User talk:Minasbeede

Contacting me
If you leave me talk and I don't reply soon and you want a reply then send consider sending me an email to alert me to the talk. --Minasbeede

removing statements
WP:NPOV only applies to articles, so don't worry about POV on talk pages; no need to remove your statement. If you do want to remove a statement, the usual thing to do is strike it out like this : like this. &mdash; Sebastian 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Crossing out does better preserve the flow. I thought I read somewhere that NPOV (and no OR) do apply to talk pages, too. I think that's not wise (self-censoring the word "idiotic") but the policy is the policy.

Minasbeede 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying this because you think POV is something bad, something a good editor shouldn't have? This is a noble idea, but it is not the way we usually look at it. Most Wikipedians agree that everybody has a POV and that NPOV is not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. In the contrary, to achieve NPOV we need to acknowledge our individual POVs. Only then can we merge them to a fair presentation. That's what the talk page is for. &mdash; Sebastian 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

POV bad? My POV? No, I don't think that. I just have the impression that the Wikipedia rules are such that nothing is to be written that can't be sourced, that no logic or thought is approved (it has to always be sourced: no synthesis.)

I am very glad that someone else removed the section from the article about which I had complained. I am also glad for the opportunity to discuss the removal and why it was removed.

Thanks again.

Minasbeede 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I see what you mean. If I understand you correctly, you would like us to be able to have a dialectic exchange of ideas and create a philosophical synthesis that can be different from all existing ideas. Yes, that would be nice. But unfortunately it would distract from our goal of writing an encyclopedia. &mdash; Sebastian 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in a synthesis "different from all existing ideas." I'm interested in using simple logic to reveal relationships that are or should be obvious. If I say that a guy who claims to be an engineer reveals himself to not be an engineer by his never talking in engineering terms I don't think that qualifies as a synthesis different from all existing ideas. It's just an idea that apparently hasn't been expressed but which is obvious. It's so obvious one would almost have to believe that the CIA regularly applies such a test to all raw intelligence from sources not known to be reliable, wouldn't one? Similarly, I can do the math and say that a one degree average increase in global temperature is a change of less than 0.4%. A strict interpretation of "no original research" would seem to make that simple math to be forbidden unless that same simple math has been published elsewhere.

I'm not interested in dialectic, either. I want to demonstrate that some claims are false and to do it thoroughly and rapidly. I don't think Wikipedia should be a venue in which global warming deniers (for example) should be free to put forth their illogic. Nor anyone else.

There's a denier tactic in which the deniers refuse to acknowledge what has been well demonstrated. They continue to object and then claim that their own objections make the topic controversial, with "controversial" implying that their illogic and falsity should be given the same exposure and respect as the logic and truth they are denying. That's wrong, isn't it?

Minasbeede 15:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds nice in theory, but who decides what's "obvious"? What's obvious to you and me may not be obvious to our anonymous editor. And what's obvious to William Connolley is not obvious to me - as you can see in this example. Speaking of this example, I thought of adding the remark that clouds are well understood to global climate model, but then I found this: "The behavior of clouds is still poorly understood and is parametrized" - with a reference. So, maybe the statement in question really isn't so obvious after all, even for the experts. &mdash; Sebastian 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An excellent question, which I anticipated. I'd say make the determination after the fact. If it's really not obvious then it doesn't belong: there is such a thing as legitimate disagreement. Claiming "obvious" isn't and shouldn't be a magic open gateway for things to get into Wikipedia. My position is that claiming "not obvious" similarly should not be a magic way to exclude truth from Wikipedia. If clothing hides a person's private parts and you can see those of the emperor (and all the rest of his skin) can Wikipedia conclude the emperor has no clothes or can it not?

There is clearly folklore precedent for the position that denying the obvious is a needless and potentially harmful limitation.

Minasbeede 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure, that's actually what we did in this case. After someone (the IP editor) posted something (the remark that clouds are not well understood), someone else (you) decided after the fact that it was obvious (that that addition was wrong); a third person (me) agreed and removed it. Seems like a good process to me. But wait! Our rationale for removing it was that it was obviously wrong. Then it turned out it wasn't that obvious (that the remark the IP editor added was wrong). If even you and I can't see the king's skin, how dare we declare he's naked? So should we now reinsert the deleted statement? &mdash; Sebastian 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually do not understand what you are saying. Are you describing something real or is it hypothetical? Thanks.

Minasbeede 01:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Something real. I'm adding some explanations in parentheses. &mdash; Sebastian 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. OK. But statements like "clouds are not well understood" and "water vapor isn't included in models" are typical global warming denier statements and both are typical arguments from ignorance. Claim something isn't well understood and then add to that a claim that hidden in what isn't understood is something that negates things that are understood. That's not science, that's just a shoddy debating technique. The argument is "you say X but we don't really understand Y so what you say about X may be invalidated by that" with an instant leap from "may be invalidated" to "is invalidated." I'd still say it is obvious that any scientist doing global atmospheric modeling will include clouds and will include water vapor in anything but the very simplest model.

