On 02/23/12 11:41 AM, Sarah wrote:
If the oral citations (audio and video) were used as an adjunct to
more traditional sources, I think there would be no problem at all.
On the Holocaust page, we used to highlight a quote (now removed) from
a witness who talked to the BBC at the time of the Brit
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 23 February 2012 12:58 AM, Sarah wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhala
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
>>> extremely useful.
>>>
>>> There's a
On Thursday 23 February 2012 12:58 AM, Sarah wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
extremely useful.
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
which highlights so
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
> extremely useful.
>
> There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
> which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
> htt
Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
extremely useful.
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for
instance, which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboar
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 08:08 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Journals pose a particular problem as they are often, as in the case of
the three journal articles in this case, behind pay walls. Those are peer
reviewed, while his book by a commercial publisher has not received
academic reviews.
Som
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Steven Walling
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
>
> > But I do share Mike Godwin's concerns on what this means for attracting
> > editors and for Wikipedia's public image.
> >
>
> This is where I disagree. But we can talk about this la
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
> But I do share Mike Godwin's concerns on what this means for attracting
> editors and for Wikipedia's public image.
>
This is where I disagree. But we can talk about this later. ;)
Steven
___
found
An update: Steven Walling will be with me on NPR's Talk of the Nation,
today at 3pm US Eastern time talking about this issue.
In preparation for the show, I looked up Messer-Kruse's book on Amazon, and
I am pasting in the first two sentences of the blurb (bold emphasis mine).
In this *controversi
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> An aside: there are millions of oral testimonies hosted at thousands of
> extremely reputable organisations - on Native American life at the
> Smithsonian, or Holocaust history at Yale - which currently have no place on
> Wikipedia, because
>
> Interesting because in the Haymarket case there is a 3,000 page
> transcript of the trial on line. I thought we could not use it directly.
> What can we use it for?
Can it be used as a reference for itself, in the
> sense that the fact that there was a lengthy hearing with a great number
> of
>
> And this is what I meant about misunderstanding policies. Because nothing
> in our policies precludes the use of primary sources. What you can't do
> is
> use them for interpretation or analysis. So to make up an example; if you
> have an oral citation from someone who was arrested under an op
> This idea of "published" can (and is) relaxed though. Indeed it is my
> perception that in many topic areas we rely far too heavily on online
> sources - there can be a distinct prejudice against offline source
> material.
> Tom
Journals pose a particular problem as they are often, as in the c
>
> I think it's a poor signal when it's the only signal, when it wholly
> occupies the phrase 'legitimate knowledge'. In a cross-cultural context,
> and especially on English Wikipedia, it's notoriously fraught - it's very
> difficult for someone with no experience of a place to distinguish betwee
>>
>> "What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
>> approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight,
>> or
>> in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off
>> from raising the issues."
>>
>> The "expertise" that is most v
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 06:59 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 22 February 2012 13:11, Achal Prabhala wrote:
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to find ways to assess the
On 22 February 2012 13:29, Thomas Morton wrote:
> However I am interested in whether you have a specific idea of what you
> would change? Can you express a reason for why using the published test is
> a poor signal?
It produces a rich crop of both false positives and false negatives. I
can't th
On 22 February 2012 13:11, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
>>> do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
>>> not-yet-legitimised knowledge
>>>
>>
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
not-yet-legitimised knowledge
I'm not seeing a good argument that we *should* assess the legitimacy.
On 22 February 2012 12:44, Mike Christie wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Thomas Morton <
> morton.tho...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the
> > problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is polite and
> sen
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the
> problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is polite and sensible
> might be incomprehensible to a newbie. Simple things like linking to, or
> quoting, par
>
> "What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
> approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight, or
> in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off
> from raising the issues."
>
> The "expertise" that is most valued at W
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:15:20
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from
the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
&
>
> Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
> do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
> not-yet-legitimised knowledge
I'm not seeing a good argument that we *should* assess the legitimacy. This
seems to be being cast in the light of "verifiabili
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:32, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't* do
> well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of not-yet-legitimised
> knowledge - whether the 'truth' is new analysis backed up by serious
> scholarship (as
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 01:36 PM, Peter Gervai wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:35, George Herbert wrote:
By far the majority of people who come up and "buck the system" or
challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or
people with an agenda. This started - as
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:35, George Herbert wrote:
> By far the majority of people who come up and "buck the system" or
> challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or
> people with an agenda. This started - as others have pointed out -
> with a few fields where this is
On 22 February 2012 03:04, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
>> professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a
>> priori he should automatically have been trea
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I should add a response on this point:
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>> The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
>> professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the
>> Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered
>> application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for
>> our credibility when a very
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:06 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> Any policy - or policy change - we can think of will have unforseen
> consequences.
