Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ANE-2] Wikipedia

Expand Messages
  • Sam Wolff
    I don t know anything about Wikipedia, but I ask: who gives somebody the right to contribute an entry on a particular subject? G.M. Grena does not have any
    Message 1 of 27 , Apr 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't know anything about Wikipedia, but I ask: who gives somebody the
      right to contribute an entry on a particular subject? G.M. Grena does
      not have any connection to the excavation or the excavators at Nahal
      Tut. Have we entered into a situation where anybody can "publish"
      anybody else's excavation? If so, we've got a problem here, an ethical
      one for sure, and possibly a legal one as well. Perhaps scholars
      shouldn't have anything to do with such enterprises, if this is what we
      end up with.

      Sam Wolff
      Jerusalem

      > Which leads me to ask if any members of
      > this list are contributors to Wikipedia?
      > -Chuck Jones

      This was asked earlier this month before I joined ANE-2. In the past
      year, I've edited 101 Wikipedia pages, & originated 7:

      Biblical archaeology (all except the "Professional commentary" section)
      LMLK seal
      MMST
      Nahal Tut
      Nazareth Inscription
      Pim weight
      Zayit Stone

      G.M. Grena








      _____

      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      * Visit your group "ANE-2 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2>
      " on the web.

      * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

      * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

      _____


      **********************************************************************************************
      IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the
      named recipient(s) only.
      If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do
      not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
      *** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals, and malicious content. ***
      **********************************************************************************************

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Paul James Cowie
      Regarding Wikipedia.... ... Well, there s a problem straight away..... Fortunately, one also easily remedied with a little bit of time and effort! ... I
      Message 2 of 27 , Apr 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Regarding Wikipedia....

        On 2 Apr 2006, at 08:17, Sam Wolff wrote:

        > I don't know anything about Wikipedia,

        Well, there's a problem straight away..... Fortunately, one also
        easily remedied with a little bit of time and effort!

        > but I ask: who gives somebody the
        > right to contribute an entry on a particular subject? G.M. Grena does
        > not have any connection to the excavation or the excavators at Nahal
        > Tut. Have we entered into a situation where anybody can "publish"
        > anybody else's excavation? If so, we've got a problem here, an ethical
        > one for sure, and possibly a legal one as well. Perhaps scholars
        > shouldn't have anything to do with such enterprises, if this is
        > what we
        > end up with.
        >
        > Sam Wolff
        > Jerusalem

        I believe that there is a distinction easily to be made between the
        scholarly publication of an excavation and the writing of a
        encyclopaedic article on the subject, the basic facts of which are in
        the public domain.

        The larger - and thornier - questions of course, concern the
        ownership of knowledge.

        I'm sure we can all agree that a particular excavation team (and not
        necessarily just the director!) have a strong ethical and scientific
        claim to priority in publication (alongside the contingent
        responsibilities - so frequently neglected - of accuracy, prompt
        publication and reasonable access costs). But after that? Who
        actually "owns" the recovered data and artefacts that, with so many
        years / generations interposed between their deposition and recovery,
        could be considered as belonging to the entire human race?

        Fascinating questions - and questions that will only become more
        important as projects such as Wikipedia build in strength and
        appeal.....

        As an ardent wiki host, administrator and contributor - and as a
        passionate adovcate of freely-available, 'open source' publication
        (particularly for those projects that benefit from public funding) -
        I'd be very interested in hearing the opinion of other list-members
        on this and related topics,

        -----------------------

        Paul James Cowie
        BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

        London, England and Sydney, Australia

        Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
        Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel

        PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
        University, Sydney, Australia
      • victor avigdor hurowitz
        Dear Paul and Sam and anyone else, IN brief, IMHO, knowledge which has already been published should be and obviously is available to everybody, everywhere,
        Message 3 of 27 , Apr 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Paul and Sam and anyone else,
          IN brief, IMHO, knowledge which has already been published should be and
          obviously is available to everybody, everywhere, without
          distinction. It makes no sense to tell someone "don't pass on what
          I published in the New York Times, or on the internet on an open
          forum, etc."
          However, if that is "new knowledge" either created or
          discovered by a particular individual, institution, etc., and is
          properly published, its discoverer
          or creator should be acknowledged in conventional, accepted manners to the
          extent that their identity is known to the person passing that knowledge
          or discovery along. If the identity is unknown, or the venue of
          publication is not one such as would permit passing on the identity, it
          should at least be clear that the (second hand) purveyor of the knowledge
          makes no claim to having discovered or invented it.
          We will all do well to live by the anonymous dictum at the end of Avot
          6:6 "Whosoever reports a thing in the name of him who said it brings
          deliverence to the world; as it is said, `And Esther told the king in the
          name of Mordechai'" (Esther 2:22).
          Victor Hurowitz
          Dept. of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
          Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
          Beer-Sheva, Israel






          On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Paul James Cowie wrote:

          > Regarding Wikipedia....
          >
          > On 2 Apr 2006, at 08:17, Sam Wolff wrote:
          >
          > > I don't know anything about Wikipedia,
          >
          > Well, there's a problem straight away..... Fortunately, one also
          > easily remedied with a little bit of time and effort!
          >
          > > but I ask: who gives somebody the
          > > right to contribute an entry on a particular subject? G.M. Grena does
          > > not have any connection to the excavation or the excavators at Nahal
          > > Tut. Have we entered into a situation where anybody can "publish"
          > > anybody else's excavation? If so, we've got a problem here, an ethical
          > > one for sure, and possibly a legal one as well. Perhaps scholars
          > > shouldn't have anything to do with such enterprises, if this is
          > > what we
          > > end up with.
          > >
          > > Sam Wolff
          > > Jerusalem
          >
          > I believe that there is a distinction easily to be made between the
          > scholarly publication of an excavation and the writing of a
          > encyclopaedic article on the subject, the basic facts of which are in
          > the public domain.
          >
          > The larger - and thornier - questions of course, concern the
          > ownership of knowledge.
          >
          > I'm sure we can all agree that a particular excavation team (and not
          > necessarily just the director!) have a strong ethical and scientific
          > claim to priority in publication (alongside the contingent
          > responsibilities - so frequently neglected - of accuracy, prompt
          > publication and reasonable access costs). But after that? Who
          > actually "owns" the recovered data and artefacts that, with so many
          > years / generations interposed between their deposition and recovery,
          > could be considered as belonging to the entire human race?
          >
          > Fascinating questions - and questions that will only become more
          > important as projects such as Wikipedia build in strength and
          > appeal.....
          >
          > As an ardent wiki host, administrator and contributor - and as a
          > passionate adovcate of freely-available, 'open source' publication
          > (particularly for those projects that benefit from public funding) -
          > I'd be very interested in hearing the opinion of other list-members
          > on this and related topics,
          >
          > -----------------------
          >
          > Paul James Cowie
          > BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato
          >
          > London, England and Sydney, Australia
          >
          > Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
          > Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel
          >
          > PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
          > University, Sydney, Australia
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Paul James Cowie
          Dear Victor, You ve concisely summarised my own opinion on these matters.... And a most apposite quotation! Best regards, ... Paul James Cowie BA Hons (Sydney)
          Message 4 of 27 , Apr 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Victor,

            You've concisely summarised my own opinion on these matters.... And a
            most apposite quotation!

            Best regards,

            -----------------------

            Paul James Cowie
            BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

            London, England and Sydney, Australia

            Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
            Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel
            Committee Member, Friends of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology

            PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
            University, Sydney, Australia

            On 2 Apr 2006, at 09:54, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:

