headers
Dan Rosenthal | 1 May 2006 02:34
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Checkuser verification errors

Uh, actually, you did get blocked for 3RR violations using your many socks
on [[Abortion]]. -Swatjester

On 4/30/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill@...> wrote:
>
> Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman@...> wrote: On Sun, 30 Apr 2006
> 13:57:21 -0400, Katefan0 wrote:
>
> >What's the point, really? You've already admitted you're a sock of
> >Halliburton Shill. Your email address is halliburton_shill@...
> >Exactly why are you protesting findings of that to which you've already
> >admitted?
>
> Point of information: he acknowledges that he previously edited as
> Halliburton Shill, but that he no longer does - as I understand it
> because the username was deemed inappropriate.  That is different.
> Guy (JzG)
> Thank you, JzG. That's more or less accurate.  I was actually told by
> admins to get a new username because Halliburton Shill would not be
> allowed.  I was not blocked from using Wiki, nor did I use Pro-Lick to
> re-vote on Halliburton Shill issues.  Everything can be more or less found
> here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Halliburton_Shill
> But it really should be kept in mind that it has nothing to do with the
> checkuser errors I'm addressing here.~~~~Pro-Lick
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low  PC-to-Phone call
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Fastfission | 1 May 2006 05:26
Picon

Re: Blocked by Alkivar without Justification

Maybe they have, but it did bring up one of the most entertaining Wiki
conspiracy theories yet broached. In order to justify their power,
Wikipedia Admins impersonate vandals, allowing for broad and
unfettered expansion of vandalism-fighting abilities and the increased
respect and acquiescence of others! Yes!

(Just for kicks, someone should vandalize [[Reichstag]] with a
sockpuppet account and then, under their admin name, demand permanent
page protection as a consequence.)

FF

On 4/30/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
> You guys have been trolled.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 4/30/06, Timwi <timwi@...> wrote:
> >
> > TGGG85@... wrote:
> > > Someone unblocked me without an explanation. [...] All of this
> > > nonsense alienates talented and expert writers. [...] Wikipedia is
> > > getting to be a tiresome place for innovation which rubs some
> > > administrators the wrong way. ENOUGH ALREADY!
> >
> > So, uhm... you want to be blocked again?... I don't understand this
> > posting.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
charles matthews | 1 May 2006 11:35

Re: Verifiability equating to notability

 "Steve Block"  wrote

> It attempts to close the door on the possibility of allowing wikipedians
> to decide what is and isn't notable, something I believe is against both
> the original research and POV policies.  We should seek to summarise
> claims of importance, where those claims are verifiable.

Err ... why?  This may be what we resort to in some cases (garage bands). 
But it is a bad idea in other cases (e.g. academics).  And I think we all 
should be allowed to express opinions on notability.  In some areas, for 
example the arts, poetry, if you go by tallying up awards and honours and 
suchlike 'objective' credits, you will only reproduce the contours of the 
'academic art' of the time.  Thus missing what is coming up, for example.

Further, there could hardly be a better example of how 'original research', 
launched by Jimbo as a way to deal with crank theories, has been spandexed 
as an argument.

Charles 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Russell Blackford | 1 May 2006 12:19
Favicon

Re: Verifiability equating to notability

It's dangerous to apply the notion of "original research" too literally 
outside of its original context (dealing with crackpot theories, or simply 
novel ones, student essays, and so on). Beyond that context, I'm not 
literalistic, and I don't need a lot of guidlines. I think I know it when I 
see it, and I think I know what is not intended to be covered by the 
expression when I see it, even if it could be brought under the literal 
description that is used. Common sense has to prevail, I think, which is why 
we have all these processes involving shared community perceptions.

An example of something that is probably NOT "original research": "Bloggs 
has approvingly cited the work of Derrida to attack the philosophy of 
bohemian snarkism. According to Bloggs, it is all 'words, words, words.' 
<reference, Joe Bloggs, Anti-Snark, p. 300>"

An example of something that certainly IS original research: "Bloggs, who 
has attacked the philosophy of bohemian snarkism, could have found further 
support for his view by applying certain claims famously made by Derrida. 
<reference, Jacques Derrida, Words/ Words/ Words, p. 300>"

We all make these kinds of distinctions reasonably confidently, don't we? 
When in doubt, at the margins, we do indeed want to call on our collective 
wisdom. The process seems straightforward enough to me, though I suppose I 
might change my mind if I got caught in an edit war over it.

