Last visit was: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:25 pm
It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:25 pm



 [ 38 posts ] 
Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article 
Author Message
Regular

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:41 pm
Posts: 316
Wikipedia User: Roger Pearse
Unread post Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
A real scholar writes here:

Quote:
Since the Wikipedia statement was completely wrong, I replaced it ... giving my reasons as:

(1) why cite a secondary work instead of the ultimate primary source? (2) no indication that she was famous or influential; (3) the article misunderstood the purport of her work.

Within a few hours I was of course reverted ...

The MacLaren book, by the way, is online at Google, and far from stretching Ms. Hestiaea in the direction Wikipedia took her, is quite sober about her, saying merely this, again, in toto (p61):

“He [Strabo] refers to Hestiea, a lady of Alexandria Troas, who had published criticisms on Homer, and came to the same conclusion [that the Trojan Plain was narrower at the time of the Trojan War].”

The citation of Strabo has become original research, and a clear misinterpretation of the comment on Strabo by a 19c hack takes precedence over Strabo himself, requiring “evidence” to fix. Then we wonder why Wikipedia is such a mess.

The key, of course, is in the political propaganda of Judy Chicago: what is really sacrosanct is the use of Hestiea’s bare name, making her (maybe) more than she was, in order to pump up a feminist agenda. Golly, A Woman In Antiquity Who Wrote.


The article is here. The fool who reverted it gave as his excuse:

"(Undid revision 512272965 by 24.136.6.162 (talk) (1) No 'original' research allowed (WP policy) plus I can't read Greek; (2) She influenced Strabo, notable to him (3) Women's history)"

And wrote his "explanation" here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:47 am WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2265
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
For ease of review...
Expert writes:
Quote:
Hestiea is known to us from the following single brief sentence by [[Strabo]] in the Geography (XIII.1.16, C599): "Demetrius cites also Hestiaea of Alexandreia as a witness, a woman who wrote a work on Homer's Iliad and inquired whether the war took place round the present Ilium and the Trojan Plain, which latter the poet places between the city and the sea; for, she said, the plain now to be seen in front of the present Ilium is a later deposit of the rivers."

Moron writes:
Quote:
During her lifetime Hestiea became an influential critic and grammarian and published her works. Her works of criticism on Homer's epics were commented on by [[Strabo]] in his work ''Homerica''.<ref>{{cite book|last=MacLaren|first=Charles|title=The Plain of Troy described: and the identity of the Ilium of Homer with the new Ilium of Strabo proved, by Comparing the poet ́s narrative with the present topography|year=1863|publisher=Adam and Charles Black|pages=60-1|edition=Digitized by Montserrat Abbey Library, 2011|accessdate=April 22, 2012}}</ref> Specifically, she published a treatise on "the possibility that the War of Troy had occurred in contemporary Ilium".<ref>{{cite book|last=Miguelez-Cavero|first=Laura|title=Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid 200-600 Ad|year=2008|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=9783110210415|pages=217}}</ref>

Moron wins.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:06 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Posts: 3324
Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
DanMurphy wrote:
For ease of review...
Expert writes:
Quote:
Hestiea is known to us from the following single brief sentence by [[Strabo]] in the Geography (XIII.1.16, C599): "Demetrius cites also Hestiaea of Alexandreia as a witness, a woman who wrote a work on Homer's Iliad and inquired whether the war took place round the present Ilium and the Trojan Plain, which latter the poet places between the city and the sea; for, she said, the plain now to be seen in front of the present Ilium is a later deposit of the rivers."

Moron writes:
Quote:
During her lifetime Hestiea became an influential critic and grammarian and published her works. Her works of criticism on Homer's epics were commented on by [[Strabo]] in his work ''Homerica''.<ref>{{cite book|last=MacLaren|first=Charles|title=The Plain of Troy described: and the identity of the Ilium of Homer with the new Ilium of Strabo proved, by Comparing the poet ́s narrative with the present topography|year=1863|publisher=Adam and Charles Black|pages=60-1|edition=Digitized by Montserrat Abbey Library, 2011|accessdate=April 22, 2012}}</ref> Specifically, she published a treatise on "the possibility that the War of Troy had occurred in contemporary Ilium".<ref>{{cite book|last=Miguelez-Cavero|first=Laura|title=Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid 200-600 Ad|year=2008|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=9783110210415|pages=217}}</ref>

Moron wins.


