| |
|
  |
 Blank-In Protest : Writers' Strike Roster, Dynamic Pages Documenting Articles To Be Struck |
|
|
| Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 12th December 2007, 1:37pm)  QUOTE(SlimVirgin @ 07 September 2006)
I'm not aware of any useful edits he makes
hey hey jonny, you got to have the rosetta stone to translate slimese....... Useful edits = 27 hour editing binges with a banhammer and wikimafia at your back in POV support of: - your favourite political organization, like PETA. any article that mentions mammals needs useful edits. - any old boss that fired you. if they had a BLP, yowsah! you are a pig in sh*t rollin' round!! now that is useful revenge. - old schoolmates that made you cry by looking at you the wrong way. sweet, sweet useful revenge - post menopausal socializing. editing in sexy icons to go with your sexy name is really useful in trying to get laid on the nets, and getting your way with the boy editors. Double Useful !!! you got to learn how to be useful, jonny. This post has been edited by Piperdown: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
Strikers seeking justification for removing the above articles by Jon Awbrey from Wikipedia can do no better than the following De Facto Policy Of The Week and All Round Anonymously Authorized But Undoubtedly Learned Opinion from the Person Or Persons Unknown Operating Under The Aegis Of SlimVirgin (POPUOUTAO SlimVirgin). QUOTE(SlimVirgin @ 22 Dec 2007 UTC 20:25) The best thing now would be to find a specialist Wikipedian to review Awbrey's material, but that will take some time, as people who understand this stuff are few and far between, and they have their own articles to work on. In the meantime, regarding any of his material that's based on primary sources (and my memory of the stuff of his I saw is that it was always based on primary sources), it's probably safe to assume it's original research for which a secondary source might be hard to find. SlimVirgin ( talk)( contribs) 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (See «http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:Jimbo Wales&diff=179651572&oldid=179651229») When you remove the offending content, be sure to cite the relevant policy in the edit line, to wit:
WP:It's Probably Safe To Assume It's Original Research For Which A Secondary Source Might Be Hard To Find
(WP:IPSTAIORFWASSMBHTF)
UK dialecticians may of course use WPUK:IPSTAIORFWARSEMBHTF. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(guy @ Sun 23rd December 2007, 8:41am)
So it's now impermissible to base anything on primary sources, however reliable?
That has been the fundamental debate for the last 6 months on WP:NOR: essentially moving policy from Wikipedia is not a primary source, to being Wikipedia cannot use primary sources. Slim snuck this principle in a while back and the cabal is now holding it in place arguing that it has been part of policy for a long time (fingers in ears; la, la, la; we're not listening to any arguments; fuck off, trolls). Those who want common sense in policy note that if someone says something in a primary source (whatever that might be, there is not even agreement there), then for an editor to use it, it is not original. and therefore the whole source typing argument raging is an irrelevance. My take is that SV wants to put journalism above other sources. This in part is based on the fallacy that newspaper writing is a process that is about ensuring accuracy, the assumption that editors in papers are the equivalent to the "many eyes" of Wikipedia. It is a common technique of hers to argue that content cannot be included because, and only because, it is from a primary source. The most insidious part of her argument is that she argues that the quality of the source alters depending on perspective - a high quality secondary source might become a primary source. For example, if there is an aircraft accident investigation, the report on the incident by the authorities are high quality resources, debated with care, presenting a rigorous case. However, if we start debating whether the investigation was sound, this report becomes inadmissible for Wikipedia as it is a primary source with respect to the investigation. She would argue that if a newspaper made comments on the report, then it could be used, but an editor, as a commentator, could not use the report at all, even to refute a misrepresentation by a newspaper as that use would be introducing original thought of the editor. This is what SlimVirgin calls source-based research, where you Google around a bit, gather lots of newspaper clippingssecondary source material and assume that you therefore know your subject. All editors of Wikipedia are expected to be able to demonstrate absolute ignorance of their chosen topic or else they clearly will be influenced by their own opinions. The refutation of incorrect analysis by journalists becomes one of the most contentious issues with this sourcing view in NOR, in that you can have actual facts from impeccable sources to show that the Wikipedia article is misleading, but Wikilawyering will claim that you have to put distorted secondary sourced verification over truth. This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 23rd December 2007, 6:30am) QUOTE(guy @ Sun 23rd December 2007, 8:41am)
So it's now impermissible to base anything on primary sources, however reliable?
