Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-01/In the news
Discuss this story
Mumbai meetup[edit]
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Another summary of Jimmy Wales' talk, and an interview with him: [1]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The news...[edit]
- Um, this is fantastic. Article about non-notability establishes notability. Next it will be PRODed for a WP:1E violation, then restored after a contentious AfD in which a comment about how the nice lady 'hasn't done anything worthwhile' turns into a BLP libel issue that is covered in national legal media, and then re-un-re-deleted for being a meta-cluster-f@9!, and we all know that cluster-f@9!'s are allowed on WP:META but not on WP:WIKI! Sigh. Ocaasi (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Say again?[edit]
Could someone translate the quotation from the critical editorial into plain English? I consider myself fairly well educated but I have no idea what it's trying to say. Powers T 13:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was gonna say the same thing. Apparently it's written in High Academese. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It reduces to something very simple: they want to use Wikipedia for original research, rather then a place for the straightforward presentation of established views. I think they understand us correctly; they just hoped for something more to their liking, and it reinforces our standard position about the need for removing promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- They sort of understand us. They are right to say that WP favors "attested" claims of knowledge. But when they then go on to say that this approach favors "logic" over "rhetoric", they don't understand us well at all. The truth is closer to the opposite. Our notability rules allow articles about completely contradictory beliefs, provided there is sufficient public discussion of them. They seem to think that we have articles on subjects because we favor them and delete articles because we think the claims they document are false or invalid. That might happen sometimes, but it isn't WP policy. --RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- They get us, they just don't like it. They don't approve of the hierarchy of knowledge in which socially approved views are privileged over new ideas. They are looking only at the margin, however, since it won't be long before any 'new' view worth repeating is repeated. They are making an sociological/epistemological point--that knowledge can't be confined to socially sanctioned memes--but they are ignoring the pragmatic issue; if we don't use a notability/reliability guideline, how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? Sure new ideas can be good, but which? All scholars fancy their ideas wheat. That doesn't help up a) with the scholars who are wrong; and b) with everyone else who's not a scholar but wants to be treated as one. Ocaasi (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- the rhetoric of WP "inhospitality" to the diversity of new knowledge is pretty entertaining. is he not notable enough for a bio and passing discussion of the book and idea? (full professor) if he gets a higher h-index, or on google scholar, then we can revisit. Accotink2 talk 16:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- "hospitality to new knowledge and understanding of the diversity of views", they should go to wikiversity, they'll get lots of that there. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- the rhetoric of WP "inhospitality" to the diversity of new knowledge is pretty entertaining. is he not notable enough for a bio and passing discussion of the book and idea? (full professor) if he gets a higher h-index, or on google scholar, then we can revisit. Accotink2 talk 16:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- They get us, they just don't like it. They don't approve of the hierarchy of knowledge in which socially approved views are privileged over new ideas. They are looking only at the margin, however, since it won't be long before any 'new' view worth repeating is repeated. They are making an sociological/epistemological point--that knowledge can't be confined to socially sanctioned memes--but they are ignoring the pragmatic issue; if we don't use a notability/reliability guideline, how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? Sure new ideas can be good, but which? All scholars fancy their ideas wheat. That doesn't help up a) with the scholars who are wrong; and b) with everyone else who's not a scholar but wants to be treated as one. Ocaasi (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- They sort of understand us. They are right to say that WP favors "attested" claims of knowledge. But when they then go on to say that this approach favors "logic" over "rhetoric", they don't understand us well at all. The truth is closer to the opposite. Our notability rules allow articles about completely contradictory beliefs, provided there is sufficient public discussion of them. They seem to think that we have articles on subjects because we favor them and delete articles because we think the claims they document are false or invalid. That might happen sometimes, but it isn't WP policy. --RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- It reduces to something very simple: they want to use Wikipedia for original research, rather then a place for the straightforward presentation of established views. I think they understand us correctly; they just hoped for something more to their liking, and it reinforces our standard position about the need for removing promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)