Thanks - that was so incredibility stupid it went straight into the (book) wiki. Not sure if it will find its way into the book. There are so many stupid things about Wikipedia that were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

By the same blogger who tried to correct the article, another very nice comment:

Quote:
There used to be a time, not so long ago, that the universities “sent out” information, which society “received”. This is the “sender-receiver model”. The internet now offers society a possibility to talk back: the “debate model”. Look at the Wikipedia, where activists can change articles to make them suit their own agendas. Or, if activists create a lot of noise, they can silence the voice of reasonable scholars. Communication of scientific and scholarly information has become a debate, and occasionally a shouting match."
http://rambambashi.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... classroom/


Which is heresy of course. Defending the obsolete 'read only' model of the pre-digital generation? What next?

_________________
"It is an act of evil to accept the state of evil as either inevitable or final"


Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:28 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Posts: 1591
Location: EN61bw
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Peter Damian wrote:
By the same blogger who tried to correct the article, another very nice comment:

Quote:
There used to be a time, not so long ago, that the universities “sent out” information, which society “received”. This is the “sender-receiver model”. The internet now offers society a possibility to talk back: the “debate model”. Look at the Wikipedia, where activists can change articles to make them suit their own agendas. Or, if activists create a lot of noise, they can silence the voice of reasonable scholars. Communication of scientific and scholarly information has become a debate, and occasionally a shouting match."
http://rambambashi.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... classroom/


Which is heresy of course. Defending the obsolete 'read only' model of the pre-digital generation? What next?

I'm especially amused by this, because it's always been two-way. It's just that in order to participate in the two-way discussion you had to climb out of your basement and actually go somewhere and sit across the table from someone and talk to them in a civil and reasonable manner. Now, with the Internet, you don't. Except that you still do, really, because reasonable people don't generally agree to have "conversations" with deranged people living in someone basements, or at least continue them once it's clear that that's what they're dealing with.

Wikipedia is a haven for people who want the cachet of being an expert without having to put in the massive commitment of time and energy to actually become one.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:07 pm WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Posts: 5431
Location: UK
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
I must be suffering a bad bout of recidivism today ... I have actually reverted the article, with Dan's help, and added references to some secondary sources quoting the primary source. So it should now stay this way: the Wikipediot can no longer claim that it's original research.

I am not sure whether Hestiaea (I have applied for an article move to the correct spelling) is only known from Strabo. There is at least one book that describes here as a grammarian mentioned by Pseudo-Didymus.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:17 pm
Regular

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:41 pm
Posts: 316
Wikipedia User: Roger Pearse
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
HRIP7 wrote:
I must be suffering a bad bout of recidivism today ... I have actually reverted the article, with Dan's help, and added references to some secondary sources quoting the primary source. So it should now stay this way: the Wikipediot can no longer claim that it's original research.

I am not sure whether Hestiaea (I have applied for an article move to the correct spelling) is only known from Strabo. There is at least one book that describes here as a grammarian mentioned by Pseudo-Didymus.


What a pity the reference is not displayed, or one might go and look.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:35 pm WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 2642
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
The unthinking adherence to primary sources and secondary sources without comprehension of the purpose of the rule and the variety of different circumstances is a major issue. In the past I've given the example where the Government Inquiry into BSE which determined that essentially the issue was one of inappropriate processing of foodstuffs was deemed a less reliable source than a passing comment in a BBC news article, even though the Inquiry was itself a thorough assessment of a large number of other studies. This is fairly typical - the inability to recognise when using the original source is not "research" it is simply referencing a fact to its source.

If the rules were applied to Harry Potter, we would be saying that a passing comment in a book review was a more reliable source than the book itself ("Harry Potter, the well-known green-haired goblin hero of the books"). If you argued the point, quoting page numbers in the original, they'd quote original research and make up stuff like "can you show it was not the case in other editions than the one you have referenced?"

_________________
Time for a new signature.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:46 pm
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:28 pm
Posts: 839
Wikipedia Review Member: eppur si muove
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
In any case, isn't Strabo a secondary source as he is summarising what Hestiaea wrote?


Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:08 pm
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
dogbiscuit wrote:
The unthinking adherence to primary sources and secondary sources without comprehension of the purpose of the rule and the variety of different circumstances is a major issue. In the past I've given the example where the Government Inquiry into BSE which determined that essentially the issue was one of inappropriate processing of foodstuffs was deemed a less reliable source than a passing comment in a BBC news article, even though the Inquiry was itself a thorough assessment of a large number of other studies. This is fairly typical - the inability to recognise when using the original source is not "research" it is simply referencing a fact to its source.

