FW: The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a cosmic perspective

Thanks to John Hubbard, this idea has a home at LISWiki now
(see
forwarded note below). I've sketched in a home page with
list of a
couple of statements, and for one of them I've started a
page to suggest
a format. Dig in!

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Binkley, Peter 
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:08 PM
To: 'John Hubbard'
Subject: RE: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a cosmic
perspective

LISWiki sounds like just the right place. I've pasted in
some of my
message below and started a list of potential pages - others
who have
time (in between editing Wikipedia pages...) can start to
fill them in
and add to the list.

Peter 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hubbard [mailto:hubbardjuwm.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:55 PM
To: Binkley, Peter
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a cosmic
perspective

http://liswiki.org/
wiki/Wikipedia
tabula rasa, go nuts :0

- John


Binkley, Peter wrote:
> Within a wiki (in the librarians group at wikipedia or
pbwiki or 
> wherever), perhaps a format modelled on Talk Origins
> (http://w
ww.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) would work: an
index of

> claims (statements about wikipedia from librarians),
each with its own

> page where the claim is articulated and sourced, and
then responses 
> are enumerated and sourced. The sources could be links
to archived 
> email messages or threads that capture a particular
argument well.
> Links into Wikipedia's documentation would also be
useful.
> 
> The difference would be that Talk Origins represents
the efforts of 
> one community to debunk the claims of another, whereas
the Wikipedia 
> wiki would represent a discussion within a single
community which has 
> not reached consensus. It would be possible to set up
our site as a 
> list of pro-Wikipedia claims with anti-Wikipedia
responses or vice 
> versa (and appear to favour one side over the other),
or allow both 
> with lots of interlinking of responses (and deal with a
lot of
redundancy).
> 
> Of course, someone is going to have to do the work...
> 
> Peter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org
> [mailto:web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org] On Behalf
Of Marion 
> Sumerianlibrarian
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:18 PM
> To: web4libwebjunction.org; AWDobbsship.edu
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a cosmic
perspective
> 
> snip:
> 
>> Personally, the email-list format (using local
filing rules) works 
>> fine for me.  I'll be interested in the resulting
resource you 
>> create,
> 
>> as I can see possible benefits; but I think the
ease of use of email 
>> lists will be a difficult "barrier" to
surmount.
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> -Aaron
> 
> thanks for your reply.
> 
> i'm very interested to know if you can you point to a
single instance 
> where an email format has carried the wikipedia
discussion forward in 
> either a productive or creative way?
> 
> overall, i find the same issues are hashed, rehashed,
and rehashed 
> again, and again, over a long period of time on various
listservs.
> 
> no, frankly, i don't see how email has helped to even
define the 
> issues, let alone advance them. i may be very wrong,
but would like to

> see evidence of it.
> 
> then again, the discussion around "how to discuss
the wikipedia 
> phenomenon -- and its various permutations.
> what would be the best format?" is yet another
pertinent example of 
> the dialog that needs to be addressed in a more
organized, productive,

> and creative manner.
> 
> thanks again for your response, m
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________
__________
> __
> ____________
> Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000
hotels in 45,000 
> destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
> htt
p://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/


--
John Hubbard
Web Services and Electronic Resources Coordinator UWM
Libraries
Webmaster University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
414-229-6775
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

Very nice. Thank you Peter and John!

