Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа:
> On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard wrote:
> > The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
> > you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
> > uncitability. I suppose we could advise expert
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard wrote:
> The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
> you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
> uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation
> as a debating tactic.
Unless we all sti
On 2 October 2010 22:21, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I think that is a misunderstanding that operated at the time as well. This is
> not about having to chew your way through all the available scholarly
> literature before you are allowed to start the article "canal".
>
> It is about checking if ther
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard wrote:
> The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
> you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
> uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation
> as a debating tactic.
"Experts complai
On 2 October 2010 22:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I agree with you, David, that credentialism isn't the way forward. But asking
> editors, nicely, to please do some research and to check what scholarly
> literature is available, in google scholar, in google books, and in academic
> publications
> Putting in place what are effectively featured article
> standards would
> for starting new articles would be a great way of killing
> the project
> if it was remotely enforceable.
>
> Worse still articles like [[Canal]] would be effectively
> unrwritable
> by anyone. Since there is not going to
I agree, increasing the quality of editors rather than number of editors
would increase the quality of information and decrease the propensity of
editors to over-write incorrect information.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > No indeed. That's why I say the question is how
> No indeed. That's why I say the question is how to get
> across to
> idiots that they are, in fact, idiots - without breaking
> what clearly
> works fantastically well on Wikipedia. (How to avoid, for
> instance,
> falling into a credentialism death spiral.)
I guess it is also worth thinking ab
On 2 October 2010 21:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> This suggests the problem is: how do you *get across to*
>> someone that
>> they're just ignorant, in a manner that is duplicable
>> across the wiki,
>> and do that without breaking our spectacular successes so
>> far?
>
>
> Well, one way is to make
Yes, surely, this makes sense.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > This suggests the problem is: how do you *get across to*
> > someone that
> > they're just ignorant, in a manner that is duplicable
> > across the wiki,
> > and do that without breaking our spectacular succes
> This suggests the problem is: how do you *get across to*
> someone that
> they're just ignorant, in a manner that is duplicable
> across the wiki,
> and do that without breaking our spectacular successes so
> far?
Well, one way is to make clear to our editors that we expect them to make a bit
- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> I didn't say or mean anything about the WMF. As I said, it's an
> evolved folk construction of what
It explains things quite well.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:01 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 October 2010 20:53, Peter Damian wrote:
> > From: "David Gerard"
>
> >> Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own folk ontology: an
> >> answer to the question "what is knowledge?" that is simple
On 2 October 2010 20:53, Peter Damian wrote:
> From: "David Gerard"
>> Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own folk ontology: an
>> answer to the question "what is knowledge?" that is simple and obvious
>> enough for smart high school students. And I'm not meaning to
>> denigrate smart
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 21:08, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 10/2/2010 8:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> I do believe the fact that there is less of a culture of scholarly source
>> research in en:WP, and a preference of press sources over scholarly sources,
>> especially in the humanities, impacts ve
- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own folk ontology: an
> answer to the question "what
On 10/2/2010 8:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I do believe the fact that there is less of a culture of scholarly source
> research in en:WP, and a preference of press sources over scholarly sources,
> especially in the humanities, impacts very negatively on en:WP's performance
> in this area.
I
On 2 October 2010 19:09, wrote:
> You can sit in your padded room and throw your toys around in a temper
> tantrum, but that still won't change anything will it.
While WJohnson's manner is perhaps unnecessarily brusque here, this is
the point: what to do about this?
Wikipedia does appear to h
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> You can sit in your padded room and throw your toys around in a temper
> tantrum, but that still won't change anything will it.
I apologise I lost my
In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:21:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
> You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail
> to
> understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject
> is
> in inverse proportion to you ar
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail to
understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject is
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged!
OK you're a nutcase. Sorry. This is exactly the problem I have with
Wikipedia. End of conversation.
__
In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:04:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
> You missed the point again. Sarah is not saying that the *readers* need
> to
> understand the basics. She is saying that the problem is with *editors*. >
> >
And you've missed the point.
Th
Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> But are [sic] mission is to explain things to that level.
You have totally missed Sarah's point. She said
>>Academics don't have the time or patienc
In a message dated 10/2/2010 3:01:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
slimvir...@gmail.com writes:
> Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for
> years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the
> subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts woul
Sarah, this goes back to our discussion at en:WP:V a couple of weeks ago --
when it comes to humanities, en:WP doesn't emphasise the need for scholarly
sources enough, and instead produces something that is more like a press
mirror. This starts a vicious circle.
In de:WP, the [[WP:BLG]] policy
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: "David Gerard"
>>> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
>>> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
>>> in your opinion? Please be specific.
>
> David, I think one of the reasons that
> From: "David Gerard"
>> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
>> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
>> in your opinion? Please be specific.
David, I think one of the reasons that biologists and others may be
happier than philosophers to edit Wikipedi
> The question of which ones of the list philosophers will 'balk at' is
> quite
> different from the question of 'what would work' i.e. what would improve
> the
> content. Answer: none of them. They are all eminently sensible and
> desirable. On citation I can remember getting this drummed into
- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> As such, and in the interest of better philosophy articles on
> Wikipedia, could you please go thr
On 2 October 2010 10:28, Peter Damian wrote:
> From: "David Gerard"
>> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
>> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
>> in your opinion? Please be specific.
>> http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjo
- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't
On 2 October 2010 07:58, Peter Damian wrote:
> From: "David Gerard"
>> http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941
>> With some fields going to this effort and not others, ultimately it's
>> up to the specialists in the fields themselves to bother. So what do
33 matches
Mail list logo
