Whether or not we want it to be, whether or not it ought to be,
Wikipedia is being relied on. Our foundational principles do not
control the outside world. What we have produced is being used as the
nearest approach to a reliable source most people are willing to look
for--and in many cases actua
Hello,
2010/10/25 Fred Bauder :
>
>> The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make
>> it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the
>> UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue
>> emphasis. Some of the same people are current
In a message dated 10/24/2010 5:15:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> Perhaps you aren't listening? Although I do notice moments where you
> tend to make the same points. Still what I'm trying to do is to at least
> get some here to think as to how one might pro
>
>> Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or
>> won't.
>
> The law routinely expects producers to add explicit safety warnings
> and disclaimers on their products for idiots who don't think for
> themselves.
>
> http://coolrain44.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/stupid-warning-
Hi all,
Most of you are aware that I'm leading the Foundation's annual
fundraiser this year, in addition to my work as Head of Reader
Relations. It became increasingly obvious to Zack and me that my
attention was being split, which was no good for either tasking.
The result of that is that
On 24/10/2010 23:48, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 23:40, wrote:
>
>> Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the
>> work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion,
>> whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies havi
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> A mixture, I guess. The idea of a regularly scheduled process to launch
> new projects seems reasonable, and an annual cycle sounds good to me. A
> firm commitment to launch one (and only one) beta project per year does
> not. If there are mu
On 24 October 2010 16:52, wrote:
> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
> information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
Our general disclaimer is good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Perhaps we should mention it on our introducti
On 10/24/2010 4:30 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>> On 10/24/2010 4:12 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pharos
>>> wrote:
Perhaps an alternative strategy could be to hold a grand round-robin
vote to l
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 10/24/2010 4:12 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pharos wrote:
>>> Perhaps an alternative strategy could be to hold a grand round-robin
>>> vote to launch one new project per year, at least in beta phase.
>>>
On 10/24/2010 4:12 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pharos wrote:
>> Perhaps an alternative strategy could be to hold a grand round-robin
>> vote to launch one new project per year, at least in beta phase.
>>
>> This might ensure that the very best ideas get through an
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pharos wrote:
> Perhaps an alternative strategy could be to hold a grand round-robin
> vote to launch one new project per year, at least in beta phase.
>
> This might ensure that the very best ideas get through and are
> actualized, without quite opening the floodg
> Can you address the issue of vested interests? If a drug
> company has
> financed all or most of the peer-reviewed work, your
> argument is that
> we should nevertheless reply on those studies exclusively,
> and not
> allow high-quality mainstream media who may be pointing to
> problems
> before
On 24 October 2010 23:40, wrote:
> Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the
> work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion,
> whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a
> site that boasts of containing the world
On 24/10/2010 21:12, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 20:58, wrote:
>> Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of
>> the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that
>> what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted
>> t
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 16:26, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>> And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
>>> scholarly literature is the most authoritative literature around.
>>
>> Can you address the issue of vested interests
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
>> scholarly literature is the most authoritative literature around.
>
> Can you address the issue of vested interests? If a drug company has
> financed all or most of the pe
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
> scholarly literature is the most authoritative literature around.
Can you address the issue of vested interests? If a drug company has
financed all or most of the peer-review
> Fighting them is a tremendous amount of work, and
> increasingly few people have the stomach for it.
>
> Sarah
>
Sarah,
We're talking about humans.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikim
> > They can argue, but if we keep our heads, they cannot
> overturn a founding
> > principle. As in the Atorvastatin article when
> patients are running to
> > their doctors, saying, "My God, I can't think", and it
> is observable by
> > medical practitioners that indeed they can't, it's a
> signi
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a
> murderer.
> There are mistak
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 13:57, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make
>> it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the
>> UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue
>> emphasis. Some of the same
On 24 October 2010 21:17, Anthony wrote:
> No I haven't. I drew the line in the sand based on the fact that
> Wikipedia is not a fixed work. I also pointed out that even the
> Wikipedia article on Wikipedia doesn't say that Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia, it says that it is an "encyclopedia proj
If anyone is "relying" on Wikipedia, then they have a fundamental
disconnect from what we were and still are trying to do.
The entire point of Wikipedia today, is to make people think, not to stop
them from thinking.
That is why we now, for the first time in history, have a method, if it's
no
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
>
>> Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an
>> encyclopedia.
>
> Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language.
I saw your name and was ready for the usual resp
On 24 October 2010 21:07, Anthony wrote:
> No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say.
> And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is
> silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have
> explained, it isn't.
No you have explained t
On 24 October 2010 20:58, wrote:
> Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of
> the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that
> what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted
> to push some agenda.
And how does that
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote:
>>> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
>>>
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
There are mistakes of facts, a
On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
>>> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd
>>> definitely e
On 24/10/2010 20:10, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
encyclopedias, which the research done on the subjec
> The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make
> it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the
> UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue
> emphasis. Some of the same people are currently trying to change the
> sourcing pol
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
>
>> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
>> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd
>> definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd
> definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the
> traditional encyclopedias.
