View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:11 am



Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ] 
DYK rules change 
Author Message
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Posts: 6125
Location: UK
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Eraserhead1 (T-C-L) had closed an RfC on including GA articles ("good" articles) in the Did You Know ... section of the Wikipedia main page, stating that there was a consensus for the change. He updated the DYK rules accordingly.

His close has now apparently been reverted by DYK regulars ...

Quote:
OK, what the hell is going on here? Why has my closure been unilaterally reverted? What's the objection? Why do we need to have (yet another) RFC on the same thing that I have just closed?

There should be no issue with a coherent challenge, but if there isn't one then reverting closures is just disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


Quote:
So what is your planned solution? The core of the opposition is coming from people who do not have to take any sort of disruptive actions. They can instead effectively prevent implementation by simply refusing to assist. Are you looking to block users because they stop volunteering or switch their focus to other parts of Wikipedia? Not even the Foundation has the authority to compel volunteers to perform tasks with which they disagree, but that is exactly the position you find yourself in as a result of your close decision. Your other option is to find a new set of volunteers willing and able to take over the work of keeping DYK running. --Allen3 talk 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a coherent per policy challenge I would expect them to respect the closure. Ultimately if no-one is prepared to volunteer then the section will be removed from the main page, but frankly that is a problem for another time.
I think it is appalling that you are attempting to blackmail the closer into closing the discussion the way you want it closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

:popcorn:


Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:00 pm
Profile
Online
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 9560
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
And up pops Prioryman, to maintain the status quo. At all costs. :angry:

One rarely sees a perfect example of Wikipedia "heelers" abusing process to maintain their control over some part of Wikipedia. This is one.

Hasn't anyone asked Prioryman, point blank, if he's being paid to do this? And where the hell are the aggressive anti-COI people like DGG or OrangeMike?
Is someone warning them to stay out of this?

_________________
Image


Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:03 pm
Profile WWW
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
Posts: 873
Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
EricBarbour wrote:
And up pops Prioryman, to maintain the status quo. At all costs. :angry:

One rarely sees a perfect example of Wikipedia "heelers" abusing process to maintain their control over some part of Wikipedia. This is one.

Hasn't anyone asked Prioryman, point blank, if he's being paid to do this?...


I believe Carrite/Randy has, and got the standard "you're one of the evil Wikipediocracy members" non-answer.


Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:01 pm
Profile
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Posts: 6125
Location: UK
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
EricBarbour wrote:
And up pops Prioryman, to maintain the status quo. At all costs. :angry:

One rarely sees a perfect example of Wikipedia "heelers" abusing process to maintain their control over some part of Wikipedia. This is one.

Hasn't anyone asked Prioryman, point blank, if he's being paid to do this? And where the hell are the aggressive anti-COI people like DGG or OrangeMike?
Is someone warning them to stay out of this?

Nah, DGG voted for the ban at the Gibraltar hooks RfC today.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:35 am
Profile
Online
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 9560
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
HRIP7 wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Hasn't anyone asked Prioryman, point blank, if he's being paid to do this? And where the hell are the aggressive anti-COI people like DGG or OrangeMike?
Is someone warning them to stay out of this?

Nah, DGG voted for the ban at the Gibraltar hooks RfC today.

Well, then, this may be the end of the "free" Wikipedia. Just like DMOZ, it's being taken over by people who want to use to to make money.
The "Frei Kultur" gang has lost the plot, and the WMUK insiders are making themselves "more equal than Jimbo". If Wikipedia can't resolve
this, it will be the endgame for the "free encyclopedia". People will be openly paying for article falsification, and anyone who complains will
be banned -- including Wales. Like DMOZ, it will become more and more unreliable.

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:37 am
Profile WWW
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
EricBarbour wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Hasn't anyone asked Prioryman, point blank, if he's being paid to do this? And where the hell are the aggressive anti-COI people like DGG or OrangeMike?
Is someone warning them to stay out of this?

Nah, DGG voted for the ban at the Gibraltar hooks RfC today.