            > Dear Paul and Sam and anyone else,
            > IN brief, IMHO, knowledge which has already been published should
            > be and
            > obviously is available to everybody, everywhere, without
            > distinction. It makes no sense to tell someone "don't pass on what
            > I published in the New York Times, or on the internet on an open
            > forum, etc."
            > However, if that is "new knowledge" either created or
            > discovered by a particular individual, institution, etc., and is
            > properly published, its discoverer
            > or creator should be acknowledged in conventional, accepted manners
            > to the
            > extent that their identity is known to the person passing that
            > knowledge
            > or discovery along. If the identity is unknown, or the venue of
            > publication is not one such as would permit passing on the
            > identity, it
            > should at least be clear that the (second hand) purveyor of the
            > knowledge
            > makes no claim to having discovered or invented it.
            > We will all do well to live by the anonymous dictum at the end of Avot
            > 6:6 "Whosoever reports a thing in the name of him who said it brings
            > deliverence to the world; as it is said, `And Esther told the king
            > in the
            > name of Mordechai'" (Esther 2:22).
            > Victor Hurowitz
            > Dept. of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
            > Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
            > Beer-Sheva, Israel
            >
          • victor avigdor hurowitz
            should I have given you credit? Victor BGU Israel
            Message 5 of 27 , Apr 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              should I have given you credit?
              Victor
              BGU Israel



              On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Paul James Cowie wrote:

              > Dear Victor,
              >
              > You've concisely summarised my own opinion on these matters.... And a
              > most apposite quotation!
              >
              > Best regards,
              >
              > -----------------------
              >
              > Paul James Cowie
              > BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato
              >
              > London, England and Sydney, Australia
              >
              > Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
              > Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel
              > Committee Member, Friends of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology
              >
              > PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
              > University, Sydney, Australia
              >
              > On 2 Apr 2006, at 09:54, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:
              >
              > > Dear Paul and Sam and anyone else,
              > > IN brief, IMHO, knowledge which has already been published should
              > > be and
              > > obviously is available to everybody, everywhere, without
              > > distinction. It makes no sense to tell someone "don't pass on what
              > > I published in the New York Times, or on the internet on an open
              > > forum, etc."
              > > However, if that is "new knowledge" either created or
              > > discovered by a particular individual, institution, etc., and is
              > > properly published, its discoverer
              > > or creator should be acknowledged in conventional, accepted manners
              > > to the
              > > extent that their identity is known to the person passing that
              > > knowledge
              > > or discovery along. If the identity is unknown, or the venue of
              > > publication is not one such as would permit passing on the
              > > identity, it
              > > should at least be clear that the (second hand) purveyor of the
              > > knowledge
              > > makes no claim to having discovered or invented it.
              > > We will all do well to live by the anonymous dictum at the end of Avot
              > > 6:6 "Whosoever reports a thing in the name of him who said it brings
              > > deliverence to the world; as it is said, `And Esther told the king
              > > in the
              > > name of Mordechai'" (Esther 2:22).
              > > Victor Hurowitz
              > > Dept. of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
              > > Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
              > > Beer-Sheva, Israel
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Jim West
              ... The whole wicked wiki project not only allows persons who have no qualifications to publish entries- but anyone can edit anything you write! So, for
              Message 6 of 27 , Apr 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Sam Wolff wrote:
                > I don't know anything about Wikipedia, but I ask: who gives somebody the
                > right to contribute an entry on a particular subject? G.M. Grena does
                > not have any connection to the excavation or the excavators at Nahal
                > Tut. Have we entered into a situation where anybody can "publish"
                > anybody else's excavation? If so, we've got a problem here, an ethical
                > one for sure, and possibly a legal one as well. Perhaps scholars
                > shouldn't have anything to do with such enterprises, if this is what we
                > end up with.
                >
                > Sam Wolff
                > Jerusalem
                >


                The whole wicked wiki project not only allows persons who have no
                qualifications to publish entries- but anyone can edit anything you
                write! So, for example, if you publish an entry on wiki about an
                excavation- Joe Schmoe can come along and "correct" your entry even if
                he has never seen a spade.

                The whole project is really ridiculous.


                --
                Jim West, ThD

                http://web.infoave.net/~jwest -- Biblical Studies Resources
              • Paul James Cowie
                Regarding Jim West s comments regarding Wikipedia... ... Surely a project cannot be inherently wicked , merely the motives or deeds of some of its
                Message 7 of 27 , Apr 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Regarding Jim West's comments regarding Wikipedia...

                  On 2 Apr 2006, at 13:49, Jim West wrote:
                  >
                  > The whole wicked wiki project

                  Surely a project cannot be inherently "wicked", merely the motives or
                  deeds of some of its contributors.... This is, therefore, something
                  of an emotive and simplistic characterisation.

                  > allows persons who have no
                  > qualifications to publish entries- but anyone can edit anything you
                  > write!

                  'Qualifications' is something of a loaded term (there are many
                  excellent practising archaeologists who do not possess even a degree,
                  for example, let alone a doctorate) - it surely should not be
                  essential to have letters after your name (or such is the
                  implication) to be able to write / contribute to an _encyclopaedic_
                  article that simply outlines the basic facts and issues of a topic.

                  Secondly, the current focus within Wikipedia and several other wiki
                  projects is to incorporate reliable and scholarly citations of
                  original research, as a means of validating encyclopaedic articles.
                  Their gradual inclusion over time should make it increasingly
                  difficult for idle contributors to add whatever they will...

                  > So, for example, if you publish an entry on wiki about an
                  > excavation- Joe Schmoe can come along and "correct" your entry even if
                  > he has never seen a spade.

                  It _is_ true that anyone can make emendations and corrections to
                  articles - such is the collaborative nature of the project. However,
                  should inconsistencies and errors arise, it is a simple matter to
                  alter / revert the offending changes, the editing process
                  simultaneously benefiting from accompanying discussion pages for each
                  article. Should a conflict arise, dedicated channels are available
                  for arbitration and conflict resolution.

                  >
                  > The whole project is really ridiculous.
                  >

                  A growing number of people worldwide, both users and contributors to
                  Wikipedia, would beg to differ.

                  -----------------------

                  Paul James Cowie
                  BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

                  London, England and Sydney, Australia

                  Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
                  Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel

                  PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
                  University, Sydney, Australia
                • Ford Mommaerts-Browne
                  ... From: Jim West To: Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Wikipedia ... Or, as happens,
                  Message 8 of 27 , Apr 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Jim West" <jwest@...>
                    To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 9:49 AM
                    Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Wikipedia

                    |
                    |
                    | The whole wicked wiki project not only allows persons who have no
                    | qualifications to publish entries- but anyone can edit anything you
                    | write! So, for example, if you publish an entry on wiki about an
                    | excavation- Joe Schmoe can come along and "correct" your entry even if
                    | he has never seen a spade.
                    |
                    | Jim West, ThD

                    Or, as happens, uncorrect the entry, remove spelling, punctuation and grammatical corrections, (after all, these are all things of purely personal preference and style), remove citations, and insert libellous commentary. As is, it is worse than ridiculous, it is actually counterproductive of the creator's stated goals.

                    T. Stanford Mommaerts-Browne, GNSN
                    Omaha, Nebraska 68105-1310
                    (402)932-7094
                  • G.M. Grena
                    ... Here in America, our country was founded on the belief that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
                    Message 9 of 27 , Apr 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > who gives somebody the right to contribute an
                      > entry on a particular subject?
                      > Sam Wolff

                      Here in America, our country was founded on the belief that "all men
                      are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
                      certain unalienable Rights," & the founders of Wikipedia decided to
                      give all humans on the planet with Internet access the right to
                      contribute to human knowledge, as they initially bar no one from
                      their site.

                      > G.M. Grena does not have any connection to the
                      > excavation or the excavators at Nahal Tut.
                      > Sam Wolff

                      Are you quite sure about that, Sam Wolff? Have you been privy to my
                      personal correspondence with the Israel Antiquities Authority? Who
                      gave you the right to post a message to this list asserting a
                      slanderous charge against me without any source reference? I would
                      encourage one of ANE-2's moderators to ask Sam Wolff for the source
                      of his allegation regarding my connection (or lack thereof) to any
                      excavation or excavators.