If the rules were applied to Harry Potter, we would be saying that a passing comment in a book review was a more reliable source than the book itself ("Harry Potter, the well-known green-haired goblin hero of the books"). If you argued the point, quoting page numbers in the original, they'd quote original research and make up stuff like "can you show it was not the case in other editions than the one you have referenced?"


It's a misconception that primary sources are banned at WP. They aren't. The last "we-all-agree-with-this" Arbcom statement that I recall said something to the effect, paraphrasing, that WP is based upon the use of secondary sources and that primary sources are to be used sparingly and with great care.

The WP model was not built by historians, for sure, but it does work tolerably well in practice. Every once in a while something like this pops up when an expert leads with their chin in a content debate and then throws a bit of a tantrum when things don't immediately go their way. Often the tantrum helps the expert win the day in the content disagreement.

I've got no opinion whatsoever about this little episode other than to say that I seriously doubt it's a battle between a 100% universal provider of objective truth and a "moron." Nor is the final verdict in on this particular content dispute, braying here to the contrary. Keep watching, Wikipedia works through a process...

RfB


Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:14 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Posts: 3324
Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Randy from Boise wrote:
I've got no opinion whatsoever about this little episode other than to say that I seriously doubt it's a battle between a 100% universal provider of objective truth and a "moron." Nor is the final verdict in on this particular content dispute, braying here to the contrary. Keep watching, Wikipedia works through a process...
RfB


The point about the 'moron' was based on what he or she actually wrote. E.g. "During her lifetime Hestiea became an influential critic and grammarian and published her works. " On the process, that seems to be:

1. Make correction to Wikipedia article
2. Revert by moron
3. Blog about it or write an article in The Spectator or The New Yorker or some other reliable source
4. Wikipediocracy picks it up
5. Correction is finally made.

Where is this set out in Wikipedia 'process'?

_________________
"It is an act of evil to accept the state of evil as either inevitable or final"


Last edited by Peter Damian on Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:22 pm WWW
Regular

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:41 pm
Posts: 316
Wikipedia User: Roger Pearse
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
eppur si muove wrote:
In any case, isn't Strabo a secondary source as he is summarising what Hestiaea wrote?


Would be, if Hestiaea was extant. But in general any ancient source is a primary source.

Myself I find the terms "primary" and "secondary" overworked. We have ancient sources; we have modern books about those sources plus whatever. That seems to me to be the division.

But as an amateur, what do I know?

All the best,

Roger Pearse


Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:25 pm WWW
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
I've got no opinion whatsoever about this little episode other than to say that I seriously doubt it's a battle between a 100% universal provider of objective truth and a "moron." Nor is the final verdict in on this particular content dispute, braying here to the contrary. Keep watching, Wikipedia works through a process...
RfB


The point about the 'moron' was based on what he or she actually wrote. E.g. "During her lifetime Hestiea became an influential critic and grammarian and published her works. " On the process, that seems to be:

1. Make correction to Wikipedia article
2. Revert by moron
3. Blog about it or write an article in The Spectator or The New Yorker or some other reliable source
4. Wikipediocracy picks it up
5. Correction is finally made.

Where is this set out in Wikipedia 'process'?


Whatever works...

It's a learning process both ways, scholars learn how WP works through the furor and wikipedians learn how to correctly work with scholars. The recent "Haymarket Affair" was useful that way, I think.

RfB


Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:30 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Posts: 3324
Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Randy from Boise wrote:
Whatever works...

It's a learning process both ways, scholars learn how WP works through the furor and wikipedians learn how to correctly work with scholars. The recent "Haymarket Affair" was useful that way, I think.

RfB


Probably the most idiotic comment you have made in your entire history of contributing to this forum.

Whatever works, this isn't it.

_________________
"It is an act of evil to accept the state of evil as either inevitable or final"


Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:37 pm WWW
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Whatever works...

It's a learning process both ways, scholars learn how WP works through the furor and wikipedians learn how to correctly work with scholars. The recent "Haymarket Affair" was useful that way, I think.

RfB


Probably the most idiotic comment you have made in your entire history of contributing to this forum.

Whatever works, this isn't it.