On 02/23/2007 01:45 PM, Binkley, Peter wrote:
> Thanks to John Hubbard, this idea has a home at LISWiki
now (see
> forwarded note below). I've sketched in a home page
with list of a
> couple of statements, and for one of them I've started
a page to suggest
> a format. Dig in!
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Binkley, Peter 
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:08 PM
> To: 'John Hubbard'
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a cosmic
perspective
>
> LISWiki sounds like just the right place. I've pasted
in some of my
> message below and started a list of potential pages -
others who have
> time (in between editing Wikipedia pages...) can start
to fill them in
> and add to the list.
>
> Peter 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hubbard [mailto:hubbardjuwm.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:55 PM
> To: Binkley, Peter
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a cosmic
perspective
>
> http://liswiki.org/
wiki/Wikipedia
> tabula rasa, go nuts :0
>
> - John
>
>
> Binkley, Peter wrote:
>   
>> Within a wiki (in the librarians group at wikipedia
or pbwiki or 
>> wherever), perhaps a format modelled on Talk
Origins
>> (http://w
ww.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) would work: an
index of
>>     
>
>   
>> claims (statements about wikipedia from
librarians), each with its own
>>     
>
>   
>> page where the claim is articulated and sourced,
and then responses 
>> are enumerated and sourced. The sources could be
links to archived 
>> email messages or threads that capture a particular
argument well.
>> Links into Wikipedia's documentation would also be
useful.
>>
>> The difference would be that Talk Origins
represents the efforts of 
>> one community to debunk the claims of another,
whereas the Wikipedia 
>> wiki would represent a discussion within a single
community which has 
>> not reached consensus. It would be possible to set
up our site as a 
>> list of pro-Wikipedia claims with anti-Wikipedia
responses or vice 
>> versa (and appear to favour one side over the
other), or allow both 
>> with lots of interlinking of responses (and deal
with a lot of
>>     
> redundancy).
>   
>> Of course, someone is going to have to do the
work...
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org
>> [mailto:web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org] On Behalf
Of Marion 
>> Sumerianlibrarian
>> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:18 PM
>> To: web4libwebjunction.org; AWDobbsship.edu
>> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a
cosmic perspective
>>
>> snip:
>>
>>     
>>> Personally, the email-list format (using local
filing rules) works 
>>> fine for me.  I'll be interested in the
resulting resource you 
>>> create,
>>>       
>>> as I can see possible benefits; but I think the
ease of use of email 
>>> lists will be a difficult "barrier"
to surmount.
>>>
>>> Good luck,
>>>
>>> -Aaron
>>>       
>> thanks for your reply.
>>
>> i'm very interested to know if you can you point to
a single instance 
>> where an email format has carried the wikipedia
discussion forward in 
>> either a productive or creative way?
>>
>> overall, i find the same issues are hashed,
rehashed, and rehashed 
>> again, and again, over a long period of time on
various listservs.
>>
>> no, frankly, i don't see how email has helped to
even define the 
>> issues, let alone advance them. i may be very
wrong, but would like to
>>     
>
>   
>> see evidence of it.
>>
>> then again, the discussion around "how to
discuss the wikipedia 
>> phenomenon -- and its various permutations.
>> what would be the best format?" is yet another
pertinent example of 
>> the dialog that needs to be addressed in a more
organized, productive,
>>     
>
>   
>> and creative manner.
>>
>> thanks again for your response, m
>>
>>
>>  
>>
____________________________________________________________
__________
>> __
>> ____________
>> Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000
hotels in 45,000 
>> destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
>> htt
p://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web4lib mailing list
>> Web4libwebjunction.org
>> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web4lib mailing list
>> Web4libwebjunction.org
>> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>>     
>
>
> --
> John Hubbard
> Web Services and Electronic Resources Coordinator UWM
Libraries
> Webmaster University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> 414-229-6775
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>   
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

Very nice. Thank you Peter and John!

On 02/23/2007 01:45 PM, Binkley, Peter wrote:
> Thanks to John Hubbard, this idea has a home at LISWiki
now (see
> forwarded note below). I've sketched in a home page
with list of a
> couple of statements, and for one of them I've started
a page to suggest
> a format. Dig in!
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Binkley, Peter 
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:08 PM
> To: 'John Hubbard'
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a cosmic
perspective
>
> LISWiki sounds like just the right place. I've pasted
in some of my
> message below and started a list of potential pages -
others who have
> time (in between editing Wikipedia pages...) can start
to fill them in
> and add to the list.
>
> Peter 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hubbard [mailto:hubbardjuwm.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:55 PM
> To: Binkley, Peter
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a cosmic
perspective
>
> http://liswiki.org/
wiki/Wikipedia
> tabula rasa, go nuts :0
>
> - John
>
>
> Binkley, Peter wrote:
>   
>> Within a wiki (in the librarians group at wikipedia
or pbwiki or 
>> wherever), perhaps a format modelled on Talk
Origins
>> (http://w
ww.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) would work: an
index of
>>     
>
>   
>> claims (statements about wikipedia from
librarians), each with its own
>>     
>
>   
>> page where the claim is articulated and sourced,
and then responses 
>> are enumerated and sourced. The sources could be
links to archived 
>> email messages or threads that capture a particular
argument well.
>> Links into Wikipedia's documentation would also be
useful.
>>
>> The difference would be that Talk Origins
represents the efforts of 
>> one community to debunk the claims of another,
whereas the Wikipedia 
>> wiki would represent a discussion within a single
community which has 
>> not reached consensus. It would be possible to set
up our site as a 
>> list of pro-Wikipedia claims with anti-Wikipedia
responses or vice 
>> versa (and appear to favour one side over the
other), or allow both 
>> with lots of interlinking of responses (and deal
with a lot of
>>     
> redundancy).
>   
>> Of course, someone is going to have to do the
work...
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org
>> [mailto:web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org] On Behalf
Of Marion 
>> Sumerianlibrarian
>> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:18 PM
>> To: web4libwebjunction.org; AWDobbsship.edu
>> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] The Wikipedia Gotcha -- a
cosmic perspective
>>
>> snip:
>>
>>     
>>> Personally, the email-list format (using local
filing rules) works 
>>> fine for me.  I'll be interested in the
resulting resource you 
>>> create,
>>>       
>>> as I can see possible benefits; but I think the
ease of use of email 
>>> lists will be a difficult "barrier"
to surmount.
>>>
>>> Good luck,
>>>
>>> -Aaron
>>>       
>> thanks for your reply.
>>
>> i'm very interested to know if you can you point to
a single instance 
>> where an email format has carried the wikipedia
discussion forward in 
>> either a productive or creative way?
>>
>> overall, i find the same issues are hashed,
rehashed, and rehashed 
>> again, and again, over a long period of time on
various listservs.
>>
>> no, frankly, i don't see how email has helped to
even define the 
>> issues, let alone advance them. i may be very
wrong, but would like to
>>     
>
>   
>> see evidence of it.
>>
>> then again, the discussion around "how to
discuss the wikipedia 
>> phenomenon -- and its various permutations.
>> what would be the best format?" is yet another
pertinent example of 
>> the dialog that needs to be addressed in a more
organized, productive,
>>     
>
>   
>> and creative manner.
>>
>> thanks again for your response, m
>>
>>
>>  
>>
____________________________________________________________
__________
>> __
>> ____________
>> Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000
hotels in 45,000 
>> destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
>> htt
p://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web4lib mailing list
>> Web4libwebjunction.org
>> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web4lib mailing list
>> Web4libwebjunction.org
>> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>>     
>
>
> --
> John Hubbard
> Web Services and Electronic Resources Coordinator UWM
Libraries
> Webmaster University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> 414-229-6775
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>   
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

