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

Re: [ANE-2] Wikipedia and the sum of all knowledge

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.