| Revision as of 02:00, 18 September 2005 editDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:18, 28 October 2005 edit undoGorgonzilla (talk | contribs)1,656 edits →HurricaneNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| == Hurricane == | |||
| Can't quite tell what you and the other guy are reverting about. I get lost in it all, so bring me up to speed. Thanks.] 16:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| OK, there are two versions of the article. The version that is being edited by myself, yourself and 5 or so other editors. Then there is the separate fork of the article written by 'Long John Silver' which contains the 'dueling criticism' section that LJS keeps reverting to. This is essentially an attack piece that makes absolutely no pretense at maintaining an NPOV, it is a series of unsourced allegations. At this point there are 5 editors who are essentially reverting LJS edits on sight because of this. The edits use deliberately deceptive descriptions intended to indicate a minor edit when in fact 80% of the article is being reverted. The only contributor who is supporting the LJS forked version is LJS himself. He refuses to actually discuss anything in talk. --] 17:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Well, first off the bat, if a contributor does not go to TALK then I consider any of their edits to me inappropriate and violate the protocol for WIKI and if I see them I am going to revert them without any comment back to the last version I know is valid. It is not worth any of reasonable editors time to even comment on the revert. I have to be honest, I had no idea what the contributor was even trying to accomplish. | |||
| I get lost in trying to revert back copy after other edits are in, and if I jump in I sorta just have to look at copy from an editor I recognize and revert to that and if something valid gets choped then that contributor would need to put it back in. I think I put a notice in that the page may need to just be left by the full time contributors for awhile, and just revert back to that point without copy edits. | |||
| These ongoing articles dont really require hourly by hourly updates - this is not a newsfeed service. This mayor is not doing things more than on a daily basis that truly require updates. What's going on here appears to be POV inserts that just do not comply with encyclopedia standards. | |||
| So I dont see any problem with locking down the page like at Cindy. I did read in Wiki it is not vandalism to change copy - so a case probably needs to be clearly stated at the time of a lock that it is according to another Wiki protocol. | |||
| What amazes me in the forum as that folks - however well intentioned they may be - just don't get it that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum to prove positions. ] 17:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I agree on the getting lost thing and I agree with your comments on the pov problem and the excessive length of the quotations from the news conference. I edited it down to a representative quote and a link to the transcript and the audio feed on C&L. I think that is the appropriate level of detail. | |||
| As to your last comment it amazes me that people on either side think that this is effective propaganda. A concise statement of the facts is usually the best form of argument. I do not tell people what to think because that is ultimately unpursuasive. much better to give people the facts and let them come to the conclusion themselves. The only thing I get from the Mayor's interview is the fact that he was clearly desperate, under a huge amount of stress and that he believed that the federal government had utterly failed his city. I don't need to read the interview at length to understand that. --] 18:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Gorgonzilla, please read what I put on the talk page of ] and give me some feedback as to what you think. I'm curious what your take is on this.] 9/18/05 2:00 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:18, 28 October 2005
I have worked on Web encyclopedias since 1992 when I contributed to the Virtual Libary then being developed by Arthur Secret.
At the time my research interests were mainly focused on Web collaboration systems such as WIT. As I began to build the systems I realized that I would need a security infrastructure which is what I have worked on for the past 10 years.
Now I am starting to look at RSS and Misplaced Pages as examples of state of the art Web collaboration systems. My belief is that somewhere between Misplaced Pages and the Virtual library there is a system that can function for authoritative academic work.
Stories I have written
- Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal I merged information from separate articles in many parts of Wiki bringing them together in this article.
- Jack Abramoff I made extensive edits to this previously confused story which was linked to a news item on the front page. In particular I rewrote most of the SunCruz section.
Stories I am editing
- Able Danger is likely to become an important story but as yet there is not enough material
Categories I created
- Category:Computer security specialists Computer security is a separate speciality from cryptography. Many of the most important people in the security field do not have entries.
Categories I am thinking of creating
- Category:Computer networking specialists There should be a category for network protocol architects, essentially Internet pioneers, notable IETF people and notable people developing non IP protocols
- Category:Computer ai specialists There are a lot of people working on semantic web and there is a view that wikipedia is a part of that work
Readers
I would just caution that just because readers do not comment on Talk items, that does not mean they are not read, are not useful. It also sorta says the time and effort folks put into Talk is wasted. Actually, the historical Talk gives the sites development and the discusssions behind how text is discussed. You might consider editing that commment. Simply redirect readers to the content. And wait out the movers and shakers reaction.