dang, that was fast, quite 
brilliant, and it already looks 
stunning, to boot!

accolades all around.

looking forward to seeing how
it evolves.

ms

--- "Binkley, Peter" <Peter.Binkleyualberta.ca>
wrote:

> Thanks to John Hubbard, this idea has a home at
> LISWiki now (see
> forwarded note below). I've sketched in a home page
> with list of a
> couple of statements, and for one of them I've
> started a page to suggest
> a format. Dig in!
> 
> Peter



 
____________________________________________________________
________________________
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get
started!
http://
mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

dang, that was fast, quite 
brilliant, and it already looks 
stunning, to boot!

accolades all around.

looking forward to seeing how
it evolves.

ms

--- "Binkley, Peter" <Peter.Binkleyualberta.ca>
wrote:

> Thanks to John Hubbard, this idea has a home at
> LISWiki now (see
> forwarded note below). I've sketched in a home page
> with list of a
> couple of statements, and for one of them I've
> started a page to suggest
> a format. Dig in!
> 
> Peter



 
____________________________________________________________
________________________
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get
started!
http://
mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

Binkley, Peter wrote:

> Thanks to John Hubbard, this idea has a home at LISWiki
now (see
> forwarded note below). [...] http://liswiki.org/
wiki/Wikipedia

When I saw LISwiki I thought I should check up if there are
any 
opinions about Google Book Search, especially after having
read 
(web4lib member) Anders Ericson's harsh words against them
on the 
official website of the Norwegian Library Association,
http://www.norskbibliotekforening.no/article.php?id=1523

http://www.norskbibliotekforening.no/article.php?id=1547


(I'll leave it to him to explain and translate.)

I don't share Anders' marxist point of view, but find it 
interesting that all aspects are analyzed.

However, at http://liswiki.org/wik
i/Google
one can read that this is "An Internet search engine
favored by 
librarians and most of the world."

This is the kind of naive enthusiasm that, when suggested to

Germans, is met with "enthusiasm? we tried that in the
1930s". 
While this is an exaggerated caricature, it does define a 
distinction between the ever-skeptic Europe (Eeyore) and the

childishly ever-optimistic America (Winnie-the-Pooh).

Now, both kinds of voices are playing together on LISwiki.
Google 
is favored by librarians, but Wikipedia is met with
opinions.  It 
is inevitable that the two articles are compared, by readers

trying to understand what librarians think.


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (larsaronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

Binkley, Peter wrote:

> Thanks to John Hubbard, this idea has a home at LISWiki
now (see
> forwarded note below). [...] http://liswiki.org/
wiki/Wikipedia

When I saw LISwiki I thought I should check up if there are
any 
opinions about Google Book Search, especially after having
read 
(web4lib member) Anders Ericson's harsh words against them
on the 
official website of the Norwegian Library Association,
http://www.norskbibliotekforening.no/article.php?id=1523

http://www.norskbibliotekforening.no/article.php?id=1547


(I'll leave it to him to explain and translate.)

I don't share Anders' marxist point of view, but find it 
interesting that all aspects are analyzed.

However, at http://liswiki.org/wik
i/Google
one can read that this is "An Internet search engine
favored by 
librarians and most of the world."

This is the kind of naive enthusiasm that, when suggested to

Germans, is met with "enthusiasm? we tried that in the
1930s". 
While this is an exaggerated caricature, it does define a 
distinction between the ever-skeptic Europe (Eeyore) and the

childishly ever-optimistic America (Winnie-the-Pooh).

Now, both kinds of voices are playing together on LISwiki.
Google 
is favored by librarians, but Wikipedia is met with
opinions.  It 
is inevitable that the two articles are compared, by readers

trying to understand what librarians think.


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (larsaronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/