A notorious US figure that isn't on WP at all

[EricBarbour]

And that would be the fine Texas gentleman who created the first "right-to-work" laws, Vance Muse.

http://pando.com/2015/03/13/as-right-to ... cist-past/

A couple of years ago, I wrote an article for NSFWCORP (since acquired by Pando) exposing the ugly, racist roots of the whole “Right To Work” movement, tracing it back to the brains behind “Right To Work”: Vance Muse, the loonie anti-Semitic, anti-black Texan who coined “Right To Work” in the early 1940s, and worked Karl Rove-like to push through the first “Right To Work” laws in the South in the 40s and early 50s. Since a lot of people these days are not in tune with labor union struggles and what “right to work” laws even mean, my article exposing the KKK racist who started “Right To Work” created a bit of a PR headache for the union-busting movement.

Have some more "references". The last one was written by his grandson, a journalist of some repute who goes by the same name.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/onli ... cles/fmu22
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/scuc.html
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/12/ ... -laws.html
http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/mak ... randfather

Meanwhile, Right-to-work law (T-H-L) goes on and on about the Taft-Hartley Act and other federal laws, but says very little about state and local laws of this type. And National Right to Work Committee (T-H-L) was written by an SPA in January and was taken bodily from the NRTWC's website.

[Poetlister]

The last one was written by his grandson, a journalist of some repute who goes by the same name.

That would be dismissed immediately by the "community" as being too COI and POV to be reliable.

[EricBarbour]

The last one was written by his grandson, a journalist of some repute who goes by the same name.

That would be dismissed immediately by the "community" as being too COI and POV to be reliable.

Bullshit. Prove it by example.

[Poetlister]

The last one was written by his grandson, a journalist of some repute who goes by the same name.

That would be dismissed immediately by the "community" as being too COI and POV to be reliable.

Bullshit. Prove it by example.

Are you seriously suggesting that an article about a controversial figure written by his grandson wouldn't be queried?

[thekohser]

The last one was written by his grandson, a journalist of some repute who goes by the same name.

That would be dismissed immediately by the "community" as being too COI and POV to be reliable.

Bullshit. Prove it by example.

Are you seriously suggesting that an article about a controversial figure written by his grandson wouldn't be queried?

I don't think either of you can definitively say what would or would not happen in such a case. As always with Wikipedia, and as both of you know damn well, how an article is savaged -- or left alone -- depends entirely on the whims of the "Wiki mob" as it first passes by the article in the first 24 hours or so of its existence.

[EricBarbour]

I don't think either of you can definitively say what would or would not happen in such a case. As always with Wikipedia, and as both of you know damn well, how an article is savaged -- or left alone -- depends entirely on the whims of the "Wiki mob" as it first passes by the article in the first 24 hours or so of its existence.

Sounds good to me. And since no one has "taken the bait" yet, I doubt anyone ever will. Wikipedia's historical content continues to have numerous gaps of various sizes and types, because nothing that happened before the basement-dwellers were born "really happened".

(just a few minutes later)
Whoo-hoo: who sez Wikipediocracy is "eeeeeevil"? Post something here, and some Wikipedia addict will create it for you! Fresh off the grill:
Vance Muse (T-H-L)

Beginning to wonder if there is a secret "Wikipediocracy Embarrassment Action List" somewhere......

[Maunus]

While I may well be addicted I resent your characterization of me as a basement dweller. And yes I do make a habit of perusing this site for legitimate suggestions for how to improve the encyclopedia and carrying them out if I find them reasonable and within my sphere of capability and interest. I don't think Vance Muse constituted a big hole in the historical coverage of US labor laws - but reading up on him made for an interesting 30 mins while I was on the train.

[Zoloft]

While I may well be addicted I resent your characterization of me as a basement dweller. And yes I do make a habit of perusing this site for legitimate suggestions for how to improve the encyclopedia and carrying them out if I find them reasonable and within my sphere of capability and interest. I don't think Vance Muse constituted a big hole in the historical coverage of US labor laws - but reading up on him made for an interesting 30 mins while I was on the train.

