Talk:Andrea Christofidou

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

On 29 Dec 04, this page was nominated for deletion. For a record of the discussion (and an explanation of the clean-up header), see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrea Christofidou. Rossami (talk) 01:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peculiar (& obsessive) mis-editings

Immediately this article (which I had initiated) was approved for retention by a majority vote, B.M. (who had argued abrasively against it) leapt in to edit it. He removed much of the material, and made various changes which altered and falsified the content, including turning Dr Christofidou's two brothers into sisters, and turning her from a College Lecturer into a University Lecturer (between which there's a big difference at Oxford). When I corrected his errors, he re-edited the page, reinstating the latter error, and removing brief characterisations & descriptions of her lectures and published work. He seems obsessed with this article, despite his clear ignorance of (and apparent lack of interest in) the subject.

I'm prepared to monitor the article and undo his efforts, but it would be nice to spend time instead on adding more (and more interesting) material to it and to other articles. If anyone has any influence with him, perhaps he might be persuaded to turn his malice elsewhere — perhaps to subjects about which he's knowledgeable, such as software engineering. 172.184.73.19 19:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everybody has their own reasons for editing articles. What are yours? for the record I started editing the article *before* the VfD was final, and it is possible that my cleanup explains why some of the votes were to keep it. My comments in the VfD vote were not "abrasive", although perhaps you felt abraded. I stated my opinion that Ms. Christofidou is not a sufficiently notable professor for an encyclopedia article, and that is still my opinion. I note that you have not yet provided information that might contradict this view. I advise you to read the comments of the administrator who processed the VfD vote.

Anything's possible, but there's no reason to suppose that your editing had any effect on the votes. Also, mentioning the content of one comment is hardly sufficient to show that your remarks weren't abrasive; abrasiveness is a matter of tone as much as (if not more than) content. They're a matter of record, and I see no point in repeating them here.

Concerning my errors -- yes, I did inadvertently change brothers to sisters. I thank you for correcting my error. I don't thank you for the egregious comments. As for making her a "University Lecturer", my text simply stated that she has been a Lecturer at Oxford since 1992. Your version has lost this date. If this means "University Lecturer" to you, then we will fix that. Bear in mind that the entire world is not "up" on the difference between being a Lecturer "at Oxford" and being a Lecturer "at an such-and-such Oxford college", assuming there is one.

So if many readers won't notice an error, it doesn't matter? What a peculiar attitude. I could, and can, see no reason for some of your changes, including the meddling with the first paragraph.

Concerning the material I removed from the original article. First, it was substantially taken verbatim from A.C's web site, and as such was a copyright violation. Unless you are A.C., in which case (a) this article is vanity; and (b) in any case, you need to grant permission for the use of the text from your web site. It needed to be rewritten for that reason alone. I did so, and in the process condensed the article and made it more succinct. If you feel there is important information about A.C. which has been omitted, by all means add it back in, bearing in mind what I write in the next paragraph.