Well, then, this may be the end of the "free" Wikipedia. Just like DMOZ, it's being taken over by people who want to use to to make money.
The "Frei Kultur" gang has lost the plot, and the WMUK insiders are making themselves "more equal than Jimbo". If Wikipedia can't resolve
this, it will be the endgame for the "free encyclopedia". People will be openly paying for article falsification, and anyone who complains will
be banned -- including Wales. Like DMOZ, it will become more and more unreliable.

They never really had a plot, or at least not a coherent one that they could all understand. It's self-evidently true that for some subjects a Wikipedia entry is a form of advertising. What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?


Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:33 am
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Posts: 2040
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?

Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?


Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:39 am
Profile
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?

Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?

How many full-time editors does Encyclopedia Britannica employ? Try and convince me that they're doing it for the greater good of humanity, not for the money.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:57 am
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3556
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Does EB have articles on every radio show host, and every restaurant that got a mention in a local newspaper?

A problem on WP is that the criteria for inclusion is almost non-existant, any tourist attraction is a candidate for inclusion, and indeed it places a pressure on each such location to obtain a WP entry. The pressure for any article comes not from its encyclopaedic value but from the commercial value of having a WP entry.

And you don't need QR codes. If you have the ability to scan the code and access the internet then you have the ability to upload your GPS position and have a list of attractions presented to you. Just like my GPS can tell me the direction of the nearest petrol station.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:20 am
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Posts: 2040
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide
Malleus wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?
Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?
How many full-time editors does Encyclopedia Britannica employ? Try and convince me that they're doing it for the greater good of humanity, not for the money.

you didn't answer my question, dumbass.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:29 am
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3556
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:

you didn't answer my question, dumbass.



DYK: Malleus is another one that thinks that Richard II was king of England at the time of the Battle of Crécy.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:35 am
Profile
Retired
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 2642
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod
Malleus wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?

Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?

How many full-time editors does Encyclopedia Britannica employ? Try and convince me that they're doing it for the greater good of humanity, not for the money.

That is a classic example of WikiThink - if you are paid to do something it is proof that you must be doing it wrong and for the wrong reasons. It is quite possible to be paid to do something that needs doing and to want to do it in the best possible way.

EB existed as a business, they recognised there was a value in producing a general reference work, and they believed that they could produce something at a profit. However, they recognised that the way to ensure the business was stable in the long term was that they had to guard the reputation of the publication. The chances are that EB management select the right editors, and I'd bet that the vast majority of the editors at EB are quite passionate about their vocation and would believe that they are doing Great Works for humanity.

What is quite clear is that Wikipedians do a pretty good job of driving off those who are editing for the right reasons, leaving a hard core of misfits who are controlling Wikipedia for their own personal reasons, not many of which seem to accord with the greater good of humanity. Let's compare the results of Prioryman's involvement with Wikipedia and the activities of the average EB editor. How many EB articles on Gibraltar are plastered over the front page of the EB web site because an editor has a mate with a small time consultancy there? What might be the factors that stop the EB publication system from doing that?

_________________
Time for a new signature.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:31 am
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Posts: 3582
Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
dogbiscuit wrote:
Malleus wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?

Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?

How many full-time editors does Encyclopedia Britannica employ? Try and convince me that they're doing it for the greater good of humanity, not for the money.

That is a classic example of WikiThink - if you are paid to do something it is proof that you must be doing it wrong and for the wrong reasons. It is quite possible to be paid to do something that needs doing and to want to do it in the best possible way.

EB existed as a business, they recognised there was a value in producing a general reference work, and they believed that they could produce something at a profit. However, they recognised that the way to ensure the business was stable in the long term was that they had to guard the reputation of the publication. The chances are that EB management select the right editors, and I'd bet that the vast majority of the editors at EB are quite passionate about their vocation and would believe that they are doing Great Works for humanity.

What is quite clear is that Wikipedians do a pretty good job of driving off those who are editing for the right reasons, leaving a hard core of misfits who are controlling Wikipedia for their own personal reasons, not many of which seem to accord with the greater good of humanity. Let's compare the results of Prioryman's involvement with Wikipedia and the activities of the average EB editor. How many EB articles on Gibraltar are plastered over the front page of the EB web site because an editor has a mate with a small time consultancy there? What might be the factors that stop the EB publication system from doing that?