Thank you for commenting, Maunus, and we have a tendency to weigh down on the 'basement dweller' meme—we've had it used on us a fair bit too—we even had a famous 'fetid basement of Wikipediocracy' topic.

[Notvelty]

While I may well be addicted I resent your characterization of me as a basement dweller. And yes I do make a habit of perusing this site for legitimate suggestions for how to improve the encyclopedia and carrying them out if I find them reasonable and within my sphere of capability and interest. I don't think Vance Muse constituted a big hole in the historical coverage of US labor laws - but reading up on him made for an interesting 30 mins while I was on the train.

Is it rewarding? The polishing of the turd to remove obvious bits of corn?

[Vigilant]

While I may well be addicted I resent your characterization of me as a basement dweller. And yes I do make a habit of perusing this site for legitimate suggestions for how to improve the encyclopedia and carrying them out if I find them reasonable and within my sphere of capability and interest. I don't think Vance Muse constituted a big hole in the historical coverage of US labor laws - but reading up on him made for an interesting 30 mins while I was on the train.

Is it rewarding? The polishing of the turd to remove obvious bits of corn?

I chuckled.

I'd say the people who do this type of work are the least objectionable ones on en.wp.
They really believe in the "project" and seem to honestly try to make things better.

That there are fundamental problems with the underlying structure of the "project" diminishes only the final product, no their good attempts.

The biggest problem is that many of this type are converted (mutated?) into the cultists who occupy JimboTalk, ANI, AfD, etc.
I feel like we're in the Matrix.

[mac]

While I may well be addicted I resent your characterization of me as a basement dweller. And yes I do make a habit of perusing this site for legitimate suggestions for how to improve the encyclopedia and carrying them out if I find them reasonable and within my sphere of capability and interest. I don't think Vance Muse constituted a big hole in the historical coverage of US labor laws - but reading up on him made for an interesting 30 mins while I was on the train.

Is it rewarding? The polishing of the turd to remove obvious bits of corn?

Wait a minute, I thought we were the ones who did strange things with vegetables.

[EricBarbour]

While I may well be addicted I resent your characterization of me as a basement dweller. And yes I do make a habit of perusing this site for legitimate suggestions for how to improve the encyclopedia and carrying them out if I find them reasonable and within my sphere of capability and interest. I don't think Vance Muse constituted a big hole in the historical coverage of US labor laws - but reading up on him made for an interesting 30 mins while I was on the train.

Ah, the author of Una Canger (T-H-L) speaks! Don't suppose you'd like to admit being one of her students, and also being principal author of her Wikipedia biography?

[Maunus]

I would have no problem with admitting that, no. Indeed I have made that same statement on wikipedia in a discussion once. I have written articles on several of my notable teachers. You are welcome to find them and check their sourcing and assess their notability.

In another discussion concurrent with this one, an editor asks why more wikipedia arbitrators or known users dont contribute here. Someone suggested fear of outing. That does seem reasonable given that the response to my third post here on the board is a veiled threat of outing. I in fact, used to edit under my real name. But I stopped doing so after receiving personal threats related to my editing on race related articles.

As for polishing the turd, I dont know whether actively polishing it is more or less rewarding than writing 1200 posts griping about how ugly and smelly it is. Also you have the analogy backwards, I am trying to reduce the ratio of shit to corn, not the other way round.

[EricBarbour]

As for polishing the turd, I dont know whether actively polishing it is more or less rewarding than writing 1200 posts griping about how ugly and smelly it is. Also you have the analogy backwards, I am trying to reduce the ratio of shit to corn, not the other way round.

And failing, IMO.

And kindly don't assume I'm on this forum simply to gripe. Also co-author of an in-progress book about Wikipedia. This forum has proven to be a good source of horror stories about Wikipedia corruption, incompetence, and the like.

[Maunus]

The gripe comment was aimed at Notvelty, the inventor of the turd analogy (or is it a metaphor?). As for whether I am failing or not, that is clearly a matter of the value one ascribes to my personal contributions, I obviously disagree with your assessment.