The bumblebee flies by flapping his wings really fast and not thinking too much about the improbability of his situation.

RfB


Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:53 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Posts: 1908
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Whatever works...

It's a learning process both ways, scholars learn how WP works through the furor and wikipedians learn how to correctly work with scholars. The recent "Haymarket Affair" was useful that way, I think.

RfB
Probably the most idiotic comment you have made in your entire history of contributing to this forum.

Whatever works, this isn't it.

I'm guessing RfB works a lot on articles that nobody cares about, and so he gets gets his way and Wikipedia seems great. But what happens when obsessed internet nutcases started taking interest in his primary work, or when he looks around an sees the place being run by arrogant little twits who've created a tiny fraction of the content he's created, or when he runs afoul of these little worms? I wonder how long he'll keep singing Wikipedia's praises.


Last edited by TungstenCarbide on Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:56 pm
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
I'd also like to add about this latest brou-ha-ha in the making... The scholar attempted to make a substantive change as an IP editor, obviously unaware of two of the rules of yours truly:

Quote:
Timbo's Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. (Feb. 2012)


RfB


Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:57 pm
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Quote:
I'm guessing RfB works a lot on articles that nobody cares about, and so he gets gets his way and Wikipedia seems great. But what happens when obsessed internet nutcases started taking interest in his primary work, or when he looks around an sees the place being run by arrogant little twits who've created a tiny fraction of the content he's created, or when he runs afoul of these little worms? I wonder how long he'll keep singing Wikipedia's praises.


No doubt true to an extent, but Hesitaea isn't exactly Hillary Clinton or Ann Romney, eh?

I've had editorial disputes in the past over content. They work themselves out but it can take a few days...

I'm off to work at the potatoe farm!

RfB


Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:01 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Posts: 1908
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Randy from Boise wrote:
Quote:
I'm guessing RfB works a lot on articles that nobody cares about, and so he gets gets his way and Wikipedia seems great. But what happens when obsessed internet nutcases started taking interest in his primary work, or when he looks around an sees the place being run by arrogant little twits who've created a tiny fraction of the content he's created, or when he runs afoul of these little worms? I wonder how long he'll keep singing Wikipedia's praises.


No doubt true to an extent, but Hesitaea isn't exactly Hillary Clinton or Ann Romney, eh?

I've had editorial disputes in the past over content. They work themselves out but it can take a few days...

pfft ... Have you ever written a series of non-controversial articles and watched them be subtly vandalized for eight straight years. There's people here who've been through that. Have you found yourself working along side an editor pushing a zoophilia or pedophilia POV and objected, presenting evidence, and been indefed for it? There's people on this form who have.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:14 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Posts: 3324
Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Quote:
I'm guessing RfB works a lot on articles that nobody cares about, and so he gets gets his way and Wikipedia seems great. But what happens when obsessed internet nutcases started taking interest in his primary work, or when he looks around an sees the place being run by arrogant little twits who've created a tiny fraction of the content he's created, or when he runs afoul of these little worms? I wonder how long he'll keep singing Wikipedia's praises.


No doubt true to an extent, but Hesitaea isn't exactly Hillary Clinton or Ann Romney, eh?

I've had editorial disputes in the past over content. They work themselves out but it can take a few days...

pfft ... Have you ever written a series of non-controversial articles and watched them be subtly vandalized for eight straight years. There's people here who've been through that. Have you found yourself working along side an editor pushing a zoophilia or pedophilia POV and objected, presenting evidence, and been indefed for it? There's people on this form who have.


Or interfere with any article about Ayn Rand.

_________________
"It is an act of evil to accept the state of evil as either inevitable or final"


Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:31 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Posts: 1591
Location: EN61bw
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Randy from Boise wrote:
I'd also like to add about this latest brou-ha-ha in the making... The scholar attempted to make a substantive change as an IP editor, obviously unaware of two of the rules of yours truly:

Quote:
Timbo's Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. (Feb. 2012)


RfB
The problem is that at this point, about equal amounts of vandalism are made by logged-in editors and IP editors.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:38 pm WWW
Member

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:06 pm
Posts: 2
Wikipedia User: Bill Thayer
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
I'm the guy who inadvertently started this thread — and I start immediately by saying I wouldn't characterize myself by any means as an expert, although I probably know more about Antiquity than the average stray editor at Wickedpedia, if, again, less than some.