                      > Have we entered into a situation where anybody
                      > can "publish" anybody else's excavation?
                      > Sam Wolff

                      Niels Peter Lemche asked for some specific examples. Since Nahal Tut
                      caught your eye, let's go there & see if there are any references in
                      the References section of that page to see who really published the
                      info on that page first:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahal_Tut

                      G.M. Grena
                    • G.M. Grena
                      ... Jimmy Wales & the Wikimedia Foundation (based in Florida) encourage anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer to edit, correct, or improve it.
                      Message 10 of 27 , Apr 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > who gives somebody the right to contribute an entry

                        Jimmy Wales & the Wikimedia Foundation (based in Florida) encourage
                        "anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer to edit,
                        correct, or improve" it. More info on contributing to its content is
                        available at:

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia

                        Think of the Wikipedia as a multi-person blog that collects
                        information in a format many people benefit from. I, for one, enjoy
                        being able to get basic information on many subjects, with convenient
                        links to related material. I always search the Internet & my local
                        libraries for details on questionable/disputed content, & check
                        source references for accuracy on important info.

                        Most vandalism on the Wikipedia is obvious, especially since each
                        edit is timestamped. If you're reading about coastal development
                        along the Great Barrier Reef, & suddenly read, "hi my name is bob",
                        chances are very good the page has been vandalized, & you should
                        revert to an earlier version. Just click on the History tab at the
                        top of each article & compare page versions; here's an example:

                        en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Barrier_Reef&oldid=42986935

                        Controversial topics usually carry a warning at the top of the page:

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

                        > Have we entered into a situation where
                        > anybody can "publish" anybody else's excavation?
                        > Sam Wolff

                        No. Look at your logic: How could somebody who, in your
                        words, "does not have any connection to the excavation or the
                        excavators" possibly know anything worth publishing? Where would
                        they get it?

                        I would submit that people working on an excavation know each other,
                        & would be cognizant of the dig-director's right to the editio
                        princeps. How many times in the past century has there been a big
                        fight between 2 parties over ANE publication rights? The only ones I
                        can think of off the top of my head are the Ebla tablets & DSS.
                        Neither of those disputes involved the Wikipedia!

                        Furthermore, if a renegade were to publish a significant find from a
                        site before the director, that person (usually a student) would
                        garner a very bad reputation & probably not be allowed on any other
                        sites. For a student, there would probably be detrimental academic
                        repercussions.

                        A good example of the honor code in action is the Zayit Stone with
                        the astounding Paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician abecedary; it was found in
                        July, but not published until the director, Ron Tappy held a formal
                        press conference in November. The gentleman who discovered it
                        (Michael Homan) had ample opportunities to trump his accomplishment
                        last summer to the press, his blog, & the Wikipedia. He's to be
                        commended.

                        Since you commented on my Nahal Tut entry, anyone can visit that page
                        & see my references in the References section. All I did was
                        condense the Israel Antiquity Authority's press-releases, which were
                        extremely terse overviews to begin with:

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahal_Tut

                        I added a few sentences to emphasize LMLK seals, & the entire article
                        is less than 300 words. I would submit that the final report, when
                        the excavators publish it some years hence, will contain
                        significantly more content. The Wikipedia entry gives interested
                        parties a "heads up" advantage. I believe it's going to affect
                        everyone who writes about Neo-Assyrian chronology.