That has been the fundamental debate for the last 6 months on WP:NOR: essentially moving policy from Wikipedia is not a primary source, to being Wikipedia cannot use primary sources. Slim snuck this principle in a while back and the cabal is now holding it in place arguing that it has been part of policy for a long time (fingers in ears; la, la, la; we're not listening to any arguments; fuck off, trolls). Those who want common sense in policy note that if someone says something in a primary source (whatever that might be, there is not even agreement there), then for an editor to use it, it is not original, and therefore the whole source typing argument raging is an irrelevance. My take is that SV wants to put journalism above other sources. This in part is based on the fallacy that newspaper writing is a process that is about ensuring accuracy, the assumption that editors in papers are the equivalent to the "many eyes" of Wikipedia. It is a common technique of hers to argue that content cannot be included because, and only because, it is from a primary source. The most insidious part of her argument is that she argues that the quality of the source alters depending on perspective — a high quality secondary source might become a primary source. For example, if there is an aircraft accident investigation, the report on the incident by the authorities are high quality resources, debated with care, presenting a rigorous case. However, if we start debating whether the investigation was sound, this report becomes inadmissible for Wikipedia as it is a primary source with respect to the investigation. She would argue that if a newspaper made comments on the report, then it could be used, but an editor, as a commentator, could not use the report at all, even to refute a misrepresentation by a newspaper as that use would be introducing original thought of the editor. This is what SlimVirgin calls source-based research, where you Google around a bit, gather lots of newspaper clippings secondary source material and assume that you therefore know your subject. All editors of Wikipedia are expected to be able to demonstrate absolute ignorance of their chosen topic or else they clearly will be influenced by their own opinions. The refutation of incorrect analysis by journalists becomes one of the most contentious issues with this sourcing view in NOR, in that you can have actual facts from impeccable sources to show that the Wikipedia article is misleading, but Wikilawyering will claim that you have to put distorted secondary sourced verification over truth. SlimVirgin and her Wikiplatoon have been waging this war against real world norms of sourced research for almost 2 years now. The first shoves of her POV putsch are detectable in January of 2006, with another major conflagration coming in the summer of 2006. I refer everyone once again to the Historical Datapoints For WP:NOR that I collected in the summer of 2006. The problem is this. SlimVirgin has her Very Own Original Doctrine Of Originality ( VOODOO). That's nice for her — it fits hand-in-sock with her own peculiar Weltanshoving — but it's complete and utter Loony Toons from the standpoint of how the rest of the world has always done things. SlimVirgin and her Cohores need this VOODOO very BAD. The Caped And Booted Anonymous League ( CABAL) of Kiddie Kartoon Karacters who run Wikipedia need it to auto-justify their costume-ærie shadow existence as Self-Appointed Invisible Judges of all the people they envy in the world, people who have real personalities, who can use their real names and real knowledge to stand behind what they say, people who have real habitations within real communities of inquiry. That is how BAD they need it. They will shove anyone and everyone out of Wikipedia who gets in the way of their casting this VOODOO over the whole project. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 23rd December 2007, 8:56pm)
SlimVirgin and her Wikiplatoon have been waging this war against real world norms of sourced research for almost 2 years now. The first shoves of her POV putsch are detectable in January of 2006, with another major conflagration coming in the summer of 2006.
Jon, I know that there is a dreadful circularity to the debate on NOR, and appreciate your potted history - before my WR days I have seen several people attempt to recreate that history in the face of blanket denial. What was interesting was that at one point, with Slim on the back burner, it almost seemed like change was possible. The most frustrating element is watching the massed ranks of good faith contributors being lined up to do righteous battle, not realising that they are about to be shot in the back by their own generals for the good of the countryproject. It must be about time to circle the wagons around the synthesis example again - a fine example of such an obscurity that it makes no sense on its own, yet must be a good example "because it really happened" (a recent ruling is that any example in Wikipedia policy is only allowed if it is real, because a made up one would be contrived and therefore could not be useful). They don't see that synthesis is a trivial concept within OR and can be explained simply. If its explained simply, then people get all upset about it being simple, because it is an important, complex, complicated concept: we therefore invent a horrible convoluted example and nobody understands it without 20 pages of explanation, where it becomes apparent that the complexity is simply, erm, synthesised. So the useless section, which uses algebra rather than plain English to make its point remains as another monument to the perfection of Wikipedia and its cabal. As a seasonal analogy, WP is rather like the Workhouse, with Oliver going to the Mr Jimbo for another bowl of WikiPolicy - "Please Sir, we want some more" while the admins trough around their sumptuous banquets of sekrit mailings and sneer at the ingrates who simply want fair treatment to survive. I guess that makes WR Fagin's lair? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 23rd December 2007, 4:12am)
Oh, now that's WP:RICH (Robot-Influenced Corrupt Handling).
But seriously, folks, this grinding up of Awbrey's contributions reminds me of the Nordic tale of the descent into the Maelström.
The word literally means Mill Storm, by allusion to the grinding action of a mill when the counter-rotating millstones get rotating too feverishly.
The result is a tornadic whirlpool, in which everything is ground to a pulp and sucked into the a black hole, whilst the flyaway flywheels fly off the handle and go careening about creation in a delightfully deadly disaster double-feature drama.
<…>
Nordic Maelström
A fascinating book on this subject — Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill : An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time, David R. Godine, Publisher, Boston, MA, 1977. 1st published 1969. Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