[JCM]

There are actually from what I've seen a hell of a lot of articles relating to labor and business which wikipedia still doesn't have. Actually, there are a hell of a lot of articles on all sorts of topics which are even covered at length in some of the leading reference works in their fields which wikipedia doesn't yet have. A look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles (T-H-L) and similar pages will show quite a few redlinks for articles which have articles two or more pages long in some of the leading reference sources on those topics. There are all sorts of reasons why those articles are missing, and there are probably all sorts of reasons why this one still is too. I don't like the fact that any of those topics covered at significant length in other reference sources are missing, but, unfortunately, there's not a whole lot I can do about filling in all the gaps of wikipedia myself.

[Notvelty]

As for polishing the turd, I dont know whether actively polishing it is more or less rewarding than writing 1200 posts griping about how ugly and smelly it is.

Yes, because the appropriate response to a turd in the middle of the room is to ignore it. The reason for the 1200 posts is because the turd is still there. If someone had come along with a towel and some Dettol and set down some baking powder, I'd be whinging about something else entirely.

Also you have the analogy backwards, I am trying to reduce the ratio of shit to corn, not the other way round.

No. What you assume (incorrectly) is that the fundamental principles upon which Wikipedia actually works are not bankrupt. You think that there's some gold nugget hidden away there, but there isn't. It's just a nugget.

--
(It occurs to me that some readers may not be familiar with the Australian term "nugget", but now I've mentioned it, I'm sure you can work it out).

[Maunus]

I have no assumptions or illusions about wikipedia as an institution or organization or social experiment. Nor do I care for them. What I know is that wikipedia is a used by people in the world to access information. And I know that the information I add can be and often is useful for people. That is all I need to worry about. I think of it this way. When I publish an article in a journal it will be read perhaps by 100 people, and perhaps 100 more if I self archive it - and perhaps double that over the next decade. When I write a wikipedia article about a topic in which I specialize the information reaches between several thousand and several millions of editors per year. Makes sense to me that if I want people to have access to information on topics that I know about I use wikipedia and not a scientific journal to disseminate it.

[DanMurphy]

I have no assumptions or illusions about wikipedia as an institution or organization or social experiment. Nor do I care for them. What I know is that wikipedia is a used by people in the world to access information. And I know that the information I add can be and often is useful for people. That is all I need to worry about. I think of it this way. When I publish an article in a journal it will be read perhaps by 100 people, and perhaps 100 more if I self archive it - and perhaps double that over the next decade. When I write a wikipedia article about a topic in which I specialize the information reaches between several thousand and several millions of editors per year. Makes sense to me that if I want people to have access to information on topics that I know about I use wikipedia and not a scientific journal to disseminate it.

You're an academic or researcher ("when I publish an article in a journal it will be read perhaps by 100 people tkkt")? Running on this assumption.

This is a very bad way to approach impact. My super-genius medical researcher uncle (now retired) has probably had a tiny audience for each of his articles (he's 79 now, so obviously most of his professional publications were that way by necessity). Yet his work without a doubt (this is the latest edition of his most popular, though not his most important, work) has prolonged hundreds of thousands of lives at least.

Just imagine if it was all just tossed up on Wikipedia where administrator "lol15" or whatever could participate. I'm sure there would have been more page views but...

[Maunus]

Well clearly it would be stupid if I were publishing my research in wikipedia and not in journals. I dont publish my research in wikipedia, but I educate people about topics that I know of. Just as I do when I teach a class. Except its free (and the class is much bigger and I dont need to grade). Also the chancre that my research will save anyones life is very small.

[DanMurphy]

Well clearly it would be stupid if I were publishing my research in wikipedia and not in journals. I dont publish my research in wikipedia, but I educate people about topics that I know of. Just as I do when I teach a class. Except its free (and the class is much bigger and I dont need to grade). Also the chancre that my research will save anyones life is very small.

But you wrote:

When I publish an article in a journal it will be read perhaps by 100 people, and perhaps 100 more if I self archive it - and perhaps double that over the next decade. When I write a wikipedia article about a topic in which I specialize the information reaches between several thousand and several millions of editors per year.

Whatever do you mean?

[Maunus]

Writing about a topic in which I specialize and publishing my research are two different things from my perspective.

[Zoloft]

That seems a ...

...little fuzzy.

