![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Derktar |
![]()
Post
#1
|
WR Black Ops ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 1,029 Joined: From: Torrance, California, USA Member No.: 2,381 ![]() |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...er:Orangemarlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210232016 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210231458 QUOTE I don't know - we have an active contributor to Wikipedia Review apparently editing on behalf of another Wikipedia Review editor (who happens to be a permabanned editor). Not too big a leap at all... Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC) That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use. So sorry you had to wander into that mess Krimpet. |
![]() ![]() |
Moulton |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Anthropologist from Mars ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 10,222 Joined: From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 ![]() |
The collegial and congenial Dr. Filll analyzes Moulton's Objectives...
QUOTE(Filll's Analysis of Moulton's Objectives) Your objectives I guarantee if you do not agree to follow the rules and take instruction in how to behave here, you will have the same experience you did the last time. You might even be shown the door quicker. I know you want to "improve" the system, according to your own intuition and undestanding. My interpretation is that you want to dictate rules to tens of thousands of other users, based on nothing besides the fact that you are Moulton. That is not how a collaborative, consensus-driven enterprise like Wikipedia works. The fact that you even believe it is possible when you do not understand the system is mind-boggling, and shows you are not much of a "scientist" or "researcher" at all. If you want to try to improve the system (as I and many others do), you have to understand it first. And you will not understand it by sitting over at WR and throwing stones at Wikipedia with other malcontents. And you will not understand the system by demanding that you be allowed to disobey all the policies and practices and conventions, and to insult others at will who are only trying to follow the rules, and do so with impunity and no consequences. I would suggest that you do what I did; pick some very bland topics you are interested in, like the theatre, or some playwrite, or chess, or Arabic poetry and build up a few FA and GA articles over a few months. Get at least 20,000 edits under your belt, and write a good 100 articles or more. Then try a controversial article in an area in which you are not personally involved, like "race and IQ" or "chiropractic" or "electronic voice phenomenon". Get at least 500 edits on the talk page of a controversial article trying to broker a consensus between warring factions and get the article closer to the standards that Wikipedia aspires to (not your standards, but Wikipedia's). Put some time in closing threads at the COI noticeboard or a few other noticeboards. Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored. That is reality. Deal with it. Otherwise, you are like an illiterate high school dropout demanding a chaired position in the English Department at Harvard. It ain't gunna happen.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture. |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#3
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture. His bedside manner may leave something to be desired but this is the same thing a lot of people, including myself, have been telling you for some time. You don't have to go along with how things are done at WP to have a happy life. There are plenty of other things to do in life that can make you happy.... But typically you do have to edit within the rules (or a reasonable approximation based on your good faith best understanding of them) if you want to edit there. You're not wrong for not wanting to do that, but I don't see you getting unblocked for very long until you internalise what people are telling you. I told you this a while ago. Like I said, I think I have a collegial and congenial relationship with you. I think you have some valuable insights to share, but until you abide by the rules, you can't edit successfully there, and until you pay your dues, ain't no one gonna listen. You gotta go along to get along. Does that make me a WP "fixer"? Maybe. But I've effected more change there (and had more fun there, for most definitions of "fun") than you have. This post has been edited by Lar: |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#4
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
But typically you do have to edit within the rules. Lar, you talk about "editing within the rules". Ignore all rules. And does anyone think that Filll, Felonius Monk and others were editing within any rules? Of course they weren't. They were edit warring, not assuming good faith, not applying NPOV, not adhering to the basic tenets of BLP, blocking people they were engaging in disputes with etc etc. How on earth is anyone expected to figure out what rules to follow in that environment? |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#5
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
But I've effected more change there (and had more fun there, for most definitions of "fun") than you have. Lar, you talk about "editing within the rules". Ignore all rules. And does anyone think that Filll, Felonius Monk and others were editing within any rules? Of course they weren't. They were edit warring, not assuming good faith, not applying NPOV, not adhering to the basic tenets of BLP, blocking people they were engaging in disputes with etc etc. How on earth is anyone expected to figure out what rules to follow in that environment? Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really. My wife has been reverted, I think, once, and never ever got into an edit war, much less ever been blocked. She has fun, and she does good work. It's possible to edit happily and peacefully. Do you have to be a happy editor at WP to have a fun life? Heck, no, there are lots of other things to do in the world. But if you want to be a happy editor you have to act like the 5 pillars apply to you, even if others don't in your view, always do so. This is not at all unusual, we have bad people in real life but you don't see people saying "I don't understand the rules of driving" just because someone runs a red light in front of them. Do with that what you will. Oh and Jon, given how hard it is to write on Velveeta®, and that it is harder for smaller letters than for larger one, where can I get a slice of Velveeta big enough to inscribe all that stuff??? |
Milton Roe |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 10,209 Joined: Member No.: 5,156 ![]() |
Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really. They aren't? Oh, good, we have somebody here who asserts the rules are easy to figure out, and doesn't just snigger that okay they are nutso, so IAR and write well and pretend you believe in them. Here are a few starts: Wikipedia is supposed to strive for "verifiable accuracy". Verifiable turns out to refer to certain types of sources. Accuracy-- well, it's not defined. And with good reason, for in most languages "accuracy" means some sort of correspondance to reality, which is to say, to objective truth. Or at least, to truth as agreed to, by most experts. Especially as regards the sciences, but all domains of intellectual inquiry have their own standards. From WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." No help there. We're not interested in just checking that the cite says what WP says it does. That's just the V part. We're interested if the source itself is correct. That's the R or reliable part. Okay, so you track that down. When you go to find out what WP thinks a "reliable source" is, then you get WP:RS, which insists that sources be those that are "trustworthy" and with "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." These are direct policy quotes. In other words, they are those we think are likely to be TRUE. Hmmm. Accuracy is mentioned in WP:VS. What is "accuracy" in this context? Let us take the physical sciences again, where things are easy. Does accuracy not usually mean "correspondance to physical reality," as when we're given a synthetic fact like the mass of a proton, in grams? Does accuracy not mean truth? What does "trustworthy" mean as regards to the source itself, other than likelihood not to report error, lies, or other untruth? And "fact checking," please? What would "fact checking" possibly consist of, if not that somebody has investigated the objective truth of statements? IOW, why would we care if our sources engage in fact checking, if we're not interested in facts??? What is a "fact" if not a statement which is regarded by the majority of experts to be true? "Consistant" is NOT the same as "reliable" and "trustworthy." A source may be consistantly wrong. But how to tell? Here's a gem from WP:RS: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." But alas, other names for your own common sense and your own editorial judgment, are POV-pushing and WP:SYNTH. Yes I understand that NPOV doesn't ask for no POV, but it does demand judgments regarding "due weight" which are (as a matter of common sense) impossible to agree on, even for experts, and still less possible for non experts, who, even if they're supposed to be relying on expert opinion, can't be trusted to know who the experts are, much less understand what they're writing. The world "authoritative" is used. But seems to me meaningless without the idea of truth. If I'm an authority on something, what is it that makes me special? That I know about my subject? Know WHAT about it? Know lies about it? Know erroneous things about it? What is it I know about a subject which makes me an authority? Am I only an authority due to being acknowledged by other authorities? That's sort of recursive, is it not? It might actually operate when it comes to religion, but what about when we go to the real world? When do we get to the part where the airplane flies, the bridge stays up, and the computer network doesn't crash? These are not matters of opinion only. So where do they fit into WP's search for authority, reliablity, and trustworthiness? So far as I can see, nowhere. WP's official policy (frequently ignored, fortunately) is to be written as though an encyclopedia about the world written by people who've been born in the basement of a library, and never been outside its walls. All they have to go on is what they read, and can cite. But that's no way to write about reality. It tends to give you sex manuals written by virgins, and even worse, articles on physics written by people who aren't good with math. Wikipedia has an "expert review needed for this article" tag, but I don't know why, since officially they should never need it. What is best to cite, even if you're stuck-for-life in a library? Here, we hit WP's official views on "knowledge". Ready for bias? There's a whole paragraph on RS which argues that News Organizations are reliable if they are "high end," and material from them is welcomed. Yes, the world "welcomed" is actually used, as though for respected guests: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press." Never mind that the opinion of historians and scientists (not to mention most journalists, who don't trust each other an inch) is that newspapers, not excluding "high-quality end of the market" ones are highly unreliable in what they say factually. For one thing, they have no time to get things more than approximately right, and they have heavy bias against fully reporting their own past errors, which they only do enough of, to give readers the (false) impression that they're trying to be somehow exhaustive about this. According to Wikipedia, the idea that newspapers are unreliable, is formally, and as a matter of policy, wrong. Er, which is to say, as a statement, it's not TRUE. Oh, bother. Anyway, you were explaining how the official rules are easy to figure out. Obviously I've failed to do it, easy or no. So just explain a bit where I missed the idea, since I need help. Assume I'm an educated layman. Milt This post has been edited by Milton Roe: |
dogbiscuit |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,972 Joined: From: The Midlands Member No.: 4,015 ![]() |
Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really. They aren't? Oh, good, we have somebody here who asserts the rules are easy to figure out, and doesn't just snigger that okay they are nutso, so IAR and write well and pretend you believe in them. Here are a few starts: ...snip of excellent analysis... Anyway, you were explaining how the official rules are easy to figure out. Obviously I've failed to do it, easy or no. So just explain a bit where I missed the idea, since I need help. Assume I'm an educated layman. Milt Milt, that was an excellent review, well worthy of making it onto the blog. The bit that infuriates me in this is the deliberate blindness of the ID Crowd. They must know that their sources are thin they just don't want to hear it. I don't believe that a sane interpretation of the intent of policy supports what they are doing, but it is evidence of the issues with the wording of policy that not only does it apparently support writing crap, but that otherwise sane people like Lar are able to suggest that Moulton is wrong. There are a couple of other things that have been conveniently forgotten: Don't bite the newbies and ignore all rules. Moulton was consistently abused for not knowing the rules, when the onus was on experienced editors to work with him, not against him. And Moulton, having given clear explanations of where the problem was, sought for something that "improved the encyclopedia" so again the onus was on other editors to set aside policy and work with Moulton on understand how best to address the issue. There was never any attempt to arrive at an honest representation, it was all about maintaining a fiction using a manipulation of convenient flaws in policy. Instead they told him in no uncertain terms to fuck off and stop spoiling their game. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |