Charles Sanders Peirce, Who Trashes My Steels Options

[Jonny Cache]

Our blissèd holidays from the vine-withering attentions of Certain Desecrative Individuals have permitted a few aficionados and brave aficionadas to thaw the once proud Wikipedia article on Charles Sanders Peirce from its eldritch and gellid grave.

Now I think you all know — this Critic has grown too much the Cynic to be shouting in the streets and springing for hope eternal, not at the expense of disbursing boons from the depths of his own private peirce, er, purse, just yet. But it does behoove him — and you know how much Old Teχians love to be behooved — to keep one Eye of Texas on the ensuing developments, whichaway they go.

Reference Materials

• Charles Peirce
• Talk:Charles_Peirce
• Edit History for Article
• Edit History for Talk Page
• Talk:Charles_Peirce/Archive_1
• Talk:Charles_Peirce/Archive_2
• Talk:Charles_Peirce/Archive_3

And For All You "Not To Be Confused Wits" Out There —

• Charles Pierce
• Charlie Pierce

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 10th September 2007, 12:38pm

[Kato]

The Charles Pierce history on WP looks really strange. Even by WPs standards.

All content discussions seem out of the question. There's not even a vague pretence of anyone playing by the guidelines.

Also, I can't immediately see why their version is preferable to yours, Jonny. It's not like they've tidied it up with laboured footnotes or any of the other trinkets to make the article meet guidelines. If their alternative was a shiny, pocket sized, beautiful summary of Pierce, albeit without your additional analysis and visual examples, then then they'd have some sort of a case within WPs idiosyncratic structure. But it isn't. And all reverts seem to stem from an irrational fear of... well... you.

Very odd. And one for the watchlist.

**Update**
Yesterday, I had a look at one of the many articles I made scores of edits to, adding footnotes, working on the text, checking for accuracy, adding pictures, combing for vandals, reworking prose, weighing up POV issues etc. Since my exit, it now looks likes someone shat on the page. I won't say what article it is, but it is possibly the most significant deterioration of any article on the site. I'm not even using hyperbole here, but it has completely collapsed! Every section has some bit of comedic vandalism - a large part of it is now incomprehensible - and some joker has added a vast, misplaced template halfway down the page - mid sentence - relating to the wikicommons! I can't imagine a better testament to the failures of WP. And it's not even an obscure article.

[Jonny Cache]

The Charles Peirce history on WP looks really strange. Even by WPs standards.

All content discussions seem out of the question. There's not even a vague pretence of anyone playing by the guidelines.

Also, I can't immediately see why their version is preferable to yours, Jonny. It's not like they've tidied it up with laboured footnotes or any of the other trinkets to make the article meet guidelines. If their alternative was a shiny, pocket sized, beautiful summary of Peirce, albeit without your additional analysis and visual examples, then then they'd have some sort of a case within WPs idiosyncratic structure. But it isn't. And all reverts seem to stem from an irrational fear of … well … you.

Very odd. And one for the watchlist.

**Update**

Yesterday, I had a look at one of the articles I made scores of edits to, adding footnotes, working on the text, checking for accuracy, adding pictures, combing for vandals, reworking prose, weighing up POV issues etc. Since my exit, it now looks likes someone shat on the page. I won't say what article it is, but it is possibly the most significant deterioration of any article on the site. I'm not even using hyperbole here, but it has completely collapsed! Every section has some bit of comedic vandalism — a large part of it is now incomprehensible — and some joker has added a vast, misplaced template halfway down the page — mid sentence — relating to the wikicommons! I can't imagine a better testament to the failures of WP. And it's not even an obscure article.

To get a sense of what's going on with the Peirce article, you would have to go back a year and a summer in a longer trace of the article history, to the onslaught of WikiPuppet War 1, that began with a Sneak Attack on D-Day 2006. The first few edits were light-packing scouts just testing the waters, but then …

I have to go dig up some bodies …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 11th September 2007, 3:02pm

[Jonny Cache]

To get a sense of what's going on with the Peirce article, you would have to go back a year and a summer in a longer trace of the article history, to the onslaught of WikiPuppet War 1, that began with a Sneak Attack on D-Day 2006. The first few edits were light-packing scouts just testing the waters, but then …

I have to go dig up some bodies …

Jonny

You can track forward from the innocent enough looking pawn opening of the ostensible newbie Epistemologist on D-Day 2006, and you'll see that I was far too naive in those days to know what was coming. I had probably heard the word sockpuppet used somewhere before but I know for certain that I had no clue what the devil was going on — as 7 or 8 proudly self-declared novices began to slash and burn the article and toss whole sections of endlessly discussed and thoroughly referenced collaborative work into the dumper — until another editor posted a Sockpuppet Alert on the talk page.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 11th September 2007, 4:48pm

[Kato]

You can track forward from the innocent enough looking pawn opening of the ostensible newbie Epistemologist on D-Day 2006, and you'll see that I was far too naive in those days to know what was coming. I had probably heard the word sockpuppet used somewhere before but I know for certain that I had no clue what the devil was going on — as 7 or 8 proudly self-declared novices began to slash and burn the article and toss whole sections of endlessly discussed and thoroughly referenced collaborative work into the dumper — until another editor posted a Sockpuppet Alert on the talk page.

Jonny

So you're working on the article, and then these obvious sockpuppets start tampering with the thing. These are Epistemologist, AnnMBake, Logic Man, WylieMan, MengTheMagnificent. These are clearly socks.

Who was the puppeteer, and what did you do then?