I don't accept that it violated copyright, nor have I seen on any other Wikiupedia page any mention of permissions of this sort, aside from references to material taken from the 1911 Britannia. If that really were an issue, I'd be prepared to write to Dr Christofidou to ask permission.
You need to familiarize yourself more with Wikipedia policies. Copyright is a major issue here. Read the text at the foot of the article-editing form. Material from web-sites is not to be submitted except with the permission of the original author, unless the person submitting the material states that he is the original author. You will find such statements on User Talk pages and in the Talk pages for articles. Sometimes, they are included in the article itself. --BM 15:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding characterizations that I removed: I removed them because they are not sourced. If this is personal reporting, please consult the Wikipedia policy on original research, which also extends to original reporting. Wikipedia is not a primary source or a record of personal research, opinions, conclusions, discoveries, or observations. It is a secondary source at best, and ideally a tertiary source. So, you can't say her lectures are "lively", etc, and that her opinions are "iconoclastic" based on your own observations at her lectures. Nobody cares about the personal opinions or observations of an IP address or even of "BM". Find a written source that says this, which others can verify, and quote it or refer to it. At least be prepared to cite it on this Talk page. But characterizations cannot go into the article based on your personal, unsourced, observations or opinion. I also removed the bit about "entrenched opinions", which is argumentative and, in any case, a side issue. Finally, if youy are going to edit much on Wikipedia, you should register so that your edits don't appear under a series of different IP addresses. --BM 01:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want to make it your life's work to remove from Wikipedia articles all unsourced material and personal research, fine -- it appears in well over half the articles I've read, so it should keep you out of trouble. In fact, though, even if your commenty applied to some of what you removed, it doesn't apply to most of it. The term "iconocastic" is a simple description of the nature of her lectures (and her published work); it's not personal opinion. Nor is the fact that she argues against current entrenched positions, nor that physicalism and certain accounts of Descartes are entrenched. What in fact you seem determined to do is remove from the article the material that various contributors to the VfD discussion requested -- that is, explanation as to why the subject of the article is of interest. Arguing against received wisdom is interesting, especially when it's done (as in her case) in major philosophical journals and in the lecture halls of a major University. Moreover, though my comments are of course, like everyone else's, based on personal experience – what I've heard and read – they're also based upon my knowledge of what others who attended her lectures and who have read and commented on her articles have said.
Your attitude seems to be that Wikipedia can only contain what's already been said elsewhere. I disagree, strongly.
As for registering, this only seems possible if one has cookies (and possibly Javascript) enabled; I don't. I understood that Wikipedia was editable by anyone, and that registering was unnecessary. 172.191.238.128 10:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that dualism is especially "iconoclastic". I would venture to say that dualism is not at present the mainstream view in the Oxford philosophy department. How widespread a view it is amongst philosophers in general, who knows? Professional philosophers don't submit themselves to opinion polls, so it is anybody's guess, and guesswork doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. As long as we are guessing, I would imagine "dualism" is actually the "entrenched" view among all but natural scientiests and philosophers at top-rank universities. The average person believes in "souls" and/or "minds". It is a few professional philosophers who are physcalists who are putting forward the "iconoclastic" view. In any case, this is just guessing. How do you know that physicalism is "entrenched" even in the Oxford philosophy department? Apparently, Oxford has seen fit to have a person lecturing on philosophy to undergraduates, whose only claim to notability (according to you) is that she is a dualist in a den of physicalists. She has published a few articles with her views in mainstream philosophy journals. She obtained her Ph.D. for a dissertation expressing her views, and even before it was finished she had an appointment at Balliol. You can make A.C. seem notable by claiming that she is fighting the good fight against an "entrenched" position; but here career belies your point. --BM 13:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who "BM" is, but he or she seems peculiarly ignorant both of the current state of philosophy (and of popular beliefs) and of the academic world. I'll declare an interest here; I'm Andrea Christofidou's partner, and also a philosopher. BM may live and work in a place where dualism is the dominant view, perhaps in some sort of religious community, but physicalism of one sort or another is most certainly the dominant view both within philosophy and outside it, to the extent that publishing articles from a dualist perspective is extremely difficult. I very much doubt that you'd find any philosopher who'd disagree with that statement. BM seems to think that no-one (apart from himself) can know anything -- not what is the case in their own discipline, in the world, even in their own place of work. Moreover, looking at his edits of the article on Andrea, he seems not to be able to preserve meaning (perhaps because he doesn't care). I notice that he's changed the sentence about her papers to make it read as though they're all attacks on physicalism, which they're not. (Is Wikipedia all written by this sort of dogmatic, officious, authoritarian, and ignorant person?)