What is really irksome is the underlying and all-too prevalent attitude that shoddy debating techniques trump science, that claims made outside science by those with an agenda and not skilled in a scientific discipline pertinent to an issue somehow trump the actual science.

Just what isn't understood about clouds? I'll grant that scientists cannot predict what clouds (if any) will be over Chicago on July 4, 2020 but that's not a lack of understanding of clouds.

Nor, as far as I can see, is there actual substance (verifiability) to what the IP editor added. It's just a denier talking point, not anything actually established. Science fiction has it that it will be possible to travel at greater than the speed of light (warp speed) and that sometime in the future the means of doing so will be discovered. We don't take that science fiction staple idea (that travel at speeds greater than the speed of light) and use it to deny the science that says travel at speeds greater than the speed of light (in a vacuum, to be precise) is not possible. But deniers do the equivalent. That's shoddy. You can always claim that something not yet known invalidates anything (and everything) that is known. But it's an empty claim.

Minasbeede 10:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A simple question
I couldn't see the degree symbol in the list of symbols so I substituted a lower-case "o" as a superscript, like this: 100o. Is there a better way? Am I not seeing something that is there?

Minasbeede 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, o is not correct. It's a special character. There are many different ways of entering them, depending on your operating system and keyboard layout. (I e.g. switch to German for "°".) One way that always works regardless of your OS is to look up an article about the topic, such as degree (angle) and copy & paste whatever they wrote in that article. &mdash; Sebastian 19:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Belated thanks. Minasbeede 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: incorrect edit to news.admin.net-abuse.email - "free speach"
My apologies for that incorrect edit, I've fixed the article and added a [sic] after the words so I won't 'fix' them again. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not terribly important but there was a reason for the misspelling: it pokes fun at the spammer/spam apologist who first made the error. Minasbeede 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Answering your two questions
Answer (1): see Reliable sources

Answer (2): the reason we discuss sources on the NOR talk page is because we are discussion specifically the uses of primary and secondary sources, a distinction I and many editors see as essential to the policy. According to the policy, both kinds of sources can be used, though with restrictions; arguably there are more restrictions on primary than on secondary sources. But the definition of secondary sources makes no judgements about their quality. The reason for this lack of judgement is that raising issues of quality have invariably led to accusations of violating NPOV, along with claims that what counts as a quality source is a matter of POV.

Reliable sources is a guideline, which means that it is not strictly enforcable, and it was created after NOR, which is a policy. Why? Because many editors felt that "secondry sources" set too low a threshold on the quality of sources that we should be using. Many editors wanted to create a higher threshold. But for reasons i just explained, having to do with NPOV, there was never, has never been, and in my opinion never will be enough community support to make this higher threshold a policy. Therefore, it could not be included in an existing policy (NOR), nor could it be a new policy, so it was proposed and accepted as a guideling.

In short, NOR allows, under certain conditions, any and all secondary sources. RS encourages editors to rely on only those secondary sources that measure up to a higher standard. The former is a policy, the latter a guideline.

The original version of NOR explained that views should be supported by reference to accepted texts or specific proponents of views (i.e. sources). It soon became clear that in prohibiting original research, we had to explain what counted as original research, and clarify the kinds of sources we were referring to, and within three months of the policy's first formulation, the distinction between primary and secondary sources was introduced. Ever since then - almost four years - the distinction between primary and secondary sources has been a part of NOR- which is why a discussion of them is appropriate on the NOR talk page.

Since there exists an RS page with its own talk page, discussion of reliable sources belongs there. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure you can quote me but would you do me a favor and tell me which part of what I said you would quote and in what context? I can't imagine you'd want to quote eveything I wrote here (though of course you are free to do so!) Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but I am surprised you neede to quote me on RS. In fact, to be honest, it is still hard for me to read your initial comment as being othe thn sarcastic and mocking. Of course you know about WP:RS. You have been making extensive comments on the NOR talk page. That means (I am taking you in good faith) you read the NOR policy carefully. That means, you saw the several mentions of our Reliable Sources guidelines, and all the links to the guideline page. So I still don't understand the question or why you wanted to quote me. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Minasbeede: I was glad to see some of the things you've been saying at Wikipedia talk:No original research. I agree with a lot of what you've been saying. Good questions. --Coppertwig 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:Coppertwig. --Coppertwig 00:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am glad you have now read the policy. Obviously you can still disagree with it or parts of it but if you don't mind my saying I think you will be more effective at explaining and forwarding your views now that you have read it. Personally, I think it is important for someone to have read and had experience with all our core policies before attempting to edit them (and I know you haven't edited it but the talk pages are for talking about edits or proposed edits). You make at least two points: that the primary/secondary distinction is not the appropriate distinction, and that anyway it doesn't matter the policy shouldn't raise it. I think you will be more effective if you stick to one (either: we can make a distinction but this is the way we should word it, or, drop that altogether and just argue against raising the matter at all in the policy). IF you argue against making the distinction, though I think you have an obligation to propose how you think the policy should explain the difference between original research and research that does not violate the policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a source that can be used is (a) published and (perhaps) (b) "reliable" (which is described in the "Reliable Sources" article.)  The crux of the issue seems to be what "reliable" means, and it appears that there's a faction who believe that "reliable" can in part be defined by some sort of enumeration of what is not "reliable." Can not the policy page merely say these things ("published" and "reliable"), or something similar?

