Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Peter Damian

John Vandenberg has kindly tried to intervene in the case of the links to my website being banned on Wikipedia. He is trying to make the case to admin Ckatz that "The Logic Museum is scholarly work (kindly hosted by Wikipedia Review), of exceptional quality and utility to Wikipedia ... and shouldn't be treated any differently from any other website which provides scholarly work."

Haha. I predict this will get nowhere with the likes of robotic crazy patrollers like Katz. Look at the most recent complaint against Katz:

I looked at one of the links the IP is complaining about. Katz removed it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Posner&diff=476895859&oldid=476511770 with the comment reverting edits by IP whose only contributions are to add links to the MR site. Mate, that is the Montreal Review, one look at which http://www.themontrealreview.com tells you it is a critical review site, authentic, peer reviewed, high quality etc. The link was to an article by Richard Posner, currently unavailable on Wikipedia http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/The-crisis-of-capitalist-democracy-Richard-Posner.php. Posner is wholly notable - the link was in the Wikipedia article about him. The Montreal Review is as respectable a publication as you could get. Katz simply doesn't understand this.

Vandenberg may get somewhere with this, and get the links replaced. But in no way is he addressing the root problem, which is uneducated and illiterate administrators like Katz who are now running the show. Katz will not be punished in any way. Indeed, he is esteemed and respected on Wikipedia for his vandal fighting and his 'contributions to Wikipedia articles' of which he boasts 58,000 contributions (mainly removal of what he thinks is 'spam' links, such as to the Montreal Review, or (cough) the Logic Museum).

I predict Vandenberg will do nothing about this. The dwindling number of 'good guys' on Wikipedia are no match for the likes of the highway patrollers with their shiny badges

Posted by: lilburne

A few years ago I added links to wikipedia from my site. Yes I was ignorant and naive back then. Now I do believe that I've purged them all.

Posted by: tarantino

Years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=heavenlyperfumes.com.au&fulltext=Search&profile=all&redirs=1, and they're still there today. It probably depends on who you know or how sneaky you are whether they are deleted or not.

For more info on this business, see their http://www.aboutus.org/HeavenlyPerfumes.com.au and http://www.robtex.com/dns/heavenlyperfumes.com.au.html#whois.

Posted by: EricBarbour

And http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/archive/index.php/t-32791.html, sockpuppeting on a forum to rave about his own business.....

Posted by: lilburne

Ah I can see how that could read the wrong way. I'v enever added links to WP that go top my site.

What I meant is that years ago, before I realised the awfulness of wikipedia articles, I edited my site to link to wikipedia articles, as of now I don't believe my site has any links that go to wikipedia, they all go elsewhere.

Posted by: tarantino

Whoops, my mistake. I misread you.

Posted by: jd turk

Nothing further to add, other than to throw out mad props for the thread title.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Well, he is "doing something" in the sense that wikipedians can be said to be "doing something", it's just that he's unlikely to be successful. CKatz and those like him will prevail because they apparently have unlimited amounts of time to apply rule by rote, and since they're always consistent (hah!), they're beyond reproach.
Non sequiturs can get you in trouble around here.

Posted by: thekohser

From the vantage point of the Wikipediot, it's fairly clear that Edward has attempted to put into Wikipedia links to his own website, which makes the accusation of "spammer" all the easier to apply. At least I gave up years ago even bothering to suggest links to Wikipedia Review.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Not even that is true http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_of_Moerbeke&diff=172737154&oldid=163190184

Posted by: thekohser

Sigh... Edward, the fact that others have put links to your site doesn't dismiss the (apparent) fact that you were putting in links to your site, too. Were the several diffs that CKatz pointed to *not* your doing?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Those links were inserted by someone called ‘Johnny the Vandal’ who is entirely unrelated to my account and who is a regular contributor at WR, I believe. In any case he is merely re-inserting links that have been there for years. Vandenberg concedes this, by the way.

This confuses the issue of whether it is OK to insert links to your own site in the first place. I believe it’s Ok if that is the only place where the material is available, and if it is genuinely useful (as Vandenberg also concedes).

The one case where the material is available elsewhere is Ockham’s Summa Logicae, which I worked extensively on, correcting Latin spelling, re-scanning and so on. Someone then copied this material from the Logic Museum onto Wikisource, deleted the link on the Wikipedia article, and replaced it with a link to Wikisource.

I think Logic Museum wins the moral case hands down. However, Wikipedians point to the public domain argument. I am simply making corrections to a 700 year old text for which there is no copyright, the author having died around 1347, so tough. The issue is too complicated for Mr Ckatz in any case.

Posted by: Zoloft

I just searched for Ockham and Summa Logicae on Wikisource, and came up dry.

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logicae

Posted by: Peter Damian

Correct. The wikisource version is here http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logicae/Pars_I_:_De_terminis , the corresponding LM version is here http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_I . Let’s look at the differences and see whether Wikipedia ought to be linking to the Wikisource version, or the LM version.

1. the first thing you notice is that the LM version is split up into the 77 chapters of book I. The Wikisource version by contrast is a single big unmanageable file.

2. The LM version also has sub section headings to give the reader an overall sense of the navigation of this enormous work.