                        G.M. Grena
                      • victor avigdor hurowitz
                        Dear All, ANE2 is hardly the place to discuss the interpretation of the Declaration of Independence of the United States. Nonetheless, it is hard to desist
                        Message 11 of 27 , Apr 3, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear All,
                          ANE2 is hardly the place to discuss the interpretation of the Declaration
                          of Independence of the United States. Nonetheless, it is hard to desist
                          from frontally criticizing your use of its "all men are created equal" in
                          defense of Wikipedia's editorial policy or lack thereof. The fact is that
                          NOT all people are of equal scholarly ability, or any other ability for
                          that matter, no matter what their God
                          given right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness happens to
                          be. In a court of law, all men and women have equal right to due process
                          of law and a fair trial. Governments should treat all their citizens
                          "equally" in collecting taxes and granting benefits. Yet all these things
                          and others have absolutely nothing to do with a person's knowledge,
                          intelligence, abilities, talents, etc. which are precisely the qualities
                          by which a person is judged before he or she should contribute to an
                          academic enterprise. When you chose a doctor you would hardly pick one
                          randomly out
                          of a crowd of people because "all men are created equal". When you chose a
                          spouse, you don't just spin a wheel or flip a coin because "all men are
                          created equal". And when a person searches for information he or she
                          doesn't
                          ask just anyone, but goes to an expert. I've belaboured this
                          enough. You can apply what I've said to what Wikipedia should and
                          shouldn't provide/

                          Victor Hurowitz
                          Dept. of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
                          Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
                          Beer-Sheva, Israel



                          On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, G.M. Grena wrote:

                          > > who gives somebody the right to contribute an
                          > > entry on a particular subject?
                          > > Sam Wolff
                          >
                          > Here in America, our country was founded on the belief that "all men
                          > are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
                          > certain unalienable Rights," & the founders of Wikipedia decided to
                          > give all humans on the planet with Internet access the right to
                          > contribute to human knowledge, as they initially bar no one from
                          > their site.
                          >
                          > > G.M. Grena does not have any connection to the
                          > > excavation or the excavators at Nahal Tut.
                          > > Sam Wolff
                          >
                          > Are you quite sure about that, Sam Wolff? Have you been privy to my
                          > personal correspondence with the Israel Antiquities Authority? Who
                          > gave you the right to post a message to this list asserting a
                          > slanderous charge against me without any source reference? I would
                          > encourage one of ANE-2's moderators to ask Sam Wolff for the source
                          > of his allegation regarding my connection (or lack thereof) to any
                          > excavation or excavators.
                          >
                          > > Have we entered into a situation where anybody
                          > > can "publish" anybody else's excavation?
                          > > Sam Wolff
                          >
                          > Niels Peter Lemche asked for some specific examples. Since Nahal Tut
                          > caught your eye, let's go there & see if there are any references in
                          > the References section of that page to see who really published the
                          > info on that page first:
                          >
                          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahal_Tut
                          >
                          > G.M. Grena
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • G.M. Grena
                          ... I apologize for my tone in that response. I was in a bad mood Sunday after losing an hour here in California to Daylight-Saving Time, & when asked who
                          Message 12 of 27 , Apr 4, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > ANE2 is hardly the place to discuss the interpretation
                            > of the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

                            I apologize for my tone in that response. I was in a bad mood Sunday
                            after losing an hour here in California to Daylight-Saving Time, &
                            when asked "who gives somebody the right", I did not assume it to be
                            rhetorical. That message was appropriately intercepted by the
                            moderators, & I wrote my 2nd/alternative response explaining the
                            Wikimedia Foundation not knowing the earlier rendition would still be
                            posted.

                            > ...a person's knowledge, intelligence, abilities,
                            > talents, etc. which are precisely the qualities
                            > by which a person is judged before he or she
                            > should contribute to an academic enterprise.
                            > Victor Hurowitz

                            Everybody has the right to write. Content should be the primary
                            criterion for contributions because it's impossible to know an
                            author's true breadth of "knowledge, intelligence, abilities,
                            talents" prior to reading what they've written. I judge books &
                            articles (& web pages) by their subjects, not by their writers'
                            reputations. I'd love to cite some good/bad examples here, but I
                            don't want to incite a verbal riot. I'll just say that I'm willing
                            to read anyone who writes extensively on the Hezekiah/Sennacherib
                            confrontation & leave it at that.

                            If someone obtains a PhD from a respected university, that's a nice
                            indication of the individual's ability to achieve a goal & contribute
                            to an academic enterprise, but if I'm trying to learn a subject &
                            read that PhD's dissertation, it may not be up to date & may contain
                            errors, & I would not know it until I did additional research &
                            comparison with other publications.