In the current policy it looks to me like (to a first approximation) "primary" is a stand-in word for "not reliable" and "secondary" is a stand-in word for "reliable." It's all very cumbersome - and made worse by the non-standard use of those two terms. My solution, already proposed, is to move all discussions of types of source out of the policy page. Rely on "published" and whatever other terms can be used to identify sources that may be used and do the analysis of sources elsewhere. There is an NOR policy, it is applied, an NOR policy is appropriate (that it may be over-applied or over-broad doesn't mean it should be eliminated - and I see small to no reason to get involved in that discussion at this time.) If the source distinctions are kept in the policy then change ther terminology so that alternate, Wiki-specific definitions of words that have fairly established meanings elsewhere aren't used differently in the policy. IF there's aver a place where clarity and unambiguity is important it would seem to be in a policy.

It is literature research that doesn't violate the policy - I can't imagine improving on that. This makes me realize that the "primary" and "secondary" distinctions seem to closely mirror "non-literature" and "literature," where "literature" is the word where careful distinctions need be made. While it's circular, "literature" seems to mean "appropriate for citation." Beyond that I'm not the one who wants the policy to carefully explain the distinction of sources, that's other people. It's their "can of worms." My solution is to shove the whole source-description section out of the policy.

Perhaps a practical question or issue can be asked here. Is the thought that new editors will look at the policy and will be able, by reading the source-distinction material, to learn how to make such a distinction and then avoid wrongful edits by using what they've learned? Is there any evidence that has worked?

(I don't "mind your saying so.' I wouldn't mind if you were scathingly sarcastic: I've earned it.) Minasbeede 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think Wikipedia should have a higher standard of sources we can use in articles. However, I know of articles that would be crippled by endless debates about what counts as a good source.  Some editors have been doing what they can to promote RS as a way of raising standards.  I am sympathetics to their goals and motives, but personally, I prefer not to judge whether a source is good or bad but rather make the threshold relevance and notability, and then let NPOV do the rest (identify the point of view, and provide some context to help understand the POV represented by or expressed in the source).  This is my own view.  Suffice to say that even the most experienced editors here are divided over how much wieght to give RS.  It is a contentious issue, or has been in the past (by contrast, verifiability has never been contentious and I do not think "appropriate" and "notable" are contentious principles, although people may argue over their application.


 * I would not say that primary sources is code for unreliable (or less reliable) and secondary sources for reliable (or more reliable). I would say that primary sources is "code" (I actually think the policy used to be and should be explicit) for sources that are more likely to be abused by editors who want to promote their own views, because they can claim that their knowledge of primary sources gives them the authority to "prove" some secondary source wrong.  Example: Robert Alter or Harold Bloom or Frank Kermode (if you do not know the names google them) make claim x about the Bible.  I add this and I know I am not violating NPOV because i am not expressing my own view; I am identifying the POV expressed, and providing a verifiable source.  Another editor comes along and says "I am fluent in Biblical Hebrew, Akadian, Sumerian, and Ugaritic, and have read the source material myself, and know that Kermode is wrong, and I will even refer to the texts available on an on-line archive and anyone can see that I am right and they are wrong"  That kind of OR used to happen A LOT here and still often happens.  Secondary sources (books by Kermode, Bloom, or Alter) is "code" for sources that lend themselves to the opposite of OR because they provide their own interpretations, explanations etc.  I think this is the best I can explain my view.  Slim Virgin is a real experienced editor in these matters and if you approach her in a way that reeks of good faith, and it is clear you have read and understand not only the NOR but also NPOV and V policies as written, I am sure she will respond to your inquiries with constructive and thoughtful answers. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I follow the example and I can't conceive of any wording in the policy page that will change that behavior in the slightest. The motives and goals may be of the highest quality but on a practical level it isn't likely to work.  Someone who is proud (perhaps justifiably) of his proficiency in N ancient languages is not very likely to let words in a policy page slow him at all.


 * For the kind of dispute you identify I can quite crassly stand back and assume the attitude "let those who have a stake in this dispute carry it on, I'll stay out."  So long as the (in my opinion, quite futile) attempts to gain the upper hand in such conflicts don't create policy language that will cause harm in other cases I (again, quite crassly) don't care.  If, however, trying to use the policy page to forestall the offense creates an opportunity for problems elsewhere then I care.  Some.  Wikipedia isn't the center of my life.  You, I assume, care far more (which is good and I applaud you for that.)


 * A lot of the problem is the misuse of the words "primary" and "secondary." ("Misuse" is a convenient word, if you don't like the negative implications I'm quite content for another word to be used.)  Why not fix that now?


 * I don't think NOR, NPOV, and V are all that complex or hard to understand. All are useful.  I'm aware that (in my opinion) NOR can be over-applied.  I feel no compulsion to bring that up or discuss it (I did some of that a while back), I'm just identifying my belief.  I guess NPOV can also be misused (particularly by those with a flagrant NNPOV) but surely everyone is aware of that and does the best that can be done in day-to-day activities.


