A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Somey]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin?

How about "A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism"?

[Moulton]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin?

How about "A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism"?

That works for me.

Perhaps the thread's subtitle could be A Crockwork Orange.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Thu 8th May 2008, 5:16pm

[Moulton]

From Durova's blog...

Wikipedians often lose perspective when a particular page becomes a locus of contention. The reasons certain pages become flash points is another matter entirely, but I'd like to remind fellow editors that sometimes when we attempt to solve a problem and get frustrated with each other, we inadvertently make the problem worse.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedians often lose perspective when a particular page becomes a locus of contention. The reasons certain pages become flash points is another matter entirely, but I'd like to remind fellow editors that sometimes when we attempt to solve a problem and get frustrated with each other, we inadvertently make the problem worse.

Words — Easy Peasy
Deeds — Not So Much

Jon

[Cla68]

A couple of threads related to this discussion broke out on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cla68#Stay_away
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cla..._appropriate.3F

For the record, earlier in this thread I wasn't threatening to out anyone. I was commenting on the fact that at least one press representative was aware of this situation. If he or any other journalist decides to write an article on this group of POV-pushers and their antics in Wikipedia, I don't think that the reporter would find it too difficult to learn of their real names. Besides the name of one of them that has been discussed by others already, I don't know any of their real names and am making no effort to find out their real names.

If the press did decide that this story would be of interest to a general audience, the Wikipedia editors who created this issue with their problematic behavior have only themselves to blame.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Fri 9th May 2008, 1:43am

[Somey]

For the record, earlier in this thread I wasn't threatening to out anyone. I was commenting on the fact that at least one press representative was aware of this situation. If he or any other journalist decides to write an article on this group of POV-pushers and their antics in Wikipedia, I don't think that the reporter would find it too difficult to learn of their real names.

Right - I believe the post you're referring to is this one, but Moulton wrote it, and it was more than two sentences... So the chances that they read all the way down to the part where he mentions Brian Bergstein are probably nil.

Moulton, of course, has never made any secret of his support for the idea of having all WP editors, or at least those who edit BLP's, be identifiable. Cla68, on the other hand, has never (to my knowledge) expressed support for such an idea... Am I right, Mr. Cla?

[Moulton]

I read those comments on Cla68's talk page as efforts to intimidate him. Dunno if that's an accurate or fair reading, but that's how it appeared to my sensitivities and sensibilities.

[The Joy]

Well, I was the one that asked if Rosalind Picard had contacted the press about her article. It's pretty much her only hope at this point as the ID Crowd has her article in their sights.

I've seen Wikipedians get hit by WP:TROUT, but I definitely don't want to see Cla get hit upside the head by an OrangeMarlin!

Edit: Somewhat off topic: I've noticed that the RFAs for Coppertwig and Risker have your support, Cla. Well, the ID Crowd that's attacking you on your talk page has gone in and opposed them all. Are you being wiki-stalked? Is the ID Crowd attacking your colleagues?

[Cla68]

For the record, earlier in this thread I wasn't threatening to out anyone. I was commenting on the fact that at least one press representative was aware of this situation. If he or any other journalist decides to write an article on this group of POV-pushers and their antics in Wikipedia, I don't think that the reporter would find it too difficult to learn of their real names.

Right - I believe the post you're referring to is this one, but Moulton wrote it, and it was more than two sentences... So the chances that they read all the way down to the part where he mentions Brian Bergstein are probably nil.

Moulton, of course, has never made any secret of his support for the idea of having all WP editors, or at least those who edit BLP's, be identifiable. Cla68, on the other hand, has never (to my knowledge) expressed support for such an idea... Am I right, Mr. Cla?

Well, I guess since my name has been in the press linked to my userpage, I feel the point is moot since I'm outed. But, I know that's kind of a cop-out because I don't have my name on my Wikipedia userpage. I've been thinking about it lately, especially after that late night (for me) conversation I had in another thread about BLPs and Brandt. I avoided making edits to a BLP that I was reading about in the newspaper (about a 19-year old US Army medic who earned the Silver Star in Afghanistan) today for this reason.

I haven't decided for sure yet, but I think requiring identifiable editors only to be able to edit BLPs is probably a good idea.

[Derktar]

Wait, is that the same George William Herbert who made that laughable block on Krimpet for "harassment"?

Haha.

[Castle Rock]

Wait, is that the same George William Herbert who made that laughable block on Krimpet for "harassment"?

Haha.

Yeah, I wouldn't be to worried. His last infinite ban was this one:

05:38, 13 March 2008 Georgewilliamherbert (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mackan79 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb)

[Moulton]

I haven't decided for sure yet, but I think requiring identifiable editors only to be able to edit BLPs is probably a good idea.

I daresay that would have kept that ID Cabal out of those several biographies that I dared to remove the libel from.

[Cla68]

Wait, is that the same George William Herbert who made that laughable block on Krimpet for "harassment"?

Haha.

Yeah, I wouldn't be to worried. His last infinite ban was this one:

05:38, 13 March 2008 Georgewilliamherbert (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mackan79 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb)

Oh yes. I'm surprised that George would ever consider using his admin tools again after pulling that boner.

[Moulton]

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?

[Derktar]

Wait, is that the same George William Herbert who made that laughable block on Krimpet for "harassment"?

Haha.

Yeah, I wouldn't be to worried. His last infinite ban was this one:

05:38, 13 March 2008 Georgewilliamherbert (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mackan79 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb)

Oh damn I forgot about that one!

Yeah, I don't think he will ever be so stupid as to use his admin tools again in controversial circumstances.

[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?

[Moulton]

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.

[Moulton]

Jim Schuler writes:

Hmm, one of my daughters is autistic (thus I have a dog in this chase); however, the term prosthetic is mierda del toro. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Jim Schuler has such a negative attitude toward pathbreaking work in Autism Research.

The term "prosthetic" comes from this paper...

An Exploratory Social-Emotional Prosthetic for Autism Spectrum Disorder

Rana el Kaliouby, Alea Teeters, and Rosalind W. Picard
MIT Media Lab

Abstract

We describe a novel wearable device that perceives and reports on social-emotional information in real-time human interaction. Using a wearable camera and other sensors, combined with machine perception algorithms, the system records and analyzes the facial expressions and head movements of the person with whom the wearer is interacting. We propose the application of the social-emotional prosthetic to assist the growing number of individuals diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in perceiving communication in a natural rather than a structured environment, bootstrapping their ability to learn and develop in social settings. The wearable device is a novel exploratory platform for researchers to gain a better understanding of social-emotional communication, enabling new kinds of measurements and interventions that may also help advance the theory of Autism.

[Derktar]

You'll also notice the typical tactics. Piling-on and beration in order to illicit a reaction, but unfortunately Cla is too smart to rise to the bait.

[The Joy]

You'll also notice the typical tactics. Piling-on and beration in order to illicit a reaction, but unfortunately Cla is too smart to rise to the bait.

Oh, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fil..._of_information