[Maunus]

Doing research entails undertaking a study that produces new knowledge and publishing the findings in an academic venue. Writing about a topic in which a specialize requires summarizing the findings of previous researchers in the field. I dont think it is fuzzy at all, actually. I am sure you are all familiar with wikipedias OR rule which would preclude publishing research findings that have not first been published in an academic journal or a similar media.

[Notvelty]

Writing about a topic in which I specialize and publishing my research are two different things from my perspective.

Tell me.

Do you use your own material in writing about it on Wikipedia, thereby violating the Wikipedia rule of no original research?

Or do you take someone else's work and destroy the reach of their website and capacity to gain from their toil and knowledge?

[SB_Johnny]

Note: further discussion with Mr. Maunus moved to the private-ish area.

[Maunus]

Writing about a topic in which I specialize and publishing my research are two different things from my perspective.

Tell me.

Do you use your own material in writing about it on Wikipedia, thereby violating the Wikipedia rule of no original research?

Or do you take someone else's work and destroy the reach of their website and capacity to gain from their toil and knowledge?

I summarize published literature written in academic media published with no potential for profit for the author. I cite it, thereby generating visibility for the original author and their ideas and likely increasing their readership and their citation count. Which is the only thing academics outside of the sciences generally expect to be rewarded for their publications. On occasion I have cited works by myself, but only when it is clearly justified to do so and is unlikely to lead to accusations of COI. I have on at least one occasion been asked by other editors to cite my own published work which I had omitted from articles on the topics they are about.

[Notvelty]

Writing about a topic in which I specialize and publishing my research are two different things from my perspective.

Tell me.

Do you use your own material in writing about it on Wikipedia, thereby violating the Wikipedia rule of no original research?

Or do you take someone else's work and destroy the reach of their website and capacity to gain from their toil and knowledge?

I summarize published literature written in academic media published with no potential for profit for the author. I cite it, thereby generating visibility for the original author and their ideas and likely increasing their readership and their citation count. Which is the only thing academics outside of the sciences generally expect to be rewarded for their publications. On occasion I have cited works by myself, but only when it is clearly justified to do so and is unlikely to lead to accusations of COI. I have on at least one occasion been asked by other editors to cite my own published work which I had omitted from articles on the topics they are about.

By sentence:
1) That's great. Most wikipedia articles are referenced to internet sources. Articles cited properly to academic journals are the exception and serve as the rug under which the detritus is swept. In addition, while academic reviews and papers reference on an equal footing and do drive recognition, wikipedia is in most cases the first and final port of call. Hence my next response:

2) No it doesn't.

3) Reflexive pronouns; learn about them.

4) Bully for you. I'm not sure what your work has to do with it, though. If it is any good (and I have no reason to think that it is not), then it is the very rare exception, serving to provide a screen from the rubbish.

[Maunus]

I summarize published literature written in academic media published with no potential for profit for the author. I cite it, thereby generating visibility for the original author and their ideas and likely increasing their readership and their citation count. Which is the only thing academics outside of the sciences generally expect to be rewarded for their publications. On occasion I have cited works by myself, but only when it is clearly justified to do so and is unlikely to lead to accusations of COI. I have on at least one occasion been asked by other editors to cite my own published work which I had omitted from articles on the topics they are about.

By sentence:
1) That's great. Most wikipedia articles are referenced to internet sources. Articles cited properly to academic journals are the exception and serve as the rug under which the detritus is swept. In addition, while academic reviews and papers reference on an equal footing and do drive recognition, wikipedia is in most cases the first and final port of call. Hence my next response:

2) No it doesn't.

3) Reflexive pronouns; learn about them.

4) Bully for you. I'm not sure what your work has to do with it, though. If it is any good (and I have no reason to think that it is not), then it is the very rare exception, serving to provide a screen from the rubbish.

1. I do think that is the right way to work yes. I dont share your concern that using web references diminishes the reach of websites. But for other reasons I dont think they are good sources for most topics - definitely not for the kinds of topics I work on.
2. Well I admit that it is a hypothetical, that would have to be verified empirically, but I have yet to meet a researcher that complained over being cited anywhere.
3. Please educate my humble self oh lord of grammar.
4. I mentioned that preemptively on the chance that you would look through my contributions for self citations. For the record they are in articles on the Nahuatl and Otomi languages.

