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

Re: [ANE-2] Wikipedia

Expand Messages
  • Ford Mommaerts-Browne
    ... From: Jim West To: Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Wikipedia ... Or, as happens,
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.