 * Thank you again. --Minasbeede 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the very first thing that needs to be done is to change the terminology.

NOR
I really don't want to discuss OR right now but I will repeat my observation that the original justification for the policy seems to largely hinge on preventing novel crackpot physics theories from appearing. Since then it seems (in the standard way for a religion) to have gotten ever tighter. Maybe tighter is better (maybe not), but it would be useful to be aware of human tendencies and of what may be going on (where it should be obvious that I am associating human tendencies with how religions change over time.) That is, the dynamic seems to be that "if forbidding OR is good because it keeps out crackpot theories then an even tighter application of OR has to be good because it keeps out more." Or something like that. Minasbeede 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can of worms
I'm the one who said it. It has passing significance, at best. Minasbeede 13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Painted into a Corner
"Beyond that I have no comment - I truly do not want to discuss this topic at this time (and maybe never.)"

I really painted myself into a corner with that one. It's a good corner, despite the provocative response made. Minasbeede 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"See my talk page"
Am I helping or hurting? Minasbeede 22:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR talk
It was not my intention to single you or anyone out, which is why I did not name names. It was a general statement to anyone who has criticisms of the policy itself, and believe it or not it is meant to be constructive. Any wikipedian can propose a policy, including a policy that replaces NOR or even proposes simply to abolish NOR ... there is just a proper procedure for doing so. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the context it should be obvious that I was and am, as a whole, supportive of NOR and was accepted as such in that thread by at least one other person. If you'll look above in my talk page you will see that I really don't want to discuss NOR. Obviously, I slipped. Since I slipped you can see at least part of my attitude. I won't expound because I really don't want to discuss it. If that thread gets archived or anything else I'll be entirely content. It is clutter and a distraction.

The ludicrous thing is that the "referee's flag" that was applied said "take this to the talk page." Sorry, but I can't help smiling a wry smile. --Minasbeede 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message on my talk page - I appreciate it. In any situation like this there is lots of room for misunderstanding, and virtually everybody both wants things to happen too quickly, and at times act too hastily, on Wikipedia (perhaps an inernet or computer phenomenon).  For what it is worth, I think the rules (informal!) change slightly when a page is protected: the priority is sorting out the conflict so as to unprotect the page, and that means that philosophical discussions and tangents that otherwise are justifiable because they might lead to improvements must step aside for more focused discussion.  It's just my experience that progress is never made unless people focus on one or two issues at a time, three or for in a major crisis.  There are many comments you and others have posted that are interesting and thoughtful - my only complaint 9as it were) is that many of these comments really do belong elsewhere.  If you are relatively new to Wikipedia, know that there is a page for policies, which itself has a talk page.  And the village pump is a place created specifically for conversations that are either more philosophical or that don't easily fit within the confines of one article or policy's talk page.  And some - I should stop saying you or your, because i am thinking of other people too - have posted comments that really would be constructive on the WP:V or WP:RS talk pages.In short, I really hope that the talk page for NOR can sustain constructive discussion, but I do think that for it to be constructive, some discussion should shift to other talk pages (or the village pump).  Do you know wikipedia has a list-serve?  that is also the place for much of the more general discussion I have seen on the NOR talk page (now and August's archive).  I used to be on the listseve but am no longer and can't give you direct information, but check the community portal and follow links if you want to join up, it is not hard.  I'll see, if I can find the information I will post it on the NOR talk page. Best wishes, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate the efforts you have made - to learn, to engage, and to focus. As in the past, some of what I wrote above was reflecting on the general shape of the discussion and not you personally.  Also, I posted the link to the listserve page at the top - I mention this to you only because i think you would value this resource for learning more about Wikipedia not only by just being able to ask questions, but by interacting with other people who are often just reflecting on a variety of issues.  I admit I feel frustrated - not with you personally - but the ideal talk page should be under 40kb and I think the NOR talk page is already over that and I am not sure we are that much closer to a resolution of specific issues although I do think that there has been a lot of very constructive talk and suggestions and actions by various editors.  I do not remember if this is something you or another editor brought up, but if you look at the Evolution article, or the Race article, or the Jesus article you will see three articles on very controversial topics; none of them is perfect, but I think in each of them you can see editors sriving to comply with NPOV, V, and NOR and I think they are prety good.  That said, though, in response to something else I am pretty sure you wrote, I do not think policies are descriptive (if they were, Wikipedia would never have improved). The are often proscriptive and sometimes prescriptive and I think represent core values of the community and attempt to translate them into useful rules of thumb.  But perhaps I take a kind of Augustinian view of our policies: I doubt (because people have free will and the Wikipedia technology enables millions of people with free will to do almost anything that can be done with a webpoage) that there will ever be the ideal article ... but I think our core policies embody ideals that in striving to achieve lead us constantly to make the articles we are writing or have written better.  PS you have gone so far as to give yourself a user name ... consider putting something on your user page.  If you do not want to create a cyberspace alter-ego persona, you can just put up links to articles or policies or other WP: pages that you think you will want to refer to frequently, or quotes you have read here that you find useful or worth pondering, or whatever ... just a suggestionSlrubenstein   |  Talk 15:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a good reason not to have a talk page for the sample policy page: discussions are supposed to happen in one place. The discussion for the sample policy should be at Wikipedia talk:No original research, otherwise you'd have the same discussion happening in two places. Just my $0.02. Keep up the good work: I'm behind a lot of what you say. --Coppertwig 22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I made one comment that was in lieu of making a massive edit that the next person would probably have to undo, which clearly would have been an annoyance. That's not ideal (working in two locations) but ideal is rather remote at this time anyway. --Minasbeede 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done. In such a big, involved discussion we all have to take care not to waste each others' time. I'm trying to restrain myself from writing too much on the talk page. --Coppertwig 22:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolution page
Yes, that's a very commendable page. Part of the quality may derive from the combination of pressure from the Creationist side and from the application of the Wiki policies as a protection against that pressure. The article does illustrate something very worthwhile: it doesn't give undeserved legitimacy within science to Creationist ideas. Creationists are free to believe or advocate anything they want but if what they advocate isn't science (or scientific) then articles on science can utterly ignore them - without in any way violating NPOV.