+1 The problem with Wikipedia is that very few editors are there for purely disinterested reasons. (FWIW I believe that Malleus is one of those few). There are fanboys, cranks, paid editors, nationalists of all stripes, pederasts, all with their own particular interest in being there. With a commercial encyclopedia, by contrast, editors are selected on the basis of their knowledge and reputation.

Result: compare this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence complete mess with this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence . Actually, I think the SEP doesn't pay its contributors. However, having an article in the SEP considerably enhances your reputation, which is the main coinage of academia, so payment is irrelevant.

_________________
Man rejoices in the very consideration of truth; yet he may sometimes grieve for the thing, the truth of which he considers: it is thus that sorrow is ascribed to knowledge


Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:28 am
Profile WWW
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
dogbiscuit wrote:
Malleus wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?

Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?

How many full-time editors does Encyclopedia Britannica employ? Try and convince me that they're doing it for the greater good of humanity, not for the money.

That is a classic example of WikiThink - if you are paid to do something it is proof that you must be doing it wrong and for the wrong reasons. It is quite possible to be paid to do something that needs doing and to want to do it in the best possible way.

What your reply is a classic example of is you failing to understand what's been written. Next time try responding to what I've actually said, not what you manage to subconsciously convince yourself that I've said.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:18 pm
Profile
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
lilburne wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:

you didn't answer my question, dumbass.



DYK: Malleus is another one that thinks that Richard II was king of England at the time of the Battle of Crécy.

Do I? How did you work that out?


Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:20 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3556
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:

you didn't answer my question, dumbass.



DYK: Malleus is another one that thinks that Richard II was king of England at the time of the Battle of Crécy.

Do I? How did you work that out?


By seeing you make a whole bunch of edits around that little bit of stupidity, and not noticing.

An issue with WP is that the editors extensively edit articles where they is ignorant of the basic subject matter.

Back in the 80s if you took your photos into one particular local photographic store they all came back with a slight green colour cast. This was because the senior guy behind the processing machine was colour blind. In the case of Malleus and the rest involved in the Richard II nonsense they are content to edit history whilst being blind to chronology.

Their ignorance of the subject matter, is such that in the effort to rephrase stolen content, so that it isn't a direct copy of the original work, they either introduced errors of their own, or are simply unqualified to detect basic errors in the original copy.

This is a basic flaw in the WP methodology when it comes to content that is not purely factoidal. The editors concerned are unable to present it as a narrative as they do not have command of the subject matter. What you have is a series of wobbly stepping stones joining one manglement to another manglement.

On that note take a look at the wobbly stepping stone in the second sentance of the second paragraph in the Life section here Alfred Gilbert (T-H-L) as it gets you from wife to mistress. A key aspect of his life is in that throw away sentence, but WP editors won't know it.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:23 pm
Profile
Retired
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 2642
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod
Malleus wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:
Malleus wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?

Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?

How many full-time editors does Encyclopedia Britannica employ? Try and convince me that they're doing it for the greater good of humanity, not for the money.

That is a classic example of WikiThink - if you are paid to do something it is proof that you must be doing it wrong and for the wrong reasons. It is quite possible to be paid to do something that needs doing and to want to do it in the best possible way.

What your reply is a classic example of is you failing to understand what's been written. Next time try responding to what I've actually said, not what you manage to subconsciously convince yourself that I've said.

Well, I'll give you that you does not necessarily suggest that they are doing it wrong, but then it begs the question as to why is it a problem to be doing it for the money if the end result is the same?

As far as I can divine from your statement, you are suggesting that that doing something for the greater good of humanity and doing something for money is mutually exclusive, but it is clear that many people do things for the greater good of humanity and rightfully expect to be compensated as well - someone researching into cancer does not expect to have to do this while living in a cardboard box in a shop doorway, but can rightfully expect to be considered to be working for the greater good of humanity even though they may also be doing it for money and even for the fame.

If you do not wish to be misinterpreted, then please make your point in a less obscure fashion.

_________________
Time for a new signature.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:34 pm
Profile
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
dogbiscuit wrote:
Malleus wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:
Malleus wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?

Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?

How many full-time editors does Encyclopedia Britannica employ? Try and convince me that they're doing it for the greater good of humanity, not for the money.

That is a classic example of WikiThink - if you are paid to do something it is proof that you must be doing it wrong and for the wrong reasons. It is quite possible to be paid to do something that needs doing and to want to do it in the best possible way.

What your reply is a classic example of is you failing to understand what's been written. Next time try responding to what I've actually said, not what you manage to subconsciously convince yourself that I've said.

Well, I'll give you that you does not necessarily suggest that they are doing it wrong, but then it begs the question as to why is it a problem to be doing it for the money if the end result is the same?

As far as I can divine from your statement, you are suggesting that that doing something for the greater good of humanity and doing something for money is mutually exclusive, but it is clear that many people do things for the greater good of humanity and rightfully expect to be compensated as well - someone researching into cancer does not expect to have to do this while living in a cardboard box in a shop doorway, but can rightfully expect to be considered to be working for the greater good of humanity even though they may also be doing it for money and even for the fame.

If you do not wish to be misinterpreted, then please make your point in a less obscure fashion.

I have made my position on paid editing very clear many times, which is that I don't have a problem with it and don't see why anyone else should either. Now please stop putting your own words in my mouth. The only point I was making is that I doubt EB's army of paid editors would be editing at all if they weren't being paid; I have placed no value judgement on that observation.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:14 pm
Profile
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
lilburne wrote:
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:

you didn't answer my question, dumbass.



DYK: Malleus is another one that thinks that Richard II was king of England at the time of the Battle of Crécy.

Do I? How did you work that out?


By seeing you make a whole bunch of edits around that little bit of stupidity, and not noticing.

Just for the sake of clarity, which article(s) are you talking about? Or are you just making all of this up on the spur of the moment?


Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:16 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3556
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:

you didn't answer my question, dumbass.



DYK: Malleus is another one that thinks that Richard II was king of England at the time of the Battle of Crécy.

Do I? How did you work that out?


By seeing you make a whole bunch of edits around that little bit of stupidity, and not noticing.

Just for the sake of clarity, which article(s) are you talking about? Or are you just making all of this up on the spur of the moment?


If I tell you that you'll be in fixing it, though whether the date is wrong, or the king is wrong, is uncertain. You'll have to go back to the periodicals that the article was culled from to see. In any case if such a simple error could slip by, what else did?

Lets see if it lasts 5 years.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:17 pm
Profile
Retired
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 2642
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod
Malleus wrote:
I have made my position on paid editing very clear many times, which is that I don't have a problem with it and don't see why anyone else should either. Now please stop putting your own words in my mouth. The only point I was making is that I doubt EB's army of paid editors would be editing at all if they weren't being paid; I have placed no value judgement on that observation.

I'm quite happy that I have misinterpreted what you say, and I for one have no problem with you rebutting or clarifying it. I'm not sure the point you are making now though. Is it that EB editors are only interested in earning money and you cannot conceive of them writing for the joy of it? Are you suggesting that it is inconceivable that an EB editor might also edit Wikipedia, or write a blog, or be writing a novel in their spare time?

I guess I really don't accept the point you are making, if the only point you are making is that editing EB can only be a job, not a vocation, not an interest in writing.

_________________
Time for a new signature.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:19 pm
Profile
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
lilburne wrote:
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:

you didn't answer my question, dumbass.



DYK: Malleus is another one that thinks that Richard II was king of England at the time of the Battle of Crécy.

Do I? How did you work that out?


By seeing you make a whole bunch of edits around that little bit of stupidity, and not noticing.

Just for the sake of clarity, which article(s) are you talking about? Or are you just making all of this up on the spur of the moment?


If I tell you that you'll be in fixing it, though whether the date is wrong, or the king is wrong, is uncertain. You'll have to go back to the periodicals that the article was culled from to see. In any case if such a simple error could slip by, what else did?

Lets see if it lasts 5 years.

So you just made it up then. Fair enough.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:30 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3556
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Malleus wrote:
lilburne wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:

you didn't answer my question, dumbass.



