User talk:J M Rice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] The future of Wikipedia

I'm not worried about the prospect of 'rival' encyclopædias, because I don't think of us as being in competion with other sources, but as being an alternative. I agree, though, that we're faced with an increasing problem of bigoted and non-collaborative editors. Some of them have been around for a while, of course, but their numbers are growing. My own belief is that the solution is to attract more good-faith editors, and the best way to do that is to increase the profile and respectability of Wikipedia — theough there's the threat of a vicious circle there.

Oh, by the way, remember always to 'sign' your messages; it took a while to find and reply to you.Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Future of Wikipedia 2

Hi, first up I noticed that some vandalism correction had gone awry, and fixed it. That's immediately my first answer to your question, though you're probably already aware of it, since you've heard of Mr. Cunningham. Ward Cunningham is very skilled in designing collaborative editing systems. He's standing on the shoulders of giants, there's at least half a century of research by multinationals and universities behind him.

What he did was take his skill in collaborative software development, and used it to create a system for collaborative (natural language) text editing. If you start out with a revision control system that is carefully balanced in favor of reverting, you will get a net trend towards more useful content over time, even though any particular revision of a document might be bad. By allowing anyone to edit, and allowing reversion, you basically get sources of variation and a method for selection respectively. A system with these 2 traits can typically be shown to be self-improving over time.

The amount of variation being fed into the system is increasing all the time at the moment, due to the influx of new users. This is not nescesarily a bad thing. In time, the problems caused by this new influx will balance themselves out automatically.

Now the problem for the wikipedia leadership is to continue to provide enough resources in terms of hardware and software to facilitate this process. This is not a trivial problem! That's why wikipedia slows down from time to time. It's hard and expensive for a nonprofit foundation to run so much heavy equipment, and growth of the server park appears to be lagging slightly behind demand. But everything is still up, so I'd say wikimedia is handeling it fine for now. :-)

Note that currently the wikimedia foundation is some number of steps ahead of all other "competitors" in the field of software. It would be nice if they actually did catch up though, since then wikimedia wouldn't have to be the ones paying for all the innovation. :-P

That's a quick summary of the situation, feel free to ask me for more information, or maybe I can point you to others who know MUCH more in this field than I do. Try talking with User:GerardM for instance.

By the way, if you end your comments with ~~~~ , the 4 tildes are automatically replaced with your name and the date when you hit "save page". :-)

Like so: Kim Bruning 22:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry

image:spinboygift.jpg

I really appreciate all the work you have and will do on the Freemasonry article. --Spinboy 17:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Pearl Harbor referencing

Improvement is all I am asking for. I reallize my request won't happen overnight for every article, but the authors and editors of every article are the ones that know what good resources for each topic are. Citing those and checking the facts for each is an important part of improving the article and important for Wikipedia as a whole. The only criticism left of Wikipedia is the idea that "something anyone can edit couldn't possibly be a reliable source". And yes, this criticism is leveled often. The best (only) way to combat that is with proper referencing. So, like I said I'm not expecting that to happen overnight, but the more work towards that goal the better. Eventually we'll get there, because the process is great. Thanks - Taxman 03:16, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enoch Powell

Why correct the heading Racist Demagogue or Lost Prime Minister? and then delete all content about his chances of getting the office? james_anatidae 08:27, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The deletion is the correction. I deleted "all content about his chances of getting into office" because, as right as it may happen to be, it's based on supposition. Please note, that what's left in that section is verifiable fact — events, dates — which not only maintain NPOV but faithfully explicate the heading.
As for the rest, Powell was notorious and he was an unusual Conservative, there was debate about whether he was racialist and he did garner a national constituency suitable for a premiership. These assertions are NPOV enough as to be stipulated and used as headings.
What is controversial or speculative is discussion about whether this would have occured if that had happened, and this includes "chances for getting the office". That kind of content belongs on the Talk page, which by no means demeans it. I think one of the neat things about Wikipedia is that we can adhere to NPOV on the article pages, then right behind them, on the Talk pages, jump into the fray. A sometimes overlooked virtue of Wikipedia, which I think should be brought out more: read the article first, then click the Discussion tab for the various insights, analyses and opinions. It gives a perspective like no other reference.
So the stuff I deleted is still in the history. Should we take it, along with the rest of Assesssment, and place it all on the Powell talk page? Some of the stuff I left, such as Powell's connections with neo-Nazis, still makes me a little uneasy about their provenance. "Apalling timing" is inherently opinionated, but the support for that opinion, that Powell gave that "Rivers of Blood" speech on Hitler's birthday, makes apalling just about right, wouldn't you say?  ;-)
By the way, I'm an admirer of Powell, so please don't take my redaction as a slight.
Cheers! — J M Rice 18:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't see it as a slight, but I'm not sure that the PM stuff is without merit. But what I really saying was if the all that is gone, why is it still referenced in the subheading? james_anatidae 04:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say it was without merit. In fact, I implied it may indeed have merit when I said, "As right as it may happen to be..." The problem is that it's not NPOV. It's supposition, which shouldn't be on the Article page. When you say "still referenced in the subheading," I assume you're referring to "Racist Demagogue or Lost Prime Minister". There are two paragraphs under that heading, each dealing with the two issues in the heading. They are what was left when I winnowed out the non-factual stuff. J M Rice 07:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Spender

Please see comments at Talk:Stephen Spender. -- Samuel Wantman 09:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup taskforce

Hi, I have added a task to your desk. Cheers, Andreww 07:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual dishonesty