[Notvelty]

I summarize published literature written in academic media published with no potential for profit for the author. I cite it, thereby generating visibility for the original author and their ideas and likely increasing their readership and their citation count. Which is the only thing academics outside of the sciences generally expect to be rewarded for their publications. On occasion I have cited works by myself, but only when it is clearly justified to do so and is unlikely to lead to accusations of COI. I have on at least one occasion been asked by other editors to cite my own published work which I had omitted from articles on the topics they are about.

By sentence:
1) That's great. Most wikipedia articles are referenced to internet sources. Articles cited properly to academic journals are the exception and serve as the rug under which the detritus is swept. In addition, while academic reviews and papers reference on an equal footing and do drive recognition, wikipedia is in most cases the first and final port of call. Hence my next response:

2) No it doesn't.

3) Reflexive pronouns; learn about them.

4) Bully for you. I'm not sure what your work has to do with it, though. If it is any good (and I have no reason to think that it is not), then it is the very rare exception, serving to provide a screen from the rubbish.

1. I do think that is the right way to work yes. I dont share your concern that using web references diminishes the reach of websites. But for other reasons I dont think they are good sources for most topics - definitely not for the kinds of topics I work on.
2. Well I admit that it is a hypothetical, that would have to be verified empirically, but I have yet to meet a researcher that complained over being cited anywhere.
3. Please educate my humble self oh lord of grammar.
4. I mentioned that preemptively on the chance that you would look through my contributions for self citations. For the record they are in articles on the Nahuatl and Otomi languages.

That fourth point of yours is probably the most instructive. I don't care if experts reference themselves; experts referencing themselves is a more preferable model than what happens most of the time on Wikipedia. I'd care if you reference yourself and complain if others do it, but I can't see you doing that.

That you think I would care is a very Wikipedian mindset. And it is from that wikipedian mindset that flows your responses at 1 and 2.

On point 1 you say:

I dont share your concern that using web references diminishes the reach of websites.

Yet even if you ignore the "plain as the nose on you face" visual evidence of Wikipedia taking up the top listings on google, a quick word with Peter Damian on this site (who is himself respected in his field) will support that diminished results for other websites is in fact the case.

At point 2 you say:

I have yet to meet a researcher that complained over being cited anywhere

.
Which conflates actual academic citations with Wikipedia citations. It also ignores the plight of academic journals who rely on people using and accessing their journals and it ignores that the vast majority of topics are not academic.

You're stuck in the Wikipedia mindset that the fundamental structure of the beast is desirable - it's a mindset that does not accept criticism except "approved" criticism that is delivered from the assumption that the beast is good.

You clearly have the capacity to do great work and have done great work outside of Wikipedia. But so have a lot of people caught up in cults.

(Trotsky? I never would have guessed.)

[Maunus]

Yet even if you ignore the "plain as the nose on you face" visual evidence of Wikipedia taking up the top listings on google, a quick word with Peter Damian on this site (who is himself respected in his field) will support that diminished results for other websites is in fact the case.

I don't doubt it is the case that websites have part of their traffic drawn away by wikipedia. But I dont share your concern. This is the way it is, other sites have to adapt to that, and most have. And it is the reason I think I have a responsibility that wikipedia has quality content. If I thought I could set up my own website and do what wikipedia does only better I might do that, but wikipedia would still get the traffic. That is a fact of the internet these days, and will continue to be so untill the next technological revolution whatever that will be.

At point 2 you say:

I have yet to meet a researcher that complained over being cited anywhere

.
Which conflates actual academic citations with Wikipedia citations. It also ignores the plight of academic journals who rely on people using and accessing their journals and it ignores that the vast majority of topics are not academic.

I dont edit a majority of topics. I edit broadly but almost exclusively in academic topics. I have never heard academics complain about being cited in blogs, websites or on wikipedia. I have been thanked by colleagues for citing them on wikipedia. As for Academic journals I consider them leeches, the for profit ones at least which work like record companies and make money like record companies except they dont pay a cent to the "artists", and as the abominations they are I think they deserve to disappear and if I can hasten that development I shall be happy.