DYK: Malleus is another one that thinks that Richard II was king of England at the time of the Battle of Crécy.

Do I? How did you work that out?


By seeing you make a whole bunch of edits around that little bit of stupidity, and not noticing.

Just for the sake of clarity, which article(s) are you talking about? Or are you just making all of this up on the spur of the moment?


If I tell you that you'll be in fixing it, though whether the date is wrong, or the king is wrong, is uncertain. You'll have to go back to the periodicals that the article was culled from to see. In any case if such a simple error could slip by, what else did?

Lets see if it lasts 5 years.

So you just made it up then. Fair enough.


:evilgrin:

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:53 pm
Profile
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
dogbiscuit wrote:
Malleus wrote:
I have made my position on paid editing very clear many times, which is that I don't have a problem with it and don't see why anyone else should either. Now please stop putting your own words in my mouth. The only point I was making is that I doubt EB's army of paid editors would be editing at all if they weren't being paid; I have placed no value judgement on that observation.

I'm quite happy that I have misinterpreted what you say, and I for one have no problem with you rebutting or clarifying it. I'm not sure the point you are making now though. Is it that EB editors are only interested in earning money and you cannot conceive of them writing for the joy of it? Are you suggesting that it is inconceivable that an EB editor might also edit Wikipedia, or write a blog, or be writing a novel in their spare time?

I guess I really don't accept the point you are making, if the only point you are making is that editing EB can only be a job, not a vocation, not an interest in writing.

I'm really not much interested in whether you accept it or not to be honest, it's my position nevertheless.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:17 pm
Profile
Retired
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:49 pm
Posts: 271
Wikipedia User: Arniep
Wikipedia Review Member: jorge
Peter Damian wrote:
Actually, I think the SEP doesn't pay its contributors. However, having an article in the SEP considerably enhances your reputation, which is the main coinage of academia, so payment is irrelevant.

Maybe some Wikipedia contributors think it enhances their reputation. (There's one born every minute, they say.) Certainly, there have been some nice news articles over the years about Wikipedia contributors.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:26 pm
Profile
Retired
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 2642
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod
Malleus wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:
Malleus wrote:
I have made my position on paid editing very clear many times, which is that I don't have a problem with it and don't see why anyone else should either. Now please stop putting your own words in my mouth. The only point I was making is that I doubt EB's army of paid editors would be editing at all if they weren't being paid; I have placed no value judgement on that observation.

I'm quite happy that I have misinterpreted what you say, and I for one have no problem with you rebutting or clarifying it. I'm not sure the point you are making now though. Is it that EB editors are only interested in earning money and you cannot conceive of them writing for the joy of it? Are you suggesting that it is inconceivable that an EB editor might also edit Wikipedia, or write a blog, or be writing a novel in their spare time?

I guess I really don't accept the point you are making, if the only point you are making is that editing EB can only be a job, not a vocation, not an interest in writing.

I'm really not much interested in whether you accept it or not to be honest, it's my position nevertheless.

No problem with that :) At least we now understand each other, so that's progress.

_________________
Time for a new signature.


Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:09 am
Profile
Online
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 7160
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
This seems to be our only thread with "DYK" in the title, so I have a suggestion for a DYK!

DYK... When a thief or a spy walks on tiptoe, each of his or her steps will often be accompanied by soft musical notes? (source)

_________________
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."


Fri May 24, 2013 2:01 pm
Profile WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Posts: 1123
Location: New York, New York
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
thekohser wrote:
This seems to be our only thread with "DYK" in the title, so I have a suggestion for a DYK!

DYK... When a thief or a spy walks on tiptoe, each of his or her steps will often be accompanied by soft musical notes? (source)


Tyciol wrote that.


Fri May 24, 2013 3:32 pm
Profile WWW
the Merciless
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 576
Classic encyclopedia publishers paid people to write articles in order to sell massive collections of tomes. Ming guesses that the fellow who wrote the article on 'Petroleum' in the 1960s World Book either worked for an oil company or had the phone number of somebody at Shell or Standard Oil in his Rolodex. At any rate Ming doesn't remember it talking at great length about pollution from drilling accidents or smog (there was a separate article for that). He imagines that the EB editor probably found someone at Oxbridge to write the same article (certainly the 1910 edition did so). Ming imagines that good leftists can comment about how these magisterial old volumes show a strong establishment bias, and he certainly remembers a level of optimism and establishment confidence in the 1967 WB edition that was shot all to hell the very next year.

