[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9

Thu Jun 3 16:39:29 UTC 2004

Too many cooks ruined the soup.
I just barely checked in and after a peruse--PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME!
How about 173?
Jack

wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
>         wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
>       Bauder) (Stan Shebs)
>    2. Re: Can of worms: my new diet (Michael Snow)
>    3. Response to Jack Lynch  (Abe Sokolov)
>    4. Re: Response to Jack Lynch  (Fred Bauder)
>    5. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to       Fred
>       Bauder) (Fred Bauder)
>    6. Response to Jack Lynch (Abe Sokolov)
>    7. RE: Response to Jack Lynch  (Jack Lynch)
>    8. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (Sheldon Rampton)
>    9. Response to Jack Lynch (Abe Sokolov)
>   10. WikiReader Free Software and Free Contents (Thomas R. Koll)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response
>         to Fred Bauder)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <40BEB514.8020303 at apple.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>
> >
> > It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others
> > -- characterize this as a right/left argument.  Even they understand
> > that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument.  I have
> > gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the
> > root issue.  Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other
> > countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in
> > terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not
> > think this is constructive.
>
> It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century
> history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be
> too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through
> Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until
> researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online
> and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history
> is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by
> their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you
> have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments,
> etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there
> are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one
> way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in
> difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with
> locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state
> legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is
> a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel
> Pipes and his crowd.
>
> The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
> hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
> less authoritative than 172?
>
> Stan
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:25:02 -0700
> From: Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can of worms: my new diet
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <40BEB62E.3000109 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry I opened this can of worms.
> >
> Now, now, Ed, even with the personal attacks thick upon the air here,
> you really should know better than to start comparing respectable
> contributors to worms.
>
> --Michael Snow (practicing the selective quotation and interpretation
> that seems to be so popular on this list)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F46g9S83w4bnN30002c80d at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"
>
> Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
> insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
> appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
> the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.
>
> That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on
> the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making
> this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility
> among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is.
> These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but
> they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity
> among Wikipedia users.
>
> When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and
> dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that truly impugn a user's
> credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
> a trip to NY
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:01:12 -0600
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BCE46F28.3F66%fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> It is mostly a matter of emphasis, of consistently editing articles to give
> a positive spin to totalitarian leftist political organizations. Admitting
> atrocities, but downplaying them is a tactic, the strategy is to present
> leftist totalitarianism in the most favorable light possible.
>
> Thus a naive reader is mislead by what appears to be an objective "academic"
> stance but is in fact just clever presentation of a distinct point of view.
> That the majority of the historians in the academic community support this
> view adds a figleaf. But on Wikipedia, everyone is free to edit any article,
> including those who are "politically incorrect".
>
> Fred
>
> > From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> > To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> >
> > Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"
> >
> > Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
> > insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
> > appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
> > the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:26:26 -0600
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response
>         to      Fred Bauder)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BCE47512.3F6B%fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I think we are getting down to the issue here. Academic politics are
> definitely involved. I find the book, In Denial: Historians, Communism &
> Espionage, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, hardcover, ISBN 1893554724
> to be useful in sorting these matters out. This book, of course, supports
> the traditionalist point of view as opposed to the revisionist school.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
> > Bauder)
> >
> > steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others
> >> -- characterize this as a right/left argument.  Even they understand
> >> that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument.  I have
> >> gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the
> >> root issue.  Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other
> >> countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in
> >> terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not
> >> think this is constructive.
> >
> > It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century
> > history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be
> > too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through
> > Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until
> > researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online
> > and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history
> > is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by
> > their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you
> > have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments,
> > etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there
> > are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one
> > way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in
> > difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with
> > locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state
> > legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is
> > a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel
> > Pipes and his crowd.
> >
> > The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
> > hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
> > less authoritative than 172?
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:30:30 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F84KuFXFMnLW0l00054bf9 at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Fred, are you accusing me of strategizing to "downplay the atrocities of
> leftist totalitarianism?" If that's the case, then you are a liar. I do not
> do this, intentionally or unintentionally. Unless you're deliberately
> modeling yourself after Joe McCarthy, try to find a way to spew your
> political rants on the mailing list without hurting people and tearing them
> down in the process.
>
> BTW, please read Slrubenstein's posting (and try to comprehend). At the
> moment, I’m to pissed to be capable of expressing what’s he getting across
> clearly and politely.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
> a trip to NY
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu,  3 Jun 2004 10:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Jack Lynch" <jacklynch at excite.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040603145756.5BA45109EE5 at xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>  --- On Thu 06/03, Abe Sokolov < abesokolov at hotmail.com > wrote:
> From: Abe Sokolov [mailto: abesokolov at hotmail.com]
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
>
> Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"<br><br>Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have <br>insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd <br>appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose <br>the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.<br><br>That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on <br>the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making <br>this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility <br>among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is. <br>These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but <br>they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity <br>among Wikipedia users.<br><br>When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and <br>dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that tru
>  ly impugn a user's <br>credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.<br><br>
>
> I have found you unreliable in some areas of politics or history because of your demeanor, not because of some specific factual inaccuracy.<br> Yours is a matter of POV, rudeness, and haughtiness, not one of fraud, falsification, or incompetance.<br>  I understand that you feel that your expertise invalidates concerns of POV, or asigns you a superior intellectual status, but I assure you that you are mistaken.<br>  That being said I have slowly noticed the general quality of your edits, and that gives me some reason to strive to see past your partisan persona.<br>  The spiteful and uncompromising condescension which I encountered the first time we disagreed was not my first impression of you actually.<br> You made a fine impression, complimentary and pleasant when first we spoke, as I was seconding a self-nomination you placed as a brilliant prose candidate.<br> Jack<br><br>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:52:00 -0500
> From: Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton at verizon.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <p06020443bce4f682198f@[10.255.72.22]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >Because there's no possible excuse for personal attacks. It doesn't
> >matter how strongly you feel about the issue, your personal history,
> >nothing.
>
> The people who think that Abe *initiated* personal attacks should
> take another look at the title of this thread. This entire discussion
> is taking place in the context of an attack on Abe in which a
> proposal is on the table to ban him. Moreover, the discussion here
> has been mean-spirited and unfair. Abe posted the text of an article
> he wrote about the failings of the Soviet economy. I read the
> article, and I could see that it contained several clear, strong
> criticisms of Stalinist policies that hurt the economy. Nevertheless,
> Fred and others responded to the article by waxing nasty and
> sarcastic. They cherry-picked phrases out of the article that made it
> sound like Abe was blaming workers for poor productivity, and then
> threw in gratuitous accusations of being an apologist for dictators
> because in their opinion Fred's article didn't say enough about the
> Soviet gulags. As far as I can see, Fred is the one who initiated
> this attack, and he did it dishonestly. He has a different POV than
> Abe, and he's trying to resolve it by having him banned and by
> warring about the content of his article on this listserv.
>
> Sure, Abe shouldn't have called Fred "senile," but in the overall
> context of nasty discourse that has characterized this thread, I
> don't think Abe's comment stands out as being more egregious than the
> insults that have been thrown his way.
>
> --Sheldon Rampton
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:03:17 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F67v1jNovUKF7n0000c402 at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Oh, now I remember that critical theory nomination. I'm sorry if I was being
> a bit harsh at the time (I was trying to react to your comments and not you
> personally). But still, that was really a good article, written for the most
> part by a well known philosopher and English language translator of Jürgen
> Habermas while he was contributing to Wikipedia I think that if you reread
> my comments, you'll find that they aren't as harsh as you're making them out
> to be.
>
> I might be wrong, but if I could remember correctly you said something to
> the effect of the prose sounding like "intellectual masturbation." I repied
> that that could be your ignorance. But at the same time, I admitted that I
> was ignorant of just about every other article nominated for featured status
> and pointing to the fact that I wasn't making likely-to-be uninformed
> criticisms of them. If anything, I was trying suggest that you might want to
> withhold your oppostion, that's all. BTW, at the time I think that I was
> also confusing you with another user with a similar user name.
>
> I hope that this clarification and apology will put the tensions between the
> two of us at bay
>
> -172
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:19:51 +0200
> From: "Thomas R. Koll" <tomk32 at gmx.de>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiReader Free Software and Free Contents
> To: WikiEN-l <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040603161951.GC13324 at tomk32.homelinux.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As you might have read on wikipedia-l or de:Wikipedia we have started
> to make PDFs out of our contents at de:
> Today I want announce to those who haven't heard about it yet, that
> I'm planning to do a WikiReader on Free Software and Free Contents.
> The plan is to get it done by June 9th as a kind of gift for
> the WOS3 conference in Berlin. Jimbo and Eloqunce will held speeches and
> there's the "Wikipedia Community Day".
>
> Generating the PDF and such is easy, but the time consumpting thing
> is finding a final TOC and extending some of the articles.
>
> I hope that some of you are interested in the topic and take a look at
> the current TOC.
>
> ciao, tom
>
> == External Links ==
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Free_Software_and_Free_Contents
> * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader
>
> --
> == Weblinks ==
> * http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
> * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32 - Free Knowledge
> * http://tinyurl.com/27c88 - WikiReader Internet: bald im Druck
> * http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com - Free Books
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9
> ***************************************