I've only seen it asserted in the NOR talk page that the policies are supposed to be descriptive. I accept that (favor that) and assume it is codified somewhere. Actually, I think that the source is identified when it is invoked.

The user name is "left over" from a previous endeavor. I was very much engaged in anti-spam action and discussion for a while. Minas Beede is a completely fictitious name that is meant to indicate the options portion of the (Unix/Linux) command

sendmail -bd

At the time I chose the alias that command meant "run sendmail so it accepts messages but doesn't deliver any." Spammers abused open relays. They searched for and found systems on the internet that would accept email to be forwarded to other systems. By running the command (on systems connected to the internet with no actual email handling function) spammers could be deceived and they would then send huge quantities of spam that they thought would be delivered to the victims but in fact never were.

--Minasbeede 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR sample replacement page
Hi. Thanks for the correction. As I think about more, and after re-reading Vassyana's Sources proposal, I'm thinking of re-doing the "Sources" section to point to his (hers?) version for source information. I still need to study on it a bit more, primarily on how to word it on the NOR so the linkage appears clearer, and why it ties in with NOR, but I think it may be worthwhile to present it to others that way. I also need to think about edits to the page. I think it's useful to see deletions and additions to/from the current policy, as it's easier to see if or when there's any variation from the policy, but it sure makes for harder reading.wbfergus 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

2
I'm a (2).

Look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Primary_v._secondary_sources_discussion
 * looked at it, I remember the discussion well. That was in the first weeks or months of the policy.  Since that time people went back and forth on whether to discuss tertiary sources, but the stable version that emerged made the distinction between primary and secondary sources clear, and it has been that way since.  Back then I didn't really care much or words like primary or secondary but they have withstood the test of time and had and have had the support of many other editors so I would hesitate to change them now. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research
You said:
 * "(and Wikipedia explicitly denies it is concerned with truth,, so considerations of "truth" are not relevant to the discussion. Wikipedia has made its bed (truth is secondary), let it lie in it.)"

referring to "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" at Verifiability. It is not that truth is secondary, so much as it is that attribution to a verifiable reliable published source is our process rather than assertions over what is true. It is a process statement, not a value or a vision statement. In philosophical terminology it might be called a statement concerning Wikipedia's epistemology rather than its ontology. WAS 4.250 00:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're spinning me around
On the one hand it's emphasized that Wikipedia is concerned not with truth but with verifiability but on the other hand when it comes to Caesar's Gallic Wars there's suddenly a concern over "which claims are factual, inaccurate, hearsay or propagandized without engaging in original research and potentially introducing gross errors." So Wikipedia is to be concerned with "truth," apparently, but it's "truth" as known only to a few. If it's a few then there's not (by definition) a c-word. I have zero interest in having the few explain to me their concept of truth and a less-than-zero interest in having the few impose that as a policy, if and when they work it all out among themselves.

(Decided to not put this on WT:NOR. I learned something* in Usenet.) --Minasbeede 02:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Learned in/on Usenet

 * If you don't post something you'll never have to respond to any replies to it. That can be a great timesaver and it can also lead to greater tranquility.  And on Usenet it probably makes no difference anyway.  --Minasbeede 02:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen and read your last post in the NOR page, the last of many, sadly once easily visibles among the many, because the red link to your page. Effectively, i must admit that Wikipedia is manned in a very questionable manner, both italian and english.

I, like many others, am very concerned by the misquoting generated by the continous 'we only apply rules' to one specific and cleary fazious style.

I am already burned-out in wiki.en but i want to tell you that your continous efforts to try to put 'intelligent design' in the NOR talkpage is to say the least, encomiables. Among so many Pasdaran you still have the strenght to try to force them to 'think' about they are doing. I hope that Wiki.en will not endebbed fully by who believes that every thinking (that thing that make humans different than animals) is bad, with the result to make a fatally spinned information that undermines the 'future knowledge' for mankind.