You're stuck in the Wikipedia mindset that the fundamental structure of the beast is desirable - it's a mindset that does not accept criticism except "approved" criticism that is delivered from the assumption that the beast is good.

No, from the assumption that the beast is, and that we have to live with that and make the best of it. That is how I approach most of the things in life that are terrible yet can only be improved incrementally and in tiny tiny steps. Like Government and my childrens manners.

[lonza leggiera]

While I may well be addicted I resent your characterization of me as a basement dweller. ....

I'm glad you decided to hang around, but I'm curious as to why you took EricBarbour's comment about basement dwellers as necessarily including yourself. It didn't seem to me intended to include all contributors to Wikipedia, and if it were so intended then derision would appear to me to have been a much more appropriate response than resentment.

[Maunus]

Nah, it was mostly meant as a tongue in cheek offendedness and playing on the "I resent that comment" meme.

[thekohser]

But I dont share your concern. This is the way it is, other sites have to adapt to that, and most have. And it is the reason I think I have a responsibility that wikipedia has quality content. If I thought I could set up my own website and do what wikipedia does only better I might do that, but wikipedia would still get the traffic. That is a fact of the internet these days, and will continue to be so...

Do you shop at Walmart and eat at McDonald's?

[Maunus]

Occasionally, yes. And I would also be willing to participate in efforts or advocacy to improve their policies and products. I wouldnt go into a store and secretly inject manure into their projects to alert the public to how bad they are.

[thekohser]

Occasionally, yes. And I would also be willing to participate in efforts or advocacy to improve their policies and products. I wouldnt go into a store and secretly inject manure into their projects to alert the public to how bad they are.

What if the store routinely gets tax-free grants, despite the fact that there routinely is manure in their merchandise, and the store had a tagline out front that said, "WikiMart: the store anyone can inject manure into"?

[DanMurphy]

Occasionally, yes. And I would also be willing to participate in efforts or advocacy to improve their policies and products. I wouldnt go into a store and secretly inject manure into their projects to alert the public to how bad they are.

What if the store routinely gets tax-free grants, despite the fact that there routinely is manure in their merchandise, and the store had a tagline out front that said, "WikiMart: the store anyone can inject manure into"?

Greg is doing god's work here. Remember the loving and thoughtful shriekfest that ensued when it was suggest that disclaimers be placed on their medical "articles."

This was one of the opinions that carried the day.

We already have a medical disclaimer linked on every page. Medicolegally and morally this is a non-issue.

Other Wikipedia articles are prepared in a similar way to medical articles, yet they do not contain any extra disclaimer. How is it that medical articles are any different? I have difficulty with this.

The lead of articles is already cluttered. I am surprised to see some die hard opponents of infoboxes campaign for more clutter

Undermines our goals-- Overall, we should aspire for professional status in our medical articles. A professional appearance is part of this. Already our finest work is of better quality than other sources of online medical information. Lesion (T-C-L) (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Just disgusting.

[Maunus]

Occasionally, yes. And I would also be willing to participate in efforts or advocacy to improve their policies and products. I wouldnt go into a store and secretly inject manure into their projects to alert the public to how bad they are.

What if the store routinely gets tax-free grants, despite the fact that there routinely is manure in their merchandise, and the store had a tagline out front that said, "WikiMart: the store anyone can inject manure into"?

Well, as much as I would like to use that analogy ad absurdum, I would have to maintain that if the potentially manure infested products were provided free of charge, and as long as everyone is aware of the potential manure due to the sign out front, I don't see that much of a problem.

[Maunus]

Remember the loving and thoughtful shriekfest that ensued when it was suggest that disclaimers be placed on their medical "articles."

This was one of the opinions that carried the day.

We already have a medical disclaimer linked on every page. Medicolegally and morally this is a non-issue.

Other Wikipedia articles are prepared in a similar way to medical articles, yet they do not contain any extra disclaimer. How is it that medical articles are any different? I have difficulty with this.