I won't edit the article back into shape (frankly, I don't really care what Wikipedia says about Andrea, and I doubt that she will, either, when I tell her about it). In any case, I have plenty of things to get on with. However, for what it's worth, if the person who set up the page wants to e-mail Andrea for her permission to use material from her (public & public-domain) Web page I've no doubt at all that she'll give it. Her address is <andrea dot christofidou at keble dot ox dot ac dot uk>. -- Peter J. King 17:44, 20th Jan. 05 <peter dot king at philosophy dot oxford dot ac dot uk>
If what you say about the state of world-wide philosophy and the difficulty of publishing professional articles from a dualist perspective is true, then it should be a trivial matter to prove it. In fact, I haven't said anything definitive one way or the other on the subject, and have made it clear that my comments are guesses. They were put forward to illustrate that opinions being slipped into the article by the original author were not self-evidently true, and that different opinions are possible. Moreover, unlike the original author, I didn't try to put my unsubstantiated guesses into the article. All I require is that other people working on the article support their opinions the same as anyone else would have to do. Dr King, you should know that ad hominem remarks don't win arguments, and I'm a bit embarassed for you. Is this style of argument your customary mode of philosophical discussion? Or is it reserved only for people like me who challenge you without what you regard as adequate credentials? You may be discovering why the Wikipedia has a difficult time attracting academics: if you would care to publish your opinions about the poor academic situation of dualists, a Wikipedia editor can quote you or cite your opinion. However, you couldn't get your opinion published unless there was evidence for it, and Wikipedia only requires that you produce that evidence. You can't simply assert your opinion here and expect people to yield to what you suppose must be your greater authority. However, take heart: if what you say is universally agreed by philosophers, you or someone else should not have any difficulty establishing it, and having these facts will make the article much more interesting and valuable. Meanwhile, the article is not harmed by omitting unsupported opinions from her circle about how "lively" and "iconoclastic" A.C. is, and how "entrenched" those with different views are. Stick with facts that can be verified, and we will all get along just fine. --BM 20:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Dr King, my apologies for all this. If I'd known what Wikipedia was really like, I shouldn't have started. Now that I have, though, I intend to see it through. This BM obviously has a chip on his shoulder, as well as being ignorant (his remarks about proof and evidence demonstrate the latter). I have, as you probably know by now, asked for and received permission from Dr Christofidou to use material from her Website. I honestly don't think that all or even most contributors to Wikipedia are like him, though I must admit that this business has put me off being involved in any other part of it. (I enjoyed your book, by the way — but why was Foucault on the cover when he wasn't mentioned?) 172.189.85.114 22:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This dispute is easily solved: just substantiate the opinions that you keep introducing into the article. If you do, there is no issue. But substantiation does not take the form of "all my friends who go to her lectures told me they are lively", etc. Just cite some facts that can be verified. For example, may she got the "Lively Lecturer Award" or something. Should be simple. If you can't, then there is also no issue, since the characterizations won't be in the article. What is so difficult to understand or outrageous about this simple concept? --BM 22:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing's difficult to understand — it's just that your demand is absurd. Philosophy isn't like cinema or music, with back-slapping events like the Oscars or the BritAwards. Even your clearly limited knowledge of Academia must tell you that the notion of a "lively lecturerer award" is just a bit of silliness. And the idea that, just becuase something is clearly true, it's easy to prove is equally laughable. In any case, read other Wikipedia articles; they don't provide proofs and citations for every claim. This Gradgrind-style approach is ludicrous.
Incidentally, in your response to Peter King you say "I haven't said anything definitive one way or the other on the subject, and have made it clear that my comments are guesses". With regard to the former part, what exactly is, for example: "I don't agree that dualism is especially "iconoclastic" if it's not definite? With regard to the second part, I realise that your obsessive editing is based on guesswork; my contributions are not. Why not spend your time editing articles about which you don't have to rely on guesses? 172.189.112.141 09:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine. Don't put those statements in, then. They are not essential. Basically, you are insisting that your POV be in the article, and when challenged to support your views with facts, you are responding with "its obvious" and ad hominem attacks against the person asking for evidence. If these statements are not supported by verifiable facts, on what are you basing them, then? Why do you believe them yourself? The adjective I object to the most is "entrenched". This is extremely POV. First, even if every philosopher in the world were a physicalist except for A.C, it wouldn't necessarily be an entrenched position. "Entrenched" goes beyond the meaning of "widespread" or "majority" and implies that physicalists have seized control of academic departments and made it impossible for equally valid views to be heard or taught. That is a large claim and has to be proven. YOu can't simply slip it in to the article as "obvious". Even if physicalism dominates philosophy (which may well be true at departments like Oxford), that may