I gave a good deal of my time, before 2006, to editing Wikipedia; the experience was unpleasant, including the last straw, some guy who threatened to bash my head in (or some similar very violent ad hominem language, completely unwarranted, which on the street would have been actionable assault). Since then I've very rarely gone in, just letting the stuff fester rather than fix it; and even, about the only time I consult WP is to see if they have a link, or a quick date or pair of geographical coördinates.

Still, last nite, having hoped against hope to find something useful there, and instead finding information much inferior to what I had in front of me, I thought that I'd be making a marked improvement to the squib, which was so obscure that surely common sense wouldn't be reverted. Yeah, an IP edit, point well taken. (Italian proverb: IP edit, IP idiot.) Bad experiment, won't repeat it.

I am delighted, on the other hand, to find someone on this board call me out in a false assumption, and introducing me to a heretofore unknown-to-me ps-Didymus, or at least to their bare name: thanks! That's what Wikipedia otter be like. Still, in terms of time spent, I should stick to my own site, chugging away at adding resources to the Web. I don't like fighting much.

Nice also in this thread to read St. John's take on WP. . .


B


Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:52 pm
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm
Posts: 537
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Kelly Martin wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
I'd also like to add about this latest brou-ha-ha in the making... The scholar attempted to make a substantive change as an IP editor, obviously unaware of two of the rules of yours truly:

Quote:
Timbo's Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. (Feb. 2012)


RfB
The problem is that at this point, about equal amounts of vandalism are made by logged-in editors and IP editors.


In certain subject areas it's way, way more by logged-in even. Like Israel/Palestine, where 1RR doesn't apply to IP editors, so they make up user names by the dozens. Their edits aren't vandalism straight up, but they might as well be. That is the topic of Wikipedia that sickens me more than any other. Of course, I'm not telling anyone anything they don't already know, especially Bali Ultimate himself, who has a far stronger stomach than I do.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:59 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Posts: 3324
Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
BillThayer wrote:
Nice also in this thread to read St. John's take on WP. . .


Didn't think anyone would spot that :)

_________________
"It is an act of evil to accept the state of evil as either inevitable or final"


Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:43 pm WWW
Online
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 8409
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
BillThayer wrote:
I gave a good deal of my time, before 2006, to editing Wikipedia; the experience was unpleasant, including the last straw, some guy who threatened to bash my head in (or some similar very violent ad hominem language, completely unwarranted, which on the street would have been actionable assault).

Please, please, tell us when this happened, and if there's any evidence left on Wikipedia.

_________________
Image


Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:05 pm WWW
Retired
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:49 pm
Posts: 271
Wikipedia User: Arniep
Wikipedia Review Member: jorge
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Randy from Boise wrote:
It's a learning process both ways, scholars learn how WP works through the furor and wikipedians learn how to correctly work with scholars. The recent "Haymarket Affair" was useful that way, I think.

So what do you think the anon moron has learnt about working with scholars? Do you think he won't do the same again?


Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:13 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Posts: 1041
Location: New York, New York
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
EricBarbour wrote:
BillThayer wrote:
I gave a good deal of my time, before 2006, to editing Wikipedia; the experience was unpleasant, including the last straw, some guy who threatened to bash my head in (or some similar very violent ad hominem language, completely unwarranted, which on the street would have been actionable assault).

Please, please, tell us when this happened, and if there's any evidence left on Wikipedia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.6.194.103&diff=203792930&oldid=203773894

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Thayer&diff=203793097&oldid=203767349

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive395#Someone_wants_to_.22smash_my_face.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3A87.18.18.92

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3A87.6.194.103

_________________
"Wikimedia Foundation '''cannot''' host materials that infringe copyrights or are not allowed by laws - let alone instructions about how to overthrow a government."


Last edited by Michaeldsuarez on Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:21 pm WWW
Online
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 8409
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article

Oh well. I was hoping it was an admin or other insider making a violent threat. Such incidents are gold to me.

_________________
Image


Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:27 pm WWW
Member

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:06 pm
Posts: 2
Wikipedia User: Bill Thayer
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Not something I want to remember, and took a while to find it, but here is my report, April 2008, of someone wanting to "smash my face": and in that report, a link to the actual threat.

And now, to pleasanter pastures: my Dog is crossing his legs ▸ we're off for a nice walk by lovely weather here in Chicago.

[after posting: Woops, I noticed someone beat me to it: with excellent search skills, might I add! Nil inultum remanebit. . .]

