Hello,
I generally agree with Peter here.
I think that there is a general problem of quality on Wikipedia articles,
especially on articles about humanities, social sciences, etc.
I also agree that letting the usual process to care about articles quality
is not sufficient. In nearly ten years, the
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Snow"
> The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
> Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
> an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
> speculation about what Wikipedia *migh
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Peter Damian
wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Vandenberg"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that d
Peter Damian wrote:
> You take exception, in
> a thread which is explicitly about content issues in Wikipedia, with a post
> that makes unfavourable comparison between Wikipedia and one of its
> competitors. Why is this?
>
The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
Citiz
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Snow"
You are this Michael Snow, correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Snow
You are currently on the Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation and
previously served as chair of the Board of Trustees. You take exception, in
a thread wh
From: "Michael Snow"
> Peter Damian wrote:
>> Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic.
> You are. Are the Citizendium forum and mailing lists so completely dead
> that issues with its articles cannot be discussed there?
>
> --Michael Snow
Sorry. It began with the David Gerard's assertion that
From: "John Vandenberg"
>Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
>and our processes have not always been victorious over it. Simply
>put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
>suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that,
>prop
Peter Damian wrote:
> Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic.
You are. Are the Citizendium forum and mailing lists so completely dead
that issues with its articles cannot be discussed there?
--Michael Snow
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic. I looked at the article on
Young Earth Creationism in CZ
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism . It comes in from
some heavy criticism in the RationalWiki article
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Citizendium for being "heavily (and "expe
On 31 August 2010 20:16, Peter Damian wrote:
> Actually David wrote the page. I thought it was interesting ...
No, that section was substantially written by Trent Toulouse.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubs
- Original Message -
From: "John Vandenberg"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
issues.
>Irony. David Gerard disparaging CZ using
On 08/29/2010 10:25 AM, Peter Damian wrote:
>
> Do you mean the problem of experts being generally discouraged? I was
> talking about the problem of there being serious errors in articles,
> particularly in the humanities. I agree with David that when it comes to
> facts and figures, Wikipedia is
*I would have bought the 'not finished yet' argument 5 years ago. Perhaps
even 3 years ago. But now? Every article in my area of expertise has
stagnated.* *All I am saying is that there is a serious and growing
problem and that someone needs to recognise it for what it is.*
The problem you men
> Unfortunately, credentialism doesn't work.
And I wasn't suggesting it would.
>> Embarrassing Wikipedia in blog posts seems to work, one factoid at a time
Well I hope so. However when I wrote this
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html
The only correction was to remove the
- Original Message -
From: "David Moran"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
issues.
>>I don't really see this as a problem with Wik
On 29 August 2010 17:18, Peter Damian wrote:
> In the case of newspapers probably yes. In the case of encyclopedias,
> I think not. There are severe problems with the Wikipedia coverage of
> philosophy which you wouldn't find here, for instance. And so for the
> humanities generally. When I m
> It is helpful that on Wikipedia the editorial process is largely
> transparent, so the question "how did it get like this?" can actually
> be answered. Wikipedia is not reliable, but it turns out that how
> paper encyclopedias and newspapers were written was similarly
> susceptible
In the case o
17 matches
Mail list logo