Ming imagines that a small portion of the Wikipedia articles are written by trustworthy pros, but that most are either written by amateurs, publicists, or partisans. However Ming feels obliged to point out that the "paid" in the old model and the "paid" in the new are being paid by entirely different patrons. The old print publishers themselves paid people to write for them, and if the writer be employed by a less than disinterested party, there was the leash of review by the encyclopedia editors to keep that COI in check. In Wikipedia, if someone is paid it is almost invariably the subject of the article who does the paying. Ming feels, somehow, that this difference is of some small importance.


Fri May 24, 2013 4:18 pm
Profile
the Merciless
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 576
HRIP7 wrote:
Eraserhead1 (T-C-L) had closed an RfC on including GA articles ("good" articles) in the Did You Know ... section of the Wikipedia main page, stating that there was a consensus for the change. He updated the DYK rules accordingly.


Of course this is all about the fact that there isn't any tangible reward for taking an article to GA.


Fri May 24, 2013 4:20 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2868
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Ming wrote:
Classic encyclopedia publishers paid people to write articles in order to sell massive collections of tomes. Ming guesses that the fellow who wrote the article on 'Petroleum' in the 1960s World Book either worked for an oil company or had the phone number of somebody at Shell or Standard Oil in his Rolodex. At any rate Ming doesn't remember it talking at great length about pollution from drilling accidents or smog (there was a separate article for that).


Ming makes a good point.

RfB


Fri May 24, 2013 4:23 pm
Profile
Online
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 7160
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
How did Ming make a new off-topic thread within this thread?

_________________
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."


Fri May 24, 2013 5:41 pm
Profile WWW
the Merciless
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 576
Ming would like to point out that the thread started to split back with Eric Barbour's first response.


Fri May 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Profile
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Posts: 959
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
dogbiscuit wrote:
Malleus wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
What follows is that a market develops to create deletion-proof articles. The world has worked that way for thousands of years, so why should a few kids blinded by the cult of Jimbo think they can change human nature?

Did Encyclopedia Britannica work that way?

How many full-time editors does Encyclopedia Britannica employ? Try and convince me that they're doing it for the greater good of humanity, not for the money.

That is a classic example of WikiThink - if you are paid to do something it is proof that you must be doing it wrong and for the wrong reasons. It is quite possible to be paid to do something that needs doing and to want to do it in the best possible way.

EB existed as a business, they recognised there was a value in producing a general reference work, and they believed that they could produce something at a profit. However, they recognised that the way to ensure the business was stable in the long term was that they had to guard the reputation of the publication. The chances are that EB management select the right editors, and I'd bet that the vast majority of the editors at EB are quite passionate about their vocation and would believe that they are doing Great Works for humanity.

What is quite clear is that Wikipedians do a pretty good job of driving off those who are editing for the right reasons, leaving a hard core of misfits who are controlling Wikipedia for their own personal reasons, not many of which seem to accord with the greater good of humanity. Let's compare the results of Prioryman's involvement with Wikipedia and the activities of the average EB editor. How many EB articles on Gibraltar are plastered over the front page of the EB web site because an editor has a mate with a small time consultancy there? What might be the factors that stop the EB publication system from doing that?

EB was assisted by the universities of Glascow (I think), Chicago (which took over leadership), and I think Tokyo.

They picked serious researchers and scholars to write the articles. I remember reading the article on game theory that was written by Harold W. Kuhn or Albert W. Tucker!

_________________
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.


Fri May 24, 2013 7:21 pm
Profile WWW
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am
Posts: 184
Wikipedia User: Hillbillyholiday81
Keifer wrote:
They picked serious researchers and scholars to write the articles. I remember reading the article on game theory that was written by Harold W. Kuhn or Albert W. Tucker!


Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Leon Trotsky, Michael E. DeBakey.


Fri May 24, 2013 7:42 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 35 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.