I agree with you. But we can't let this paralyze us in responding to a
problem that is no longer "unforeseen," but that in fact has occurred.
At minimum, t
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the
> Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered
> application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for
> our credibility when a very respect
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>> If the answer to one is "yes", then "These things happen" is an
>> explanation but not an excuse, and should be a prompt to help us all
>> get better at detecting that. These thing
I should add a response on this point:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
> professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a
> priori he should automatically have been treated that way b
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> If the answer to one is "yes", then "These things happen" is an
> explanation but not an excuse, and should be a prompt to help us all
> get better at detecting that. These things do happen, but should not.
> These things do happen, but w
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Fred Bauder writes:
>
>> I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
>> political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
>> violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
>> o
Mike Godwin wrote:
> I read the article in the Chronicle pretty carefully. The author's
> experience struck me as an example of a pattern that may account for
> the flattening of the growth curve in new editors as well as for some
> other phenomena. As you may remember, Andrew Lih conducted a
> pre
The one thing experts in a field are not good at, is predicting the
success of innovative material. If it were of predictable value, it
wouldn't be revisionist. Experts can tell is something fits into the
accepted paradigms; they can tell if something is so wrong with
respect to soundly known facts
On 2/20/12 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
As Mark has said, some subjects are highly vulnerable to recentism,
but one shouldn't expect that with a historical article about events
from 1886.
I agree it's more of a problem in some areas than others, but I think it
also often applies as a heuris
I have initiated a discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia
It is there that any refinement of the policy and how it is properly
applied can possibly be resolved. I note that the article in question
still does not
On 02/19/12 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder writes:
I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
one example, but there are
On 02/19/12 12:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement,
> Fred Bauder writes:
>
>> I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
>> political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
>> violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
>> one example, but there are other similar situations.
>
Fred Bauder writes:
> I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
> political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
> violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
> one example, but there are other similar situations.
This an
On 2/19/2012 8:19 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:12:09 -0300
From: Sarah
To:mnemo...@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
(from the
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
>> editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can
>> be
>> changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's
>> judgement
>> t
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
> Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
> editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
> changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement
> that was called
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Delirium wrote:
> On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>
>> The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
>> the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
>> this case there is no ongoing controversy, but t
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Delirium wrote:
> On 2/19/12 4:12 PM, Sarah wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
>>>
>>> must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
>>> wh
On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
has for long been used to remove new rese
On 2/19/12 4:12 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original
Research), and
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
>
> Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
> editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
> changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement
> that was call
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
>
> Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
> editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
> changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement
> that was calle
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Jussi-ville writes:
>
>>> The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
>>> information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view.
>>
>> I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me repeat in
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Jussi-ville writes:
>
>>> The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
>>> information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view.
>>> ...
>>
>
> I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Educ
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
>> must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
>> what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original
>> Research), and who, instead of try
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
> must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
> what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original
> Research), and who, instead of trying to
Jussi-ville writes:
>> The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
>> information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view.
>
> I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me repeat in more concise
> form.
> The policy was written to enable ser
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
>> the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
>> this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
>> has for long been used to r
> The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
> the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
> this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
> has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted,
> much less t
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted,
much less there being
On 14 February 2012 06:02, David Richfield wrote:
> Relevant:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#.22No_Evidence.22
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#Dubious
As with so many cases, causing a stink gets the giant searchlight
directed on the article, and thin
There are a number of interesting relies. As they too undoubtedly
intended the material to be available, (I'm one of them & at any rate
I did,) I include them here; if additional come in, I shall post
them.
operalala 1 day ago
In your 2011 edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
instead of provid
On 14/02/12 02:39, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
>
> By Timothy Messer-Kruse
>
[...]
> My improvement lasted five minutes before a Wiki-cop scolded me, "I
> hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies,
> such as verifiability and undue
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#.22No_Evidence.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#Dubious
--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.
There's an interesting article out in the current issue of the Chronicle:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/
It's behind a paywall, but in the spirit of fair use and in keeping with
the author's intent (the article is on Wikipedia, and I believe the
author would
66 matches
Mail list logo
