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
- 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 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 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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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 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 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.
__
- 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
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 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
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
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
- 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 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
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
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
- 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
> 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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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 22:21, 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.
Unless we all sti
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