                            When I find up-to-date info, how can I effectively share it & bring
                            it to the attention of others? Traditional & university publishers
                            would ignore me because they don't know my "knowledge, intelligence,
                            abilities, talents" due to my lack of credentials; even so, it would
                            take them months to get it into print.

                            That's the nice thing about Wikipedia; if the content is bogus
                            (the "hi-my-name-is-bob" example I cited yesterday), it can be easily
                            changed & updated immediately; but the "caveat emptor" is, you (the
                            researcher) have to act just as responsibly & double-check Wikipedia
                            as you would do with any other source. Publication responsibility is
                            a 2-way street.

                            Isn't that what you university professors do? Don't you check
                            material before you recommend it to students? The flip side of the
                            coin is, Don't you also occasionally recommend a work that you know
                            contains problems (when they're outweighed by other valuable data)?

                            George Michael Grena, II
                            Redondo Beach, CA
                          • Peter T. Daniels
                            ... (Anyway, the Declaration is not part of the law of the land.) ... You seem to be missing two points entirely. (1) The naive reader has no way of knowing
                            Message 13 of 27 , Apr 5, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              G.M. Grena wrote:
                              >
                              > > ANE2 is hardly the place to discuss the interpretation
                              > > of the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

                              (Anyway, the Declaration is not part of the law of the land.)

                              > That's the nice thing about Wikipedia; if the content is bogus
                              > (the "hi-my-name-is-bob" example I cited yesterday), it can be easily
                              > changed & updated immediately; but the "caveat emptor" is, you (the
                              > researcher) have to act just as responsibly & double-check Wikipedia
                              > as you would do with any other source.  Publication responsibility is
                              > a 2-way street.
                              >
                              > Isn't that what you university professors do?  Don't you check
                              > material before you recommend it to students?  The flip side of the
                              > coin is, Don't you also occasionally recommend a work that you know
                              > contains problems (when they're outweighed by other valuable data)?

                              You seem to be missing two points entirely.

                              (1) The naive reader has no way of knowing whether what appears in
                              wikipedia on any particular day is accurate or not. Mr. Cowie's vision
                              of every article spiraling ever upward in excellence is nothing but pipe
                              dreaming.

                              (2) What university professor -- or other knowledgeable person -- has
                              the time (setting aside the inclination!) to review every wikipedia
                              posting that might impinge on their area of specialization? What teacher
                              would be so foolish as to assign readings in wikipedia, knowing that the
                              content could be altered at any moment by anyone whatsoever?

                              Thirdly, you yourself exemplify another problem. You posted pictures of
                              an artifact you own, and you were told by an expert in exactly that sort
                              of artifact that it was, with extremely high probability, not genuine;
                              yet you continued to make protestations, and still adduced supposed
                              "parallels" that had no relevance to the artifact at all. This suggests
                              that expert testimony, whatever the topic, is not of interest to
                              laypersons if it contravenes their expectations. What's to stop you from
                              editing a wikipedia article on ancient sealings to include your
                              artifact, so as to enhance its prestige? (It probably hasn't occurred to
                              you that doing so might also enhance its monetary value, but that
                              certainly has occurred to unscrupulous antiquities dealers who have no
                              interest in antiquities other than their market value.)
                              --
                              Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                            • Sandberg
                              Peter T. Daniels Wrote: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:16 AM ... wikipedia on any particular day is accurate or not. Mr. Cowie s vision of every article
                              Message 14 of 27 , Apr 5, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Peter T. Daniels Wrote: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:16 AM

                                >(1) The naive reader has no way of knowing whether what appears in
                                wikipedia on any particular day is accurate or not. Mr. Cowie's vision
                                of every article spiraling ever upward in excellence is nothing but pipe
                                dreaming.



                                So there is really more security for the printed text?

