For your midterm assignment on "Failed Predictions" you are required
to engage a Wikipedia article as the subject of your analysis. You
should also consider the provenance (source) of the prediction and
substantiate your analysis with authoritative sources from the
syllabus and beyond. All of these should be noted in your
bibliography.
Works Cited
Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature.
Retrieved on December 15, 2005 from <
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html >
Lanier, J. (2006). The hazards of the new online collectivism. Edge.
Retrieved on June 07, 2006 17:18 UTC from <
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge183.html >
Wikipedia (2006i). Interpedia. Wikimedia. Retrieved on October 20,
2006 17:14 UTC from <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interpedia&oldid=73394880 >
Wilson, D. and Reynard, A. M. (1994). Interpedia frequently asked
questions and answers. Retrieved on October 27, 2005 from <
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=CL9x0u.B4x%40acsu.buffalo.edu&outp
ut=gplain >
]]
-------------------------------------------------------
--
Regards, http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/
Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
>From THE WEEKLY SPIN, JANUARY 31, 2007
http://www.prwatch.org/spin
7. DEZENHALL TELLS PUBLISHERS: OPENNESS IS CENSORSHIP
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5672
"A group of big scientific publishers has hired"
aggressive public relations executive Eric Dezenhall "to
take on the free-information movement," reports Jim Giles.
"Some traditional journals, which depend on subscription
charges, say that open-access journals and public databases
... threaten their livelihoods." Dezenhall "spoke to
employees from Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical
Society at a meeting arranged last July by the Association
of American Publishers." AAP subsequently hired his firm,
Dezenhall Resources. In emails obtained by Nature,
Dezenhall suggested the publishers claim that "public
access equals government censorship" and "equate
traditional publishing models with peer review." He
recommended they work with the Competitive Enterprise
Institute and gave his campaign fee as $300,000 to 500,000.
In another email, Wiley's director of corporate
communications said Dezenhall told the publishers they "had
acted too defensively" and "worried too much about making
precise statements."
SOURCE: Nature, January 24, 2007
9. A CO-OPERATIVE APPROACH TO FAKE NEWS
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5670
When one satellite media tour (SMT) -- a sponsored,
canned TV "interview" -- promotes multiple products, it's
called a "co-op media tour." PR Week reports that "co-op
media tours are on the rise, and not just because they
spread the production costs among multiple brands." Michele
Wallace of the broadcast PR firm Medialink Worldwide says
that "numerous products centered around a theme ... can
provide a pretty strong news hook that may not be there
when you focus on one product." PR Week's tips include
making "sure your co-op tour doesn't appear too
commercialized." News Broadcast Network's Matthew Smith
says disclosure concerns haven't affected "the overall
interest in co-op tours," but adds that "stations want to
know if the spokesperson is being paid and by whom so they
can convey that to the audience." Whether TV stations
actually doprovide that disclosure to viewers is another
matter altogether.
SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), January 22, 2007
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shillhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lickhttp://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
On 30 Jan 2007 at 20:56, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
wrote:
> If you?re restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.
You still have some character set problems with your mail program, as
seen whenever you try to use an apostrophe and it comes out as a
question mark in the digest version.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/