3. Looking a level above http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae the LM version has precise details of which edition the text is taken from, without which the text is useless for serious scholarly purposes.

4. Looking a level below to chapter 10 http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_I/Chapter_10 , you notice immediately there is a parallel English translation (mine) for the 99.99% of English readers who won’t understand medieval Latin

5. Notice also that because the work is broken up, it is possible to link to parts of this large work. It is a basic principle of LM that every source is ‘anchored’ using some form of indexing, and wherever possible the method used (such as Bekker number) before the advent of computing. This means that if you are reading a 19th century work about Aristotle and a reference is given, you will be able to find it in LM. Wikisource has no such concept, AFAICS

6. To find the corresponding chapter in Wikisource, go to their page http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logicae/Pars_I_:_De_terminis, and do a control-F search on “1.10”.

7. The first difference you notice is the spelling difference. LM has “Postquam de nominibus concretis”, Wikisource has “Postquam de nomiuibus concretis”. This is because the original scan had many OCR-related spelling mistakes. Most of these have been corrected by hand, as there is still no good Latin spell-checker built yet. Since Wikipedians don’t understand any kind of spelling check other than by a ‘bot’, the Wikisource version is riddled with all kinds of errors.

8. You also notice another difference – LM has “de alia divisione nominum”, WS has “de alia diuisione nominum”. This is not a spelling error, but reflects one of the many recognised differences in Latin spelling. Latin is thousands of years old and there are many variants of the standard vocabulary. LM has deliberately adopted a standardised spelling, consistent with the major critical editions, so that a Google search using that spelling will be consistent. Wikisource has no consistent spelling standard, AFAICS.

9. Finally, there are notes http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_I/Chapter_10#cite_note-1 in the LM version, whereas there is no help at all in the WS one.

So, all in all, which version should Wikipedia be linking to? Answer, the wikisource version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=477868719 . The proprietor of the site is a wicked banned user who has used sockpuppets. “If the material is so valuable, upload it to Wikisource”. So speaks an administrator who has over 80,000 edits, in particular has contributed to many Dr Who articles.

Posted by: thekohser

Ah, then my apologies for having taken the word of "CKatz", a serial defamer who impugned you on Wikipedia, at face value. I really should have known better.

Posted by: Peter Damian

The thread continues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#logicmuseum.com and descends to deeper levels of absurdity.

I loved this

Thank you HRIP 7.

Posted by: EricBarbour

If anyone cared, they'd do something about Ckatz. He's completely off-base, not to mention obsessed.

Perhaps this "discussion" should be saved in the private area, as a case study of a crazed Wikifan
fighting a losing battle, as foolishly as he possibly could. Because I would not put it past Ckatz to
get it all revdeleted after everyone has "forgotten".

Posted by: Selina

Posted by: Peter Damian

Actually the one crazy thing missing from that discussion is that none of the administrators seem to have spotted that many of the objectors to the blacklist are coming from Wikipedia Review. Why has nobody objected about offsite canvassing in support of links to medieval Latin? Absurd, and get in there now, defenders of the Wiki.

Posted by: lilburne

Meanwhile they can be made to look stupid by gathering together a group of Academics, adding in the valid links and letting them experience that WTF moment as they get rejected.

Posted by: jayvdb

Blacklist entry removed.

What happened to http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/manuscripts/bonaventura/sententia.htm&date=2009-10-25+04:17:12 on the old Logic Museum?

Posted by: HRIP7

Posted by: jayvdb

Another https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWilliam_of_Moerbeke&action=historysubmit&diff=478864130&oldid=478850285.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Thanks everyone.

However, if we look at the basic principles involved here, it is clear that nothing has really been resolved. The underlying problem is that you have people in charge of running an encyclopedia who have no idea how to run an encyclopedia. The Logic Museum was a prime candidate for outbound linking. It has no competitors, it has useful and encyclopedic content, etc etc. If you look at the spam and external link policies you nothing that would justify a blacklist. Yet it took the efforts of John and others for several days, against fierce resistance from two powerful administrators, before sense and logic prevailed.

And you still have Katz running around, deleting links to the Montreal Review and other respectable publications. Why has he not been called to account?



And, with the agreement of John Vandenberg, a special page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/logicmuseum.com has been created. This means that if some evil user puts in a link, say, to this translation http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Buridan/Quaestiones_in_analytica_priora/Liber_1/Q7 of Jean Buridan's questions on the Prior Analytics, a great alarm bell will go off, and Wikipedians will scrurry around trying to prevent this danger to the wiki.

Perhaps a short article for the Times Higher Education Supplement, or the Chronicle of Higher Education?

Posted by: jayvdb

It was not with my agreement, or even my knowledge. It was created on the 17th, probably soon after I first requested the removal of the entry from the spam blacklist.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: jayvdb

Oh ye of little good faith I added those links before I knew they were going to be logged somewhere. I've seen XLinkBot a few times, but never had a reason to understand how it works, or how to configure it. It doesn't just create alerts; it also reverts, sometimes. Hopefully it will play nice and just log any related activity. I suspect that the bot will be less problematic as it is programmed to not edit-war. Time will tell...