Just me, i was censoured because i dared to tell that if an aircraft has a big engine inside, then it is also bigger than necessary if was available one smaller. It's obvious, but not, it's OR. In the meanwhile, just as example, pure agiography is posted in all the pages about US Ships of WWII. While this is not seen a 'Jhon Wayne style info', what i say about Saab 37 Viggen is seen with so many souspicious to be deleted even if i gave sources as supports. Also CF-104 was deleted for the same reason. So i cannot definitively understand how agiography is widely accepted while critical analisis, perfectly reasonable also, is rejected as 'insult' to the NOR and so on policies. So i am really sicked by this situation and by the censorship acted against some authors like T.Cooper, that is guilty to speak well about Iranian air force (See F-14).

I can only wish you success to make wiki policies betters. I'll eventually support your instances if necessary, even if i am not sure if my support is counterproductive.--Stefanomencarelli 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A different example
In Wikipedia (for this example) there is an article about 19th century entertainer Jane Doe, who was known for the "absolute purity" of her voice (several references) and no less for her "beautiful, long blond hair" (several more references.) Jane died in a train accident at the age of 39, in 1862. She was fairly soon mostly forgotten but is still notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be about her.

A Wiki editor happens to read on Google Books the rather badly written 1889 autobiography of Johann Dohus, a member of a family of famous Austrian wig makers who emigrated to the United States. In the autobiography Dohus proudly reveals that his greatest triumph was the complete success of the wigs he made for Jane Doe from the time she was a child until her death. The wigs were so beautiful and so perfect that nobody ever recognized that Jane's hair was fake. Poor Jane, alas, suffered from a condition that left her completely bald on the top of her head - and rather wispy everywhere else on it. Johann helped her completely overcome the difficulties that would have created for her as an entertainer. Johann was also proud of many other wigs he made for others, who sent him letters of appreciation - which he included in the autobiography. He was what he claimed to be, as shown by the letters.

So the editor puts in the Jane Doe article a statement (with a citation of Dohus' autobiography) that Jane Doe actually wore a wig - and is promptly chastised for doing so. He used a primary source. What he should have done (and the only permissible thing for him to do) would be to to quote someone else who had read that primary source and concluded, from Johann Dohus' autobiography, that Jane Doe's famous long, blond hair was a wig. Which is exactly what Johann Dohus said.

But this is here rather than there because I don't want to argue the merits. I just want to illustrate, and a bad example may be better than a good one for that purpose.

--Minasbeede 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

John Doe
Re your comment at Wikipedia talk:No original research re whether John Doe is hairy. I've very much agreed with many things you've said -- often you're practically expressing my own thoughts. Here I think I understand what you're saying, but some of it is off-base. It doesn't matter whether, by mentioning that John Doe is hairy, a source allegedly creates the opposing concept of John Doe's unhairiness. It's not the existence or thinkableness of the concept. It's whether or not there's a source that asserts that he isn't hairy. And collecting "evidence" that he isn't hairy would probably be OR and not allowed. See however also my comment about "probability is the message" example in Wikipedia talk:No original research. --Coppertwig 21:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied at my talk page. --Coppertwig 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR- Woahs, and apologies
No need to apologize... no offense was taken. But thanks anyway. As to your comments on NOR... I understand your concerns, but I do not agree with your conclusions. Yes the NOR policy is different than it was in the begining... so is Wikipedia. When Wikipedia started it was essentially a project run by (and to some degree for) academics - people who understood how to write in an encyclopaedic manner. They also understood where the line should be drawn when it came to including their own thinking, novel ideas and synthesis of ideas into their articles. It was something they were trained to do. But that is not the Wikipedia of today... today it has grown far beyond academia. Today most editors are just regular folk who don't always understand what is acceptable and what isn't when writing an encyclopedia. We have to explain it to them. Thus, where once we could have a policy that simply stated: "Don't include original research." and trust that editors understood what that means, now we have to say: Don't include original research... that means don't do this and don't do that (but this over here is OK)". Yes, this limits some of the freedom the original editors had... but the limitation is needed. Blueboar 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A song
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/w/wouldjesusweararolex.shtml

taking a back seat at NOR
Min... your comments about taking a back seat at NOR bother me... I don't always agree with you, but I find your comments to be very useful and insiteful. I would hate to have you drop out of the process. Your comments also bother me in another way. I get the impression that there is a more fundamental issue that you object to. If so... It would really piss me off if we spent days and days trying to work up a version that we thought had concensus, only to find that you still had a problem with our entire approach fixing to the policy and thus we had to start all over again. If you think we are not on the right track, then please say so right up front. If you would like, express your concerns to me back channel (ie on my talk page), but please don't hold back if you have a concern. Again, I won't guarentee that I will agree with you... but I will guarentee that I will take your concerns seriously and discuss them with you. Blueboar 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do have a problem: I think source typing is unnecessary. I'll stay that way.  Obviously, when I presented that point of view nothing moved, so I got out of the way.  I was very glad to get out of the way for both good and bad reasons (see below.) It was going to be temporary, but then I decided permanent is better all around.  Permanent it is.