BT


Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:28 pm
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm
Posts: 969
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
TungstenCarbide wrote:
… what happens when obsessed internet nutcases started taking interest in his primary work, or when he looks around an sees the place being run by arrogant little twits who've created a tiny fraction of the content he's created, or when he runs afoul of these little worms?


For a current example, see Dr. Sbharris. You'd have thunk he would've learned by now.

_________________
Endeavor To Persevere


Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:06 pm
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
Posts: 868
Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
tarantino wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
… what happens when obsessed internet nutcases started taking interest in his primary work, or when he looks around an sees the place being run by arrogant little twits who've created a tiny fraction of the content he's created, or when he runs afoul of these little worms?


For a current example, see Dr. Sbharris. You'd have thunk he would've learned by now.


Quote:
In an irony that those of you who appreciate irony will appreciate...


Quote:
MistyMorn is not getting his way on the evidence-based medicine article, and very much resents my suggestion that since his major editing on WP is Jimbo's TALK page (yep, that's his number one contribution), that he might be a brownnoser who is more interested in brownnosing than writing an encyclopedia. Have you all heard of a more scandalous piece of incivility?


Quote:
Surely there is a way to express dismay about the way somebody is editing and their level of ignorance, both of which are relevant to Wikipedia, and the thought that they have (say) bad breath and their mother dresses them funny. Academics manage (mostly) to be able to sort these issues out; why can't Wikipedians?


I like this guy.

But the real reason why this guy's gonna get blocked is because he has the temerity to know Wikipedia policy better than the admins who will be blocking him:

Quote:
The choice of which venue to use in WP:CIVIL problems actually is quite clearcut: [27] In "emergency" situations (where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call) take it to the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard. And here: For death threats, bigoted attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins. Lacking emergencies or death threats, MistyMorn nevertheless seems to have come straight here and attracted the notice of no less than three administrators who are ignoring said policy, one of whom has (according to the above) caused a "L1 level 2 civility/PA warning [to be] issued." I have no idea what that is.


Like the man once said, every moron hates being exposed as a moron.


Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:56 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Posts: 3324
Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
The background on the dispute mentioned by Radek above. From SBHarris' talk page:

Quote:
For the record, I'm a 54 year-old U.S. physician (trained and boarded in internal medicine and geriatrics) interested in nutrition, gerontology/aging, dietary restriction [...] Fringe-science or protoscience topic interests of mine related to medicine include cryonics, the far future of medicine, and science fiction treatments of medical ideas. I've also been interested in debunking of HIV-skepticism and many other kinds of medical "quackery" (e.g., homeopathy).

I'm still channelling Diderot. I wonder how long he would've lasted on Wikipedia before being blocked indefinitely as a troublemaker and troll?


He spends a lot of time battling morons and quacks on medicine pages. He has little patience with trolls.

Quote:
Sowhat? Anything in WP not directly copied or plagarized is something that has been summarized or abridged, and doing that requries the judgement of the writer about what to put in and leave out. That is WP:SYNTH. "Oh, no!" you say. It's impossible for WP to make a rule which it is forced to break in every article, and not have every editors' head explode with cognitive dissonance!. Well, that's organized religion and cults for you, my child. Which WP is. Faith is not in moving mountains, but in failing to actually note it, when mountains move. SBHarris 23:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not bullying you, I'm cancelling your vote on this page and pointing out your deficiencies as an editor. You have about a sixth as much of my experience here on WP, you know next to nothing about your subject, and in this particular case, you're wrong on all counts. Also, if you're going to spend all your WP time kissing up on Wales' talk page, you could buy yourself something to keep your virtual lips from getting chapped. This stuff gets noticed. I'm sorry you don't like it. Too bad. SBHarris 21:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


Troll complains on ANI, and other trolls like the arch-troll himself, DGG, cry about incivility.

Quote:
Without any comment on who may be in the right in the underlying content dispute, I agree with BBb323 here. Such comments as "you have only about a sixth as much of my experience here" on the editors talk p. & the repeated mentions of brownnosing there and here are not acceptable. I consider this pretty much a matter of the sort of editor abuse that is actionable, and if it continues I would be prepared to act on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... r:Sbharris

_________________
"It is an act of evil to accept the state of evil as either inevitable or final"


Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:17 am WWW
Critic

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:14 pm
Posts: 254
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article


I quite like this one.