                                >(2) What university professor -- or other knowledgeable person -- has
                                the time (setting aside the inclination!) to review every wikipedia
                                posting that might impinge on their area of specialization? What teacher
                                would be so foolish as to assign readings in wikipedia, knowing that the
                                content could be altered at any moment by anyone whatsoever?


                                After reading all these posts about Wikipedia, a.k.a. waste of time, I'm glad I rely on the older school of printed pages instead. It's more reliable for the reader, and profitable for the author.

                                Now sometime back I came across a PDF file that refused any printing, any editing, any saving or copying etc. The text and photos were locked. So if you wanted a section from this publication/book you'd either have to buy the publication or manually key stroke selected portions of the authors work.

                                So if I may ask, why can't original works by authors or specialists be electronically frozen, making it difficult for others to edit, thus riding on the shirttails of those who have already done the work?

                                Mark Sandberg

                                Eugene, Oregon
                                mspalaeo@...


                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                                a.. Visit your group "ANE-2" on the web.

                                b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Ford Mommaerts-Browne
                                ... From: Peter T. Daniels To: Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re:
                                Message 15 of 27 , Apr 5, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
                                  To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:16 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Wikipedia


                                  | G.M. Grena wrote:
                                  | >
                                  | > > ANE2 is hardly the place to discuss the interpretation
                                  | > > of the Declaration of Independence of the United States.
                                  |
                                  | (Anyway, the Declaration is not part of the law of the land.)
                                  |

                                  I know that I am stepping off-topic here, but bare with me - there is a point to be made.
                                  The Declaration IS the law of the land, (if 'the land' is the USofA), because the US has 'Common Law', whereïn Custom gains the force of Law. In fact, the Declaration of Independence has been cited by courts to uphold or to overturn decisions, rulings or findings.
                                  Now, IF I didn't happen to see Prof. Daniels' comment; and IF I hadn't happened to have taken some law courses, (to become a more-roundly educated and [hopefully] better historian), where I learned a couple of things; and IF the moderators hadn't let this post through, (this is, of course, assuming that they do), then the rest of the readers of this post may have accepted that the DofI is NOT 'the law of the land'.
                                  We're starting to get a pretty iffy mound here. THIS is the problem with Wikipedia. Supercilious, self-appointed supervisors are given leeway to control content whereät they are not the experts who they present themselves as being. This is the 'best-case' scenario. The worst-case we have been redescribing at length. Yayhoos and _hoi polloi_, (or, as my coöperating teacher was wont to call them, 'The Great Unwashed'), can post any silly thing, and let it stand until somebody who knows better, (read 'other'), amends the tract.
                                  As an example: familysearch.org, the database of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, includes innumerable pedigrees tracing lineages through the Norse gods to the kings of Troy, through Jupiter, to Javan ben Japhet ben Noah, and on up to Adam, who was created by God. A very nice capstone to any family-tree. And the WWW has spread and proliferated this hodge-podge, this meaningless mishmash of mental masturbation, to genealogies all around the planet.

                                  ***Here's the bottom-line: There will be those who, seeing the problems and pitfalls with which the Wikipedia is fraught, will dismiss it, almost out-of-hand, and neither use it, nor endorse it. There will be those who will, seeing that potential promised by the Wikipediasts, give it a whirl; find that there is no real accountability, and minimal responsibility; have an extremely negative experience; and join the first group. Yet, there will still be those, with stars in their guileless eyes, who will continue to believe in the project, much as a long-suffering wife may continue to believe that her husband will take the pledge, and never touch liquor again. Rarely will members of groups one and two convince those of the third group; and, equally rarely, will those of group the third sway those of the first two groups.
                                  At this particular juncture, I suggest that we all agree to disagree, on this topic; and spend time on such where we may.
                                  Apologies for the lengthy post.
                                  T. Stanford Mommaerts-Browne, GNSN
                                  Omaha, Nebraska 68105-1310
                                  (402)932-7094
                                  BA UNL (1986)
                                  BS UNL (1988)
                                  Scholar without Portfolio
                                  Secondary Social Sciences Teacher and Chef, by training
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.