Good reason: it has helped lead to progress. Take a look. Silence (mine) is golden. Even platinumen (or whatever the heck the word would be.) I really do rejoice at the progress, even though I think the whole project is (should be) doomed.

Bad reason: I think that eventually it should become obvious that the policy is so cumbersome, so unneeded, so hard to devise that it will collapse. I tried the direct way of indicating this. Now I'm letting people waste gobs of time and effort learning for themselves, maybe, eventually, that source typing is a bad idea. That is not entirely (if at all) good-spirited. It's actually rather mean.

Even after there's some final consensus, without my participation nor even my knowing (I'll stop looking in eventually) there will be others who raise the same points. It's happened for years: source typing (and synth) have never been policy pprovisions that were accepted by all. At least if a large group (including you) really work on making the policy good then either (1) my prediction will be wrong (consensus doesn't have to mean I agree, only that I accept: I'd cheerfully accept that) and no more objections arise or (2) it will be seen that even with the best effort at the best worded policy there is continued discomfort with it. As there should be, as there should be with synth (in my opinion.) Both are unneeded. I'm letting there be a concerted effort to make the policy work (that is, mean what it needs to mean, not mean what it doesn't need to mean, not confuse.) I expect that to fail, as shown by the recurrence of the same objections that have been made now for years. Then, finally, the whole effort might finally be abandoned.

Another good reason: I'm feeling personal animosity toward someone. I can tweak the someone (real easy) but that's bad Wiki behavior. Putting forth my point of view tweaks that someone. I know that, it's bad Wiki behavior. Wikipedia advices I go somewhere else. That's a good idea in both short-and long-term ways. I am not getting anything but annoyance and frustration out of participating in the discussion. I can spend my time better - simply learning from the wealth of information that is Wikipedia - and end up far happier. Happy is good. I like happy.

I greatly appreciate your kind words. I feel very much the same way toward you. You back the wrong view (my opinion) but I'm happy to interact with you. You do it in a proper way.

I have no intention of returning to NOR after you're (you plural) all done and raising objections. If the things to which I object are still there then others will see them and they will object, in the way described in WP:consensus. It would be potty of me to drop out and then come back. I could have just lain low (as was my intention) and come back. My note was to inform all that I would not return to present my objections after the policy wording is finalized. I tried pretty hard to indicate I was deliberately dropping out temporarily so you and others could hammer out better wording, then I'd return. As I changed my mind I wanted to inform everyone: I'm gone. I still think the policy, after all the wording tweaking, will be bad. I won't be there to say it.

I can think of one thing I can tell you. I believe I'm recalling this accurately. In your draft you talked about primary material and then went on to secondary material and talked about using "reliable" secondary material. That's unfair, that's prejudicial. Reliable primary material is just as good as reliable secondary material, unreliable secondary material is just as bad as unreliable primary material. Hanging "reliable" on secondary changes what you're describing from primary and secondary to unreliable (at least, not given any adjective to indicate it is or could be reliable) and reliable. and, with the linking done, primary associated with unreliable, secondary with reliable. Not from any characteristic, just from the words used. That's ducking what the policy is supposed to be about. That turns the words into just words, into something ginned up to look like justification, like an actual distinction exists and deserves policy notice. Without any source typing common sense tells you that reliable sources are good, unreliable sources are bad. The policy wording actually says no more than that, but by hanging "reliable" only on "secondary" there's an illusion created that there is a linkage, there is something that makes "secondary" inherently more reliable than "primary." All that really does that, in the policy, is the allowance of the word "reliable' as a modifier for "secondary." I think the same thing was done prior to your draft: you just carried it along.  The wording also, by specifying "reliable" for "secondary material," utterly avoids any consideration or admission that secondary material can also be crap.  Prejudicial.

I tell you this because I did indicate I had a problem with something in your draft: I think it is fair to tell you. This (above) is that problem. I can't find words to solve the problem because either the words truly don't exist or because I'm so biased I can't find them.

I can say no more without violating my resolve. Good luck; this will eventually end. --Minasbeede 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Its funny, but as we both interact on this, we seem to be backing into agreeing with eachother more and more often.  That is a good thing.  I think the remaining differences between us have to do with how we see the policy interacting with other ones.  You approach it in terms of WP:NPOV... while I approach it in terms of WP:V.  Neither is right or wrong... but it does affect our opinions.  Feel free to chat back channel if you so desire... I look forward to your eventual re-involvement. Blueboar 19:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My original plan was to stay out while the discussion proceeded. I've done that, it's going well.  I don't know if you are happy but I suspect you are.  I'm also happy.  (Recall:  "Happy is good.  I like happy.") It does look like the final consensus will be something I don't only accept but something with which I actually agree.  Once that happens why would I be back, why would you be there?  We'd have consensus.  Time to do real things.


 * You're right, of course: anything that is there is a WP:V issue. Criminy, if the nature of sources isn't a V issue what is?


 * You're all doing a marvelous job. Thank you, and congratulations.--Minasbeede 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For a long time I did at NOR what you are doing now, and for the same reasons. I only came back because you and others were so successful at finally breaking through the unyielding existing mindset of the policy page's owners. Thank you for that effort. WAS 4.250 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes.  Owners. A policy page should never be "owned."