Quote:
I'd return a quote, but here's the deal: this is the most hypocritical smarmy troll I've ever encountered, is an absolute negative to this project, and should just go away before I rip his head off for real. It's truly sad how many good-faith editors he's managed to snow by sucking up and "improving" their user pages, and I am sickened that he's lied once again and returned after promising he'd finally go away. WP:AGF lines are drawn when dealing with people like this, and I've lost all tolerance and good faith in this "user". Block me for incivility for saying this? I've got so many diffs it's not even amusing. Cheers, good editors who are working to improve Wikipedia... Doc talk 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

_________________
Quote:
"Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us. And if we do not, what difference would it make? We can shut them out of existence. Oceania is the world."


Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:47 am WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2265
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Peter Damian wrote:
The background on the dispute mentioned by Radek above. From SBHarris' talk page:

Quote:
For the record, I'm a 54 year-old U.S. physician (trained and boarded in internal medicine and geriatrics) interested in nutrition, gerontology/aging, dietary restriction [...] Fringe-science or protoscience topic interests of mine related to medicine include cryonics, the far future of medicine, and science fiction treatments of medical ideas. I've also been interested in debunking of HIV-skepticism and many other kinds of medical "quackery" (e.g., homeopathy).

I'm still channelling Diderot. I wonder how long he would've lasted on Wikipedia before being blocked indefinitely as a troublemaker and troll?


He spends a lot of time battling morons and quacks on medicine pages. He has little patience with trolls.

Quote:
Sowhat? Anything in WP not directly copied or plagarized is something that has been summarized or abridged, and doing that requries the judgement of the writer about what to put in and leave out. That is WP:SYNTH. "Oh, no!" you say. It's impossible for WP to make a rule which it is forced to break in every article, and not have every editors' head explode with cognitive dissonance!. Well, that's organized religion and cults for you, my child. Which WP is. Faith is not in moving mountains, but in failing to actually note it, when mountains move. SBHarris 23:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not bullying you, I'm cancelling your vote on this page and pointing out your deficiencies as an editor. You have about a sixth as much of my experience here on WP, you know next to nothing about your subject, and in this particular case, you're wrong on all counts. Also, if you're going to spend all your WP time kissing up on Wales' talk page, you could buy yourself something to keep your virtual lips from getting chapped. This stuff gets noticed. I'm sorry you don't like it. Too bad. SBHarris 21:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


Troll complains on ANI, and other trolls like the arch-troll himself, DGG, cry about incivility.

Quote:
Without any comment on who may be in the right in the underlying content dispute, I agree with BBb323 here. Such comments as "you have only about a sixth as much of my experience here" on the editors talk p. & the repeated mentions of brownnosing there and here are not acceptable. I consider this pretty much a matter of the sort of editor abuse that is actionable, and if it continues I would be prepared to act on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... r:Sbharris

It's always been my opinion that DGG's time as a librarian at Princeton (if memory serves) taught him to despise specialists and the highly educated in general. He is unfailing in treating expertise and the traditional academy with disdain. He's an interesting topic -- older, semi-retired, but an absolute brave-new world koolaid drinker, who devotes a large amount of time to protecting information vandals and seeking to remove those who oppose them from the Wikipedia Battlefield.


Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:01 pm
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 6185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Volunteer Marek wrote:
I like this guy.

Good gravy, so do I. When (not if, but when) SbHarris gets banned from Wikipedia, I hope there will be a way to reach out to him to sign him as an Affiliate paid editor.

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


Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:20 pm WWW
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 6555
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
thekohser wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:
I like this guy.

Good gravy, so do I. When (not if, but when) SbHarris gets banned from Wikipedia, I hope there will be a way to reach out to him to sign him as an Affiliate paid editor.

Don't just stand there at the edges of the dance, you little wallflower.

Drop him a note on his user page and start practicing your handwriting by tirelessly writing out "Mrs Gregory Harris" in your best cursive...

;)

P.S. Don't forget the little hearts over the 'i'

Link to MistyMorn's pre-oh_god_why page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =506701242

I do enjoy the irony of them having following userboves:
Editor retention
Countering systematic bias
citing sources
Medicine wikiproject

You don't usually get that much unintentional irony in one page


Last edited by Vigilant on Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:13 pm
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm
Posts: 537
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
DanMurphy wrote:
It's always been my opinion that DGG's time as a librarian at Princeton (if memory serves) taught him to despise specialists and the highly educated in general. He is unfailing in treating expertise and the traditional academy with disdain. He's an interesting topic -- older, semi-retired, but an absolute brave-new world koolaid drinker, who devotes a large amount of time to protecting information vandals and seeking to remove those who oppose them from the Wikipedia Battlefield.

He is an interesting case indeed. As long as we're psychoanalyzing him, I would speculate that the fact that he has a Ph.D. in molecular biology from Cal and yet ended up getting an MLS and working as a librarian has contributed greatly to his bitter attitude towards professors and experts. I have this vague, anecdotally based, theory that there are a lot of librarians who couldn't get jobs when they finished their Ph.D.s in other subjects, so went to library school and subsequently spend their careers getting angry at the professors they have to be around who, possibly, weren't especially more qualified than they were at the beginning but, through luck and talent, managed to make careers in their subject area. I've known a couple myself, ironically both from Cal, which is enabling for this career trajectory since they have a library school right there.

Slightly less relevant to the thread, but I found it interesting (I'd never read far enough down on DGG (T-C-L) to spot this) is his take on copyright violations:
Quote:
Wikipedia is unreasonably restrictive about many elements of copyright. The effective rationale behind Wikipedia's over-restriction is the need to appear squeeky-clean to those who would oppose us. I accept this, but even so we overdo this. The US courts are quite flexible about what constitutes fair use (as a compensation perhaps for the extreme vigour of the law in other respects, like duration). We could go very far before we came near it. We could for example, justify almost any informative use of a low resolution image. The principle that our material must be free for others, who might be making commercial use which doesn't have as much protection, does not justify it, because a warning is sufficient.

On another tack, if Close paraphrase is thorough enough it is an effective way of escaping the automated copyright detectors, especially if the first sentence is replaced entirely--when it gets detected, is because we're suspicious, or the person involved gets lazy and lets too much stand unaltered. People including those at Wikipedia react the usual way to something wrong that they cannot prevent or catch except occasionally--go overboard with the ones that have been detected.

Even well-done Close paraphrase normally changes the wording, but retains the sequence of ideas. This is wrong in schools, because the entire point of academic writing is to show you can create an original sequence of ideas. But we don't do original research, and copying someone else's formulation does not hinder the purpose of an encyclopedia. The courts are clear that retaining the sequence does constitutes copyvio, but their standards except for creative works are much laxer than ours, on the basis of it not normally having done any actual harm.


Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:15 pm
Online
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 8409
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
Two months ago, when I wrote up an article about Goodman, I remarked about his obvious bias in favor of the Blind Wiki-Way and against "commercial editing", which in his case sometimes refers to anyone who knows more than he does about a subject. Andreas gave me grief for attacking a "good editor".

Hopefully all of you can now see what the real problem is: Goodman might be a pretty good librarian, but it appears that his odd built-in biases do not make him a good Wikipedia editor. Sbharris, despite a tendency to verbally abuse gadflies (shades of OrangeMarlin), is clearly a good content writer with actual experience in the field, and they should be giving him some consideration for it. Instead, a freak shows up and whines "he was mean to me", and Goodman joins in with a few teenaged noticeboard trolls to start the insipid "civility" accusations. Followed by the wikilawyering.

So long as Wikipedia allows shit like this to happen routinely, and shows contempt for actual writers of good content, it will continue to decline. Andreas can say what he wants about Goodman, but I still think Goodman is a net negative, of some note simply because he's an older, highly-educated man, giving the impression of "expertise" where none might actually be. Making him more dangerous than teenaged vandal patrollers, because people will treat HIM with the respect they should be giving content writers.

Are encyclopedias supposed to be popularity contests, or reference works?

_________________
Image


Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:42 pm WWW
Audacious
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:21 am
Posts: 619
Wikipedia User: I am not a Wikipedian.
Actual Name: Shawn McNamara
Unread post Re: Another expert reverted when he tries to fix an article
thekohser wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:
I like this guy.

Good gravy, so do I. When (not if, but when) SbHarris gets banned from Wikipedia, I hope there will be a way to reach out to him to sign him as an Affiliate paid editor.


Use the emailuser function on a project where he is unbanned. :evilgrin:

_________________
:^)


Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:44 am
 [ 38 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CCBot [Bot], Google AppEngine, Hex and 4 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

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.