Hi, I was just given a cleanup assignment by Andreww. This is my first one, and I needed a little help. The assignment is Intellectual dishonesty. My first impression is, that it's a good candidate for deletion: it strikes me as the equivalent of an article on Bad Manners. However, as well-merited as it may be, deletion is an extreme measure, and I'm not sure if this is part of the Cleanup Taskforce's mandate. I could work on it, but since I think it's a dubious article in the first place, I'm not sure if, in good faith, I could turn it into something more than the stub it is now. I'm loathe to balk on my first assignment, and I'll do my best, if you think deletion isn't an option. Thanks for the guidance! — J M Rice 02:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would only list an article like this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if I thought that there was no possibility that any article by this name could ever be written, and if there wasn't another article to merge it into. (If you do a merge, you leave a redirect to the new article behind, instead of deleting.) There might be some other article with which this one might be merged, which I haven't yet found. It would certainly be worthwhile to check. The two that came closest that I have found so far are Scientific misconduct, Journalism scandals. These are much better written than "intellectual dishonesty", which is currently not much more than a long dictionary definition. It should certainly talk more about intellectual dishonesty, rather than about the term "intellectual dishonesty". But I do think this could be re-written into a reasonable overview article on this topic.
As for how this relates to the Cleanup Taskforce...well, while this article was waiting to be assigned, other editors have worked on it enough that someone saw fit to remove the cleanup tag. This is the point at which I usually consider the "cleanup" process to be finished, so I close the Cleanup Taskforce case. (I've tagged this article for "expansion", which is often the next stage in article development.) Given the above issues, though, the article could certainly be expanded - or better yet, re-written from scratch. If you want to make a go at it, feel free. If not, you can either close the task (by removing it from your desk and from Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce, or reassign it to someone else. Thanks, Beland 23:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Oscar Levant

J.M., in the article Oscar Levant you added: "...epitaph also testifies to his self-deprecating wit: "I told them I was ill." This is a little confusing. If you mean by his grave maker, it does not say that [1][2]. If you mean it is written somewhere else, that is unclear. WikiDon 06:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir, "reputed" is a rumor, to "believe" or "consider":
From www.m-w.com:
  • 1 : having a good repute : REPUTABLE
  • 2 : being such according to reputation or popular belief
Levant does not have anything but his name and dates of birth and death on his marker, and Wikipedia should not hint at anything else. This is an encyclopedia, and we should all strive, including me, to write for the seventh grade student in Council Bluffs, Iowa, the person in China trying to learn English, etc. I did not want the reader to "believe" or "consider" that he does in fact have that saying on his marker.
It is readily apparent that your education level is above the average reader. But, for the average reader is whom we must continue to strive for.

PS In keeping with the aforementioned belief in what the purpose of Wikipedia is, a word like "apocryphally" at best needs a link to Wiktionary.

Carry on. WikiDon 04:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Hume

This is going back a while, but on 8 May 2005, you edited the article on David Hume and added the anecdote that: "Less than 15 years before Hume was born, an 18-year-old college student was put on trial for saying openly that he thought Christianity was nonsense, was convicted and hanged for blasphemy."

I was wondering if you could supply me with the source for this? It's for my own interest; I'm not intending to get involved with the article. -- Laurence Boyce 14:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Kclark.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kclark.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marat

A few months ago you remarked on the state of the article on Jean-Paul Marat. I've just restored (and rewritten) quite a bit of biographical material. I'd be interested in what you think. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Leonowens

I've done some incremental rewriting of the article on Anna Leonowens to neutralize some of the the harsh accusatory tone. I haven't changed the latter sections though, preferring to see how people react to my observations in the "Discussion" page. As I recall, you had suggested a re-write of the article. Could you please have a look and see whether these changes are any good. Patiwat 00:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • <sigh> Looks like this did turn into a revert war. Would it be overly wimpy of me to suggest that the right approach would be somewhere in the middle path, without the accusatory tone and over-reliance on Bristowe's work, but also with some key uncontroversial historical facts that aren't included in your version? The thing I really can't stand about the "original" article is it relies so much on the musical and movies to paint a picture of Leonowens, and then attacks Leonowens for those "distortions." This is, of course, absurd. That being said, the version that you reverted retains a lot of the questionable wording of the "original" article (e.g., "it is now believed that"... without any reference, mentioning her son as "who became a character in the book" rather than as an individual with his own personal history, etc.) Could I suggest you have a look at some of my incremental improvements and see if they are of any use? Patiwat 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, afraid so. I again restored my edit, then sent a message, with a reminder about the 3-revert rule. I tried to be careful to preserve non-controvesial stuff, but you think I cut some of it anyway? I have an idea. Why don't you build on my edit? Open the pre-edit article in a separate window, then copy and paste the parts you feel are non-controversial back into the edit.
The reverter first called my edit a stub, then called it vandalism, probably to get around the 3-revert rule. The edited article is not nearly as long as it was, but there was all that extraneous stuff.... Anyway, the subject matter is minor and doesn't rate a long article. If the user wants more info, that's what the reference and links are for. — J M Rice
We can get around a lot of this Thai nationalist bull by reading the personal letters of King Mongkut to Anna herself. See a guide, commentary, and links to the content of the letters at http://sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/?id=188. My favorite words: "Nothing’s more gratifying to debunk than a false debunking." Patiwat 04:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Nixon

I reviewed your edit to Pat's page. Placing two photos at the top, pushes all the text below them, which leaves a huge white space. The reason why the 1969 photo had been moved down was to add context to that particular section of her article. Otherwise there's really no reason to have two photos of her anyway. If you review the article now, you'll see the white space problem is fixed by moving the photo down. Wjhonson 05:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/_/m/User_talk%7EJ_M_Rice_c8a8.html"