A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Jon Awbrey]

I used to hang out with folks who ran an artificial language lab that did a lot of rehab applications. I remember there being a dispute about the etymology of "prosthetic". People who took it as being simply the Greek for "extension" usually had no problem with the word. People who took it as deriving from "pro-aesthetic", for example, a limb provided "for the aesthetic benefit of the onlooker", tended to consider it offensive. I forget if there was ever any resolution of which was the true and which was the false etymology.

Jon

[Milton Roe]

I used to hang out with folks who ran an artificial language lab that did a lot of rehab applications. I remember there being a dispute about the etymology of "prosthetic". People who took it as being simply the Greek for "extension" usually had no problem with the word. People who took it as deriving from "pro-aesthetic", for example, a limb provided "for the aesthetic benefit of the onlooker", tended to consider it offensive. I forget if there was ever any resolution of which was the true and which was the false etymology.

Jon

Co-enzymes in biochemistry have prosthetic groups. These sometimes cannot be synthesized (and in other cases are synthesized), and are derived from vitamins, when not. But in all cases they're molecular extensions to hold a reactive group being worked on-- they certainly aren't for show.

Once more case where a false etymology often ruffles feathers: niggardly.

[Jon Awbrey]

Ha! I remember a time when some feminists at my old school protested the terminology "bachelor's degree". They didn't seem to know that the term refers to the "staff" or the "walking stick" that they give you when they hand you a sheepskin and tell you to hit the road.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Sat 10th May 2008, 3:45am

[Milton Roe]

Ha! I remember a time when some feminists at my old school protested the terminology "bachelor's degres". They didn't seem to know that the term refers to the "staff" or the "walking stick" that they give you when they hand you a sheepskin and tell you to hit the road.

Jon

Indeed. Same root as "bacillus", a staff shaped bacterium. Not to be confused with the Staph shaped bacterium, which is round...

And an argumentum baculinium is one put over with a bonk to the head, using said staff.

I'm reminded of once when somebody reading a tube of antibiotic wondered aloud where the name "Bacitracin" came from. "From a subtle bacillus cultured from a girl named Tracy" said I.

They didn't even smile, this was such a silly etymological suggestion. The best jokes are true.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Sat 10th May 2008, 3:54am

[Moulton]

Two other terms of art that come to mind are "Assistive Technologies" and "Innovative Technologies". The former has long been used to categorize technological aids to those with various disabilities or handicaps. The latter appears in recently published articles by Rosalind Picard, Rana el Kaliouby, and Matthew Goodwin describing the development and introduction of innovative new technologies for use with those diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sat 10th May 2008, 6:30am

[Cla68]

Speaking of colossal mistakes, is it your impression, Cla68, that the WikiClique on Intelligent Design erred in adjudging me a tendentious POV pusher (with no interest in writing an encyclopedia) for opposing their concerted efforts to introduce false and defamatory content into those several BLPs?

I'm afraid I'm not fully familiar with what happened. Is there an ANI thread or ArbCom case that I could look at? Or a thread here where it was discussed?

You can start at my old talk page, which will take you to the RfC. Be sure to read the RfC talk page, too.

This version of my talk page will take you to the RfAr.

See also the talk page archive for Picard's bio.

See also this op-ed here, and this collection of bits and pieces, too.

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page. Those guys are trying to push back fairly hard. I'm going to look at the links you provided here and look harder at the ID-related articles and try to get fully oriented with the situation beyond what I know of a few behavioral issues with some of the editors in question.

[Aloft]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page.

Looks like you've been marked for termination. They're just waiting for someone to pull the trigger so they can all line up and endorse it.

[Proabivouac]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page.

Looks like you've been marked for termination. They're just waiting for someone to pull the trigger so they can all line up and endorse it.

Whereas if Cla68 were an administrator or arbitrator, then "outing" other contributors would have been perfectly alright, even commendable.

[Viridae]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page.

Looks like you've been marked for termination. They're just waiting for someone to pull the trigger so they can all line up and endorse it.

Not on my watch.

[KamrynMatika]

Isn't it bizarre how people spend so much time arguing over the little, trivial dramas like the lame Urban Rose thing and yet when an editor who has contributed reams of great content on top of being one of the few people left who tries to uphold integrity and standards of behaviour on the encyclopedia gets bullied by a pack of losers, nobody turns up to defend him? I see Viridae responding and Mackan being half-and-half but that's it.

I have half a mind to post on AN, if only to confirm that the majority of the admin base on Wikipedia is comprised of spineless cowards.

[Proabivouac]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page.

Looks like you've been marked for termination. They're just waiting for someone to pull the trigger so they can all line up and endorse it.

Not on my watch.

Thank you, Viridae.

What I want to know is, if their identities are so sacred to them - and I don't suggest that they shouldn't be - then why the hell do they feel it alright to attack others' real names via their "biographies?"

Suppose I'm not the first person to have asked that question…

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 11th May 2008, 9:44am

[Peter Damian]

Very good, Dr Johnson.

Really there was no threats, no coercion, and definitely no signs of him burning down their userpage. That was idle commentary by a concerned wikipedian on a forum that is primarily composed of idle commentary. ViridaeTalk 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, could someone clarify what the original incendiary action was, i.e. what ignited this whole affair? Was it intelligent design or something?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 11th May 2008, 10:29am

[Proabivouac]

I have half a mind to post on AN, if only to confirm that the majority of the admin base on Wikipedia is comprised of spineless cowards.

+clueless.

[Moulton]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page. Those guys are trying to push back fairly hard. I'm going to look at the links you provided here and look harder at the ID-related articles and try to get fully oriented with the situation beyond what I know of a few behavioral issues with some of the editors in question.

Good grief.

What I see there is a curious clique of anankastic characters exchanging vaguely worded anankastic conditionals with each other.

There is a subtle but significant distinction between coercion and manipulation.

Rather than slip into my customary mode of insufferable pedantry, I'll leave it as an exercise for the intelligent reader to tease out the nuances between coercion and manipulation.

[Cla68]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page. Those guys are trying to push back fairly hard. I'm going to look at the links you provided here and look harder at the ID-related articles and try to get fully oriented with the situation beyond what I know of a few behavioral issues with some of the editors in question.

Good grief.

What I see there is a curious clique of anankastic characters exchanging vaguely worded anankastic conditionals with each other.

There is a subtle but significant distinction between coercion and manipulation.

Rather than slip into my customary mode of insufferable pedantry, I'll leave it as an exercise for the intelligent reader to tease out the nuances between coercion and manipulation.

I think I'll leave that thread on my user page for a long while. It's very enlightening, isn't it?

[Moulton]

I think I'll leave that thread on my user page for a long while. It's very enlightening, isn't it?

Very much so.

However, in order for your adversaries to blank it against your will, they will have to go through the same kind of Spammish Inquisition RfC process with you as they did with me. Then Baegis will be able to request blanking of your personal talk page.

[Cla68]

I think I'll leave that thread on my user page for a long while. It's very enlightening, isn't it?

Very much so.

However, in order for your adversaries to blank it against your will, they will have to go through the same kind of Spammish Inquisition RfC process with you as they did with me. Then Baegis will be able to request blanking of your personal talk page.

I was going to say that it was unfortunate that this group decided to try to escalate things this way. But actually, I think it was fortunate, because now I'm obligated to look into the matter more deeply and either put up or shut up. DanT commented in that thread that the saber-rattling needs to stop. He's right. After I finish preparing this article for featured consideration I'm going to take some time and look at the past and present conduct of these editors more closely. If I find anything, and based on what I've seen so far there does appear to be more problematic behavior that needs to be addressed, then I'm going to ask them about it politely but directly. Hopefully they'll respond like adults.

[Viridae]

One thing at a time Cla

[Moulton]

Doubleplus, it's a really big iceberg, so you're gonna need a big crane to lift this puppy out of the water.

Fortunately, the tip of this iceberg ain't gonna break off easily. It's an eye-hook that is anchored deep into the body of the 'berg.

[msharma]

By the way, whats up on Privatemusings tlkpage? why is Filll desperate to get in touch, and suggesting "censoring" the Wikipedia weekly?