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(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
wikien-l(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikien-l-owner(a)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(a)apple.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response
to Fred Bauder)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <40BEB514.8020303(a)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(a)earthlink.net>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can of worms: my new diet
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <40BEB62E.3000109(a)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(a)hotmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <BAY7-F46g9S83w4bnN30002c80d(a)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(a)ctelco.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <BCE46F28.3F66%fredbaud(a)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(a)hotmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
To: wikien-l(a)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(a)ctelco.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response
to Fred Bauder)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <BCE47512.3F6B%fredbaud(a)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(a)apple.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)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(a)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(a)hotmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <BAY7-F84KuFXFMnLW0l00054bf9(a)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, Im to pissed to be capable of expressing whats 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(a)excite.com>
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <20040603145756.5BA45109EE5(a)xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
--- On Thu 06/03, Abe Sokolov < abesokolov(a)hotmail.com > wrote:
From: Abe Sokolov [mailto: abesokolov(a)hotmail.com]
To: wikien-l(a)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(a)verizon.net>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <p06020443bce4f682198f(a)[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(a)hotmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <BAY7-F67v1jNovUKF7n0000c402(a)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(a)gmx.de>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiReader Free Software and Free Contents
To: WikiEN-l <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20040603161951.GC13324(a)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_Co…
*
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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9
***************************************