As for notability, I'm not sure I properly understand the argument. It seems 
to me that we have a (loose and largely unofficial) body of criteria to 
apply to decide whether or not something is notable. We don't apply novel 
theories, we just find the facts and apply the criteria. The facts should be 
publicly available ones. The criteria themselves get clarified and developed 
from case to case, with commonsense input from the community to resolve
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Pete Bartlett | 1 May 2006 12:33
Picon
Favicon

The onward march of the meaning of "original research"

Charles Matthews wrote:
>Further, there could hardly be a better example of how 'original research', 
>launched by Jimbo as a way to deal with crank theories, has been spandexed 
>as an argument.

The ever onwards and upwards stretching of what constitutes "original research"
by the policy wonks is slowly starting to create problems for content creators.

Over at the Tree of Life wikiproject we like to have people upload photos of
any species they don't recognise and we try to identify them before dispatching
them to a suitable article. That hasn't come under threat yet as "original research" 
but I fear it is only a matter of time.

Pete

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 544 comments |
headers
geni | 1 May 2006 13:31
Picon

Re: The onward march of the meaning of "original research"

On 5/1/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21@...> wrote:
> Over at the Tree of Life wikiproject we like to have people upload photos of
> any species they don't recognise and we try to identify them before dispatching
> them to a suitable article. That hasn't come under threat yet as "original research"
> but I fear it is only a matter of time.
>
> Pete

No the issue of pictures has been raised before. It is generaly
accepted that since they pretty much have to be original reseach we
are not going to worry about them. I know that policy wonks appear to
have replaced deletionists as the people to blame for everything but
it is worth remebering that they do want to see wikipedia suceed they
just see a slightly different root.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Anthony DiPierro | 1 May 2006 13:31

Re: Verifiability equating to notability

On 4/30/06, Steve Block <steve.block@...> wrote:
> Philip Welch wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Steve Block wrote:
> >
> >> I had a bash at creating a proposal which would define notability on
> >> wikipedia as meaning that an article or topic is mentioned in a third
> >> party reliable source.
> >
> > I can provide multiple third party reliable sources as evidence that
> > there is a four way stop on the intersection between Merman Drive and
> > Terre View Drive in Pullman, Washington. Does that mean that
> > aforementioned four way stop is worthy of mention in Wikipedia?
>
> What this guideline is trying to do is define notability within the
> verifiability chain.
>
> It attempts to close the door on the possibility of allowing wikipedians
> to decide what is and isn't notable, something I believe is against both
> the original research and POV policies.  We should seek to summarise
> claims of importance, where those claims are verifiable.
>
I've always considered NOR to be *part of* the verifiability rules. 
It is a description of what sources count toward verifiability.  For
that matter, both rules are really an explanation of what NPOV means -
"assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert
opinions themselves".  NOR and V go on to describe what is meant by
"facts".

I guess what I'm saying is you can't really eliminate any of those
three rules without significantly affecting the interpretation of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 30 comments |
headers
Timwi | 1 May 2006 13:39
Picon
Gravatar

Re: The onward march of the meaning of "original research"

geni wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21@...> wrote:
> 
>>Over at the Tree of Life wikiproject we like to have people upload photos of
>>any species they don't recognise and we try to identify them before dispatching
>>them to a suitable article. That hasn't come under threat yet as "original research"
>>but I fear it is only a matter of time.
> 
> No the issue of pictures has been raised before. It is generaly
> accepted that since they pretty much have to be original reseach we
> are not going to worry about them.

That's not quite what he said. He said that the identification of a 
species depicted in an image could be regarded as original research -- 
not taking the image itself. Taking an image in a zoo and noting the 
species that is written on the cage is different from just taking an 
image and having other people guess what species it might be.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Pete Bartlett | 1 May 2006 13:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: The onward march of the meaning of "original research"

----- Original Message ----
From: geni <geniice@...>
>I know that policy wonks appear to
>have replaced deletionists as the people to blame for everything but
>it is worth remebering that they do want to see wikipedia suceed they
>just see a slightly different root.

Well the deletionists have won the war so we have to move on ;).

Just because everyone wants to see Wikipedia succeed doesn't mean
everyone is equally helpful to the project. After a while contributing
policy becomes a lot easier than contributing content and because
we are all here as hobbyists there is a natural inclination to do the 
easier thing whilst still "helping" Wikipedia. Thus there is a natural
tendency to go down the wrong "root".

Pete

p.s. Yes I do appreciate the irony of chatting on a policy mailing
list whilst moaning about policy, but it has to be done :).

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pete Bartlett | 1 May 2006 13:54
Picon
Favicon

Re: The onward march of the meaning of "original research"

>Taking an image in a zoo and noting the 
>species that is written on the cage is different from just taking an 
>image and having other people guess what species it might be.

Good example actually. From the "by the book" perspective, the
zoo picture is better because it has a label beside the cage that
can be cited.

>From the "ignore all rules and just create a great encyclopedia" 
perspective, the in-the-wild picture is better because it shows 
the species in their natural habitat.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane