The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Slim ownership of WP:V
communicat
post Fri 4th November 2011, 8:26pm
Post #21


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 4:14pm) *

It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.


I think this is correct. Should we hold the ArbCom accountable? In the recent "BLP" case, the ArbCom's official pronouncement was "Gee, it looks like people are breaking the rules. We, the mighty ArbCommers, hereby ask politely that in the future, people ought to try harder to obey the rules."

Don't even think of holding Arbcom accountable. Arbcom, by its own admission, has neither the capacity nor the inclination to resolve content disputes. This is the main structural defect in WP's so-called dispute resolution mechanism. True, Arbcom has an ostensible mandate to evoke extraordinary measures, such as obtaining independent, expert opinion in instances of intractible content disputes. But to the best of my knowledge it has never, ever done so. Conflict is intrinsic to the way WP operates.

This post has been edited by communicat: Fri 4th November 2011, 8:28pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
that one guy
post Fri 4th November 2011, 8:34pm
Post #22


Doesn't get it either.
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 2nd May 2008, 4:35pm
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935



Everyone seems to forget ArbCom's twin sister, MedCom. Jimbo set the two of them up at the same time, ArbCom for behavior, MedCom for content. MedCom is not binding so people tend to overlook it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Fri 4th November 2011, 10:46pm
Post #23


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 4th November 2011, 10:34pm) *

Everyone seems to forget ArbCom's twin sister, MedCom. Jimbo set the two of them up at the same time, ArbCom for behavior, MedCom for content. MedCom is not binding so people tend to overlook it.

Take a look at Arbcom's job description; you'll see (unless it's been changed lately) that Arbcom's brief is stated to include "complex content issues", at least in theory. In practice it's a different story. As for mediation: that can be a complete waste of time: named parties can simply refuse to participate, and the applicant can't do anything about it -- except endure the dispute dragging on interminably, or until it ends up at Arbcom, where the dispute is "resolved" eventually by banning the compainant.

This post has been edited by communicat: Fri 4th November 2011, 10:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 5th November 2011, 12:49am
Post #24


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 11:14am) *
allow me to say WP's NPOV rules are lucid and rational, and Detective above has summarised them adequately and concisely. So WP policy as such and in that particular regard is not at fault. It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.
I'll agree. The policies are often excellent. But excellent policy with no reliable enforcement mechanism can be worse than useless. It deceives users, especially newcomers, but often even the relatively experienced, into expecting one thing when what actually happens is quite different.

Wikipedia never set up a reliable enforcement structure, something not easily corrupted. I believe it's possible, but the community has almost violently rejected such a thing. That is, the active core, which considers itself the "community," has rejected it. The real community has practically no voice except a passive one, based on the ability to simply go away.

Wikipedia is a Ponzi scheme, burning out "investors." That wasn't intrinsic in the vision, but was inevitable because the vision was never grounded in the practical realities of organizational structure. It was naive.

I just looked at the AfD for Energy Catalyzer, and the editing of that article. What a waste of time! Policy was completely clear, but there is an active contingent of users, including administrators, which has never accepted basic policy, and substitutes something entirely different. And they get away with it, all the time. I confronted this, which is precisely why I was banned. I was being successful at enforcing policy, as an ordinary user. It had to be stopped.

That article will never settle without some serious facilitation of consensus, probably combined with semiprotection or even full protection. Wikiversity allows forking, which would allow alternate versions of an article to exist, and then it's possible to choose one with an RfC, and protect it, while work continues on the next version. See the Wikiversity page on the Energy Catalyzer, and a subpage which was intended to be used to study the Wikipedia article. It's possible to create, as student exercises, alternate versions of the Wikipedia article, as subpages, if local consensus can't be found on a single page. I'd certainly help if anyone tries to do this. By the way, I'm highly skeptical of Rossi's work. But it is also not a theoretical impossibility that he's found something of interest. Which is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article, which, consensus was, amazingly, should be based on ... what's in reliable source. As ordinarily defined for news and business. This isn't "science," not yet, anyway. It is of some "scientific interest," whatever that is.

Further, we see all the time that Wikipedia article pages are not to be used to discuss the topic. Wikiversity talk pages may be used for this, and, to some extent, even mainspace pages. Really, articles where many attempt to discuss the topic should have an interwiki link to Wikiversity. In theory. In fact, the antifringe contingent has acted forcefully to suppress such links, even though they are obviously allowed by policy. I've seen the argument that Wikiversity is not a reliable source. True. But that argument would prevent See Also links to other Wikipedia articles. Rather, Wikiversity is covered by the same neutrality policy as all WMF wikis. We just handle it differently than Wikipedia, and our approach definitely allows and encourages discussion, as would be expected in brick and mortar educational institutions.