So your positi
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
> Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an
> encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language.
http://twitter.com/#!/alisonclement/status/8421314259
"Yesterday I asked one of my students if she knew what
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Anthony wrote:
> No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational
> definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia".
Even Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia doesn't call Wikipedia an
encyclopedia, it calls it "a free, web-based, collaborative,
mu
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, geni wrote:
> Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in
> terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define
> "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that
> works with lower levels of reliability qualify as en
On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
>>> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
>>> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
>>
>> He is probably thi
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
>> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
>> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
>
> He is probably thinking about this:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/
On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, An
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:26, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Stick to what's actually occurring.
What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu
Virus
or Joan of Arc ?
>>>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
encyclopedias, which the research done on the
On 24/10/2010 18:42, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Stick to what's actually occurring.
>>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus
>>> or Joan of Arc ?
>>>
>>
>> One should use
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Stick to what's actually occurring.
>>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu
>>> Virus
>>> or Joan of Arc ?
>>>
>>
>> One should use accredited independent sources, whi
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> Stick to what's actually occurring.
>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus
>> or Joan of Arc ?
>>
>
> One should use accredited independent sources, which in the cas
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mit
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
>>>
>>> Well you could put a
On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:53:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> Secondly an assessment on what constitutes encyclopaedic information.
>> Does an article absolutely have to mention each and every rumour,
>> h
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
>>
>> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
>> information con
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
>>>
>>
>> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
>> information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
>>
>
> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
> information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better
On 24 October 2010 16:52, wrote:
> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
> information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
That would be the logo at the side, then.
Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or won't.
The community at
In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:53:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> Secondly an assessment on what constitutes encyclopaedic information.
> Does an article absolutely have to mention each and every rumour,
> half-truth, or crackpot opinion? Encyclopaedic infor
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> One would certainly hope that engineers weren't copying data from
>> wikipedia. The issue though isn't the use put by Engineers and Doctors
>> but rather the use put by normal people that are clicking on a search
>> engine's 1st link, and where the site
Perhaps an alternative strategy could be to hold a grand round-robin
vote to launch one new project per year, at least in beta phase.
This might ensure that the very best ideas get through and are
actualized, without quite opening the floodgates.
Thanks,
Pharos
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:47 AM,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the
>> mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely
>> reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry
Hoi,
As far as I am concerned, this thread is more appropriate for the en.wp
list. There have been experiments with paid editing on other Wikipedias and
the arguments for paid editing have been quite different. One project I was
involved in was about what does it take to get to the point where thin
--- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
> >> By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
> >> scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
> >> research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
> >> journalists. That makes no sense to m
>
> For six months this nonsense in Cervical cancer lasted:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=133707538&oldid=133421215
>
> the article simply lent itself to extreme POV pushing.
I happen to live in a place with quackery and strange medical ideas
thrive. With respect to
> One would certainly hope that engineers weren't copying data from
> wikipedia. The issue though isn't the use put by Engineers and Doctors
> but rather the use put by normal people that are clicking on a search
> engine's 1st link, and where the site is saying Encyclopaedia and there
> is a gene
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 06:35, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
>> By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
>> scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
>> research, above the most senior and experienced of dis
On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
> The whole point of NPOV and V is that we choose sources the world
> regards as reliable, and we run with them, presenting all sides of the
> debate even if we personally dislike some of it.
>
Another thought occurs, though I suspect I'm wasting my time, o
On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
> By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
> scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
> research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
> journalists. That makes no sense to me.
The
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Houston Navarro
wrote:
> So, we lose that point of view in developing our neutral point of view.
exactly, that is why we should just unban kos and give him another chance.
mike
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania
On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:17, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15,wrote:
See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:17, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
>>> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
>>> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart
>>> than
>>> is acce
On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
>> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
>> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart
>> than
>> is acceptable. You want us only to report things once
On 23 October 2010 15:00, Abbas Mahmoud wrote:
> We still are at a very early stage: the framework/proposal is still sketchy.
> Please check it out at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Kenya/Project_for_Kenyan_Schools and
> give us your feedback. Feel free to edit, redaft or whatever y
Hi, Abbas.
This is exciting! Do not hesitate to avail yourself of help at both the
devnations-l and openzim-l mailing lists, as necessary.
I am personally happy to help in any way I can.
Cheers,
Asaf Bartov
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Abbas Mahmoud wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As some of
On 24/10/2010 02:17, Robert S. Horning wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
>> contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
>> calculator that every once in a while, and
>From my experience the key of success is giving good courses for teachers.
Apart of that by only reading Wikipedia you loss a lot of pedagogical
advantages you get in editing. I think providing an offline wiki sandbox and
later uploading the best contributions to Wikipedia could be a goog idea.
Y
Hello,
2010/10/12 Thomas Dalton :
> On 10 October 2010 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> Despite repeated assurances at Wikimania, on lists and on strategywiki,
>> that the strategic plan was going to consider all Wikimedia projects as
>> important, now at
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wi
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 19:43, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> --- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop
>>> mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the
>>> media that has been pointing out problems with these d
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart than
> is acceptable. You want us only to report things once the controversy is
> over, in other words once
75 matches
Mail list logo