Thank you for your words of appreciation. --Minasbeede 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect progress at NOR is largely a reflection that there was another very notable Factory farming burnout so common sense got some traction. Spenny 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Progress is sort of like rain after a drought: whatever the reason for it you're happy to get it. I haven't looked at "factory farming" but I can guess at what you're saying ("burnout" isn't particularly an ambiguous term.)


 * Too bad common sense has such a perpetually upstream struggle, what with its being common - and sense. I was going to just drop out of the discussion while the proponents worked out wording.  After I started that I decided to drop out from WT:NOR permanently, as indicated above.  Now I'll trust to the eventual victory of common sense.  (Or defeat.  Either way, I'm out.) --Minasbeede 16:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your request that I file an RfC
While I do understand what you are saying... I don't think an RfC is the way to go. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Far left/far right (reply)
At this point, I wasn't really trying to be very PC about what terms to call the two extremes. It seems to me that most people participating are clearly in the middle. They changes positions depending on the current issue, as it should be. COgden rarely seems to change his position, but on the other hand, the other extreme seems to be rigidly "Anti-COgden', no matter what the edit, proposal, or amount of community support that particular issue has. Since they are also Admins, they seem to be perpetuating page protection so that it is much more difficult for non-Admins to have any say, we can be easily and (generally) safely ignored as we are effecively blocked from editing the page as they are so free to do. I agree with many of your statements, but until ArbCom decides to take action, I feel WP:IAR will be the guiding light of most Wikipedians when push comes to shove. At times I feel it would almost be worth trying for Adminship, just so I could avaid most page-protect issues and actually have a voice. wbfergus undefinedTalk 18:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My further comment
Considering your messages to me on my talk page, you would probably be very interested in my further comments on COGDEN's RfC. Feel free to drop me a line on my page with any feedback or further comments. Vassyana (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The section actually titled "further comments". No problem on the absence, get back to me whenever you have the chance. (I hope you have a great day!) I just thought the comments reflected some of your own to a certain degree and I was interested in your thoughts. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal
Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Naw. Not really. --Minasbeede (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No longer editing
(With reference to discussion at NOR)
 * I pretty much gave up adding edits to Wikipedia about a year ago. I found that my style and my edits were both very prone to NOR abuse - and I happen to recognize (if belatedly) that NOR is a good policy.  So I quit editing.  I'm content with that.  I find it far better and wiser to be mostly a Wikipedia consumer, not producer.Minasbeede (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR
I have made a few proposals concerning the policy, perhaps you would care to comment? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PSTS
This has been discussed for a very long time and appears to still be unresolved. While I could make a suggestion here I think I'll just suggest that this fact be pondered. Seems to me there is (or was) something somewhere that discussed never-ending disagreements and the change in participants with time while the same material was gone over again and again. Had to do with consensus, now that I think about it. Minasbeede (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Look for my name not my initials, but the real point I was making here is that this has been under discussion for a long time. It comes up time and again usually after someone has been clubbed over the head with this section, sometimes the clubbing was well deserved and sometimes it was a mugging. (Ha that rhymes) --PBS (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Back Seat
I was right then, it's the thing to do now. Minasbeede (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Viewed from a distance (as a non-participant) the ongoing crap at WP:NOR is amusing.

Sad, too. Minasbeede (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(But I seldom look.) Minasbeede (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-spam Action Using an Open Relay Honeypot
Here's an example of something that was done using an open relay honeypot to combat spammers.

There were three domains that accepted new email accounts with almost no verification nor protection. A prominent anti-spammer had a position of authority over these three domains. A spammer would create a large number of throwaway email accounts on these three domains under a variety of names and then use those accounts to receive responses from spam victims.

The open relay honeypot captured large numbers of spam messages sent by that spammer. These messages included one or another of the throwaway account email addresses as the email address to be used by the spam recipient to respond to the spam. Because I captured large numbers of these it was possible to extract the email addresses from the spam, sort them, removing duplicates, and then transmit the entire list of false email addresses to the prominent anti-spammer for him to use to disable the accounts for those addresses. So not only did the open relay honeypot disable all the spam it captured, it also rendered useless most of the spam sent through other, real, open relays (because the spammer could not access the responses.) This was an effective technique.

I did not indicate this in the honeypot article and, quite obviously, the entire thing is (very simple) OR so it should not have been indicated, absent a reference. I did a few times indicate what I had done in the appropriate news group (news.admin.net-abuse.email) so I could have referenced that, but I didn't.

This is, however, a specific example of looking at the spam and gleaning information that could be used to combat spammers. That a person who captures spam should be able to do such a thing ought to be obvious - and not, for a generic indication of what could be done, require outside reference. I do not think it is in any way OR to assume that a reader (and any other sentient person) would realize that if you capture spam you can look at it and see what it contains - and then act on what you have learned. Were I to indicate specifically what I had done the only way to do so would be to cite my own work: only one other person (the prominent anti-spammer) had any notion of what I was doing and AFAIK never posted or published anything at all about it. Minasbeede (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)