I have seen the knowledge of a field actually progress from a Wikiversity discussion, because it led to some cogent questions for experts, and an expert then wrote a paper responding to the question.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Sat 5th November 2011, 1:46am
Post #25


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:26pm) *

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 4:14pm) *

It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.


I think this is correct. Should we hold the ArbCom accountable? In the recent "BLP" case, the ArbCom's official pronouncement was "Gee, it looks like people are breaking the rules. We, the mighty ArbCommers, hereby ask politely that in the future, people ought to try harder to obey the rules."

Don't even think of holding Arbcom accountable. Arbcom, by its own admission, has neither the capacity nor the inclination to resolve content disputes.
Huh? Arbcom is supposed to deal with bad behavior, and chronic violation of the rules is bad behavior.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Sat 5th November 2011, 12:15pm
Post #26


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 5th November 2011, 3:46am) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:26pm) *

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 4:14pm) *

It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.


I think this is correct. Should we hold the ArbCom accountable? In the recent "BLP" case, the ArbCom's official pronouncement was "Gee, it looks like people are breaking the rules. We, the mighty ArbCommers, hereby ask politely that in the future, people ought to try harder to obey the rules."

Don't even think of holding Arbcom accountable. Arbcom, by its own admission, has neither the capacity nor the inclination to resolve content disputes.
Huh? Arbcom is supposed to deal with bad behavior, and chronic violation of the rules is bad behavior.

Precisely; but it gets worse. Flagrant disregard for the key principle of NPOV also reflects a severely retarded intellectual capacity, and a chronic inability to rise above a Dark Age mentality. Wikipedians can learn a lot from modern quantum physics. The behaviour of light, for example, can be explained either in terms of the movement of waves or the movement of particles. Both explanations are equally valid and they are not mutually exclusive. In short, a neutral explanation of what constitutes light is that it consists simultaneously of both waves and particles, and an either/or position and outcome depends essentially on the presence of an observer.

Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but the theory still serves as a useful analogy for an understanding of what NPOV should properly be. (In Eastern mysticism, sages of ancient times had already recognised the same basic principle of quantum theory, which they referred to as "yin-yan", a fundament of the proto-scientific religion Taoism).

My point is that NPOV, if it is to be properly applied, is an intellectually challenging and potentially stimulating endeavour, but wikipedians are simply too irresponsible, too backward, too undisciplined, and/ or too lazy to meet that challenge.

This post has been edited by communicat: Sat 5th November 2011, 5:34pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Sat 5th November 2011, 2:44pm
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(iii @ Fri 4th November 2011, 5:53pm) *

QUOTE(Detective @ Fri 4th November 2011, 10:52am) *

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.


And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

I have already answered that. "If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something", e.g. (hypothetically) that the sky is green, that is my metric. I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Sat 5th November 2011, 3:56pm
Post #28


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Detective @ Sat 5th November 2011, 4:44pm) *

QUOTE(iii @ Fri 4th November 2011, 5:53pm) *

QUOTE(Detective @ Fri 4th November 2011, 10:52am) *

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.


And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

I have already answered that. "If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something", e.g. (hypothetically) that the sky is green, that is my metric. I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.

With regard to credibility: advocacy group sources are banned; yet there are some very knowledgeable advocacy groups with experts on their staff. This is an example of WP's very simplistic one-size-fits-all approach to sourcing rules. Because some advocacy groups are questionable, all are banned. Because many self-published sources are vanity publishing, all are banned -- even if written by experts in their respective fields. It figures: simplistic rules for simpleton editors and admins.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Sat 5th November 2011, 4:07pm
Post #29


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 3:56pm) *

advocacy group sources are banned
Is that really true? If so, it is very selectively enforced. Look at SlimVirgin's animal rights articles as an example.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Sat 5th November 2011, 4:31pm
Post #30


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 5th November 2011, 6:07pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 3:56pm) *

advocacy group sources are banned
Is that really true? If so, it is very selectively enforced. Look at SlimVirgin's animal rights articles as an example.

That's what the rules stated while I was still active at WP some time ago; some of my edits were deleted on that basis. As I seem to recall, even UN specialist agencies were then regarded as "advocacy groups". The "rules" or their implementation might or might not have changed since then -- they seem to have a habit of doing so from time to time and without warning.

At the moment, as when I was still at WP, advocacy appears to equated with propaganda. WP:NOT states Wikipedia is not for "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind". See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advocacy I guess enforcement depends on who your friends are, and Slimvigin certainly seems to have a lot of those.

This post has been edited by communicat: Sat 5th November 2011, 5:17pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Sat 5th November 2011, 9:53pm
Post #31


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 8:15am) *

Precisely; but it gets worse. Flagrant disregard for the key principle of NPOV also reflects a severely retarded intellectual capacity, and a chronic inability to rise above a Dark Age mentality. Wikipedians can learn a lot from modern quantum physics. The behaviour of light, for example, can be explained either in terms of the movement of waves or the movement of particles. Both explanations are equally valid and they are not mutually exclusive. In short, a neutral explanation of what constitutes light is that it consists simultaneously of both waves and particles, and an either/or position and outcome depends essentially on the presence of an observer.

Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but the theory still serves as a useful analogy for an understanding of what NPOV should properly be. (In Eastern mysticism, sages of ancient times had already recognised the same basic principle of quantum theory, which they referred to as "yin-yan", a fundament of the proto-scientific religion Taoism).


Spare me such mumbo-jumbo. Both the wave and the particle theories are wrong. The prescription that accords with the data is that of the waveparticle. An appropriate encyclopedic approach would be to exclude the views of both the wave-ists and the particle-ists and not accommodate incorrectness.

QUOTE(Detective @ Sat 5th November 2011, 10:44am) *
I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.


"Good sources", "reputable peer-reviewed journals", and the "press of a leading university" are the stuff of protracted and pointless arguments on Wikipedia. The mouth-breathers who usually end up winning these arguments tend to be the obsessives with enough time on their hands to wear down the patience of their opponents. That's how Wikipedia works.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Sat 5th November 2011, 10:44pm
Post #32


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
Spare me such mumbo-jumbo. Both the wave and the particle theories are wrong. The prescription that accords with the data is that of the waveparticle. An appropriate encyclopedic approach would be to exclude the views of both the wave-ists and the particle-ists and not accommodate incorrectness.

Actually, the correct term is "wave–particle duality", (which is also linked to the Uncertainty Principle), As I said, it gets complicated; but the basic analogy holds true with regard to NPOV -- the operative words being "duality" and "uncertainty". Too many wikipedians are all too certain they are absolutely right and they will accommodate no alternative view; which would of necessity mean having to learn to live with uncertainty if content is to be truly encyclopedia. But I can see no useful purpose in being drawn into a tedious argument with contributor "iii" who's already started using derogatory words like "mumbo jumbo" to show how certain he/she is of his/her own position (which incidentally is not an entirely correct position, nor is it all-encompassing).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Sat 5th November 2011, 11:19pm
Post #33


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 6:44pm) *

Actually, the correct term is "wave–particle duality", (which is also linked to the Uncertainty Principle), As I said, it gets complicated; but the basic analogy holds true with regard to NPOV -- the operative words being "duality" and "uncertainty". Too many wikipedians are all too certain they are absolutely right and they will accommodate no alternative view; which would of necessity mean having to learn to live with uncertainty if content is to be truly encyclopedia. But I can see no useful purpose in being drawn into a tedious argument with contributor "iii" who's already started using derogatory words like "mumbo jumbo" to show how certain he/she is of his/her own position (which incidentally is not an entirely correct position, nor is it all-encompassing).


Mmhmm. I'd wager my hat that you can't provide to us a single solution to the Dirac or Schrödinger Equations. Yes, you are the expert in quantum mechanics, clearly. Great to know that you're one of the brilliant minds involved in writing the internet's most popular encyclopedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Sun 6th November 2011, 12:11pm
Post #34


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(iii @ Sun 6th November 2011, 1:19am) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 6:44pm) *

Actually, the correct term is "wave–particle duality", (which is also linked to the Uncertainty Principle), As I said, it gets complicated; but the basic analogy holds true with regard to NPOV -- the operative words being "duality" and "uncertainty". Too many wikipedians are all too certain they are absolutely right and they will accommodate no alternative view; which would of necessity mean having to learn to live with uncertainty if content is to be truly encyclopedia. But I can see no useful purpose in being drawn into a tedious argument with contributor "iii" who's already started using derogatory words like "mumbo jumbo" to show how certain he/she is of his/her own position (which incidentally is not an entirely correct position, nor is it all-encompassing).


Mmhmm. I'd wager my hat that you can't provide to us a single solution to the Dirac or Schrödinger Equations. Yes, you are the expert in quantum mechanics, clearly. Great to know that you're one of the brilliant minds involved in writing the internet's most popular encyclopedia.

No, I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, but I do understand the basics; nor am I involved in writing WP. I'm simply proposing a useful analogy borrowed from physics, in the probably futile hope that someone in any position of authority at WP might be encouraged to start implementing the spirit and letter of existing NPOV rules. Perhaps that "someone" might even be you, in which case the very best of luck to you. You'll need it. wave.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 4 14, 10:51am