The lead of articles is already cluttered. I am surprised to see some die hard opponents of infoboxes campaign for more clutter

Undermines our goals-- Overall, we should aspire for professional status in our medical articles. A professional appearance is part of this. Already our finest work is of better quality than other sources of online medical information. Lesion (T-C-L) (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Just disgusting.

I am not completely sure what position I would have taken in that discussion. I think a boilerplate disclaimer, while popular in the US, is mostly a tool for avoiding lawsuits based on the "I told you so principle", I think its actual benefits as a safety measure is probably negligible.

I personally would prefer to introduce higher bars of minimum quality (of articles and contributers) for articles in many specific topic areas, medicine being one of them.

[Poetlister]

3. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =651570442]Please educate my humble self oh lord of grammar.

Actually, I think Maunus is correct. But is it a good idea to cite an edit he himself made to Wikipedia to confirm his position?

[Maunus]

It was meant to show that I was indeed aware of this grammatical category in the English language.

[thekohser]

Could the mods set up a folder where Maunus may pontificate about the superiority of Wikipedia over Wikipedia criticism, then set the domain for that folder to "Wikipedia.org", since this is a Wikipedia criticism site?

[Maunus]

What in particular motivated that comment? I was unaware that there was a rule against expressing disagreement with specific critiques of wikipedia. If there is I shall be happy to refrain from saying anything that could be interpreted as positive about wikipedia so as to not offend your sensibilities. My understanding of this conversation was that I was challenged to justify why I would participate in a project with such obvious problems as wikipedia. To do so of course requires me to explain why I believe doing so is not inherently unethical or a waste of time. In anycase I have no plans to extend the reach of my participation to other threads than the two in which I am now active, so maybe we can let them serve as my reserved pontification space.

[Vigilant]

Just let Maunus talk. He's entertaining and polite.

[EricBarbour]

Just let Maunus talk. He's entertaining and polite.

Yeah. We've had far worse people on this forum in the past. And maybe you can teach him something.

[Maunus]

Just let Maunus talk. He's entertaining and polite.

Yeah. We've had far worse people on this forum in the past. And maybe you can teach him something.

I've been known to respond well to efforts to educate me in the past.

[thekohser]

Just let Maunus talk. He's entertaining and polite.

Yeah. We've had far worse people on this forum in the past. And maybe you can teach him something.

I've been known to respond well to efforts to educate me in the past.

Would you like to cooperate with me to co-analyze my vandalism data in a couple of weeks? It might be more credibly received if someone of your disposition has a hand in tempering any of my more outlandish conclusions.

[Vigilant]

Just let Maunus talk. He's entertaining and polite.

Yeah. We've had far worse people on this forum in the past. And maybe you can teach him something.

I've been known to respond well to efforts to educate me in the past.

Would you like to cooperate with me to co-analyze my vandalism data in a couple of weeks? It might be more credibly received if someone of your disposition has a hand in tempering any of my more outlandish conclusions.

I had to read your comment in the voice of a Southern Belle...

Well ... bless you!

[Maunus]

What kind of workload and skills would that entail? My research and analysis skills are strictly qualitative. I would certainly be amenable to requests to review and comment on any of your own analyses prior to your publicizing them.

[thekohser]

What kind of workload and skills would that entail? My research and analysis skills are strictly qualitative. I would certainly be amenable to requests to review and comment on any of your own analyses prior to your publicizing them.

I'm less interested in a reviewer than a co-author.

Basically, I would offer up the data set to you, with my preliminary identification of each edit's outcome. That is, I would build a spreadsheet with ARTICLE NAME, EDIT CONTENT, EDIT DATE, SOURCING USED (if any), REVERT DATE (if applicable), AVERAGE MONTHLY PAGE VIEWS, ESTIMATED DAMAGED PAGE VIEWS, and NOTES. I would wait for any initial comments you might have, then I'd author the first draft of an extensive report. We could then decide if what I write is something you'd wish to modify and enhance in a co-authoring role, or whether you think it would be more effective to let me have my say, and then you have a "counterpoint" commentary.

What I don't want is for you to get a co-author byline, but only put in 10% of the work. It needs to be at least 30%, I figure.