not be because it is "entrenched". Another explanation of its dominant position (assuming it is dominant) may simply be that it is true and that dualism has been recognized as false -- that physicalism is "entrenched" in the philosophy department at Oxford the way heliocentrism is "entrenched" in the astronomy department. It may simply be that the arguments for physcalism are strong and those for dualism weak in the opinion of most philosophers. People holding views that are in the minority may find it more congenial to explain this fact by considering their oppponents view to be "entrenched", but it may simply be that the arguments for their position are weak. --BM 11:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • To Kappa Thansk for your intervention and attempt to find a compromise. I spent some time thinking about the alternative you suggest, but there are two things that decided me against. First, relativising it to Oxford is simply false; despite BM's insistence, it is a simple, objective, straightforward fact that physicalism has become a modern dogma both in philosophy and (perhaps even more so) outside it, both in and out of academia. I've never before come across anyone, in or out of Oxford, who denied this; most have thought it unobjectionable, a few have thought it needed challenging. Secondly, the term "entrenched" is neutral, again despite BM's insistence to the contrary; I've tried this out on friends and colleagues, and none objected to the term, even though all of them are themselves physicalists. As I've been writing this, one possibility has occurred to me though. What I've said is certainly true of Anglo-American or analytic philosophy; I believe that it's also broadly true of the Continental tradition, but I can't be absolutely sure. As soon I finish here I'll add a proviso to that effect. 172.189.49.186 14:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just looked over the edit history of this article; it looks as though outside mediation would help — why not put it on the Wikipedia: Requests for comment page? In the mean time, I've reverted it to the last version, as BM's changes (not for the first time, by the look of it) have altered the meaning in a way that I assume he didn't intend. In particular, his version read as though dualism were one of a number of physicalist views, and as though physicalism were merely the dominant view in Oxford! (Would changing "entrenched" to "dominant" help, by the way? It's not quite the same, and probably less accurate, but if it helps to stop this tit-got-tat bickering, wouldn't that be better all round?) Mel Etitis 15:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Mel, it didn't occur to me that my sentence could be interpreted the way you did, and I'm still not sure you are right. But I won't argue the point, and have reworded it. There have been several alternative wordings and attempts at compromise here, but the anon insists on characterizing physicalism as an "entrenched" view and has actally violated the three-revert rule to maintain his version. Why he should insist on maintaining what amounts to an argumentative and largely irrelevant side-remark in a short biography of a relatively obscure academic is unclear to me. --BM 15:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't know about a "three-revert rule"; I'll look it up, and if I violated it I'll stick to it in future. I take it that you did know about it, so you seem to have violated it knowingly. Why you should insist on removing this supposed "side-remark", which is hardly irrelevant, and which I don't see as being argumentative, in a short biography of a relatively obscure academic is unclear to me. On the other hand, I've just checked your contribution history, which is dominated by participation (almost always negative) in VfD discussions, and editing pages against which you voted — so perhaps your current behaviour isn't so unclear after all. 172.186.238.114 16:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, except that in my edit summaries, I advised you twice that you were on the verge of breaking the rule. The three-revert rule applies to reverts of the entire article. I have reverted the article twice, following your reverts, and made several other edits trying to arrive at a compromise on the "entrenched" point. In the process, I did revert the "lively and iconoclastic" sentence, but reverts of one sentence to prior versions are not violations of the three-revert rule. Also, you again descend to ad hominem remarks, besides not having researched my Wikipedia contributions thoroughly enough. There is also a policy against that, which you could also look up. You will note that I have not done that with you, although I have objected to your edits. Even if your characterization of my contribution history were corret, so what? I consider this article to be puffery for a non-notable academic. Having failed to get it deleted, I am now trying to keep you from turning it back into puffery. Unsurprisingly, you have a problem with that. --BM 16:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you really think that you've argued calmly, rationally, and with no ad hominem remarks? In any case, first, in the original VfD discussion I was advised that I should explain why the reader who didn't already know the subject should find it of importance; the reason is that A.C.'s work is iconoclastic, argues against entrenched positions, etc. I realise that you want to take out details of what makes her interesting in order to support your view that she isn't. I don't know why you're so insistent, but there you are. Secondly, your guess that physicalism isn't entrenched in philosophy outside Oxford and your guess that her lectures aren't widely regarded as lively and iconoclastic, are simply wrong. I have very good reason for making both those claims, and neither is susceptible of the sort of positivist proof you demand. Her lectures are extremely (indeed, astonishingly) well-attended, the undergraduate feedback forms (both for her lectures and for her College teaching) have been described as among the most enthusiastic ever seen in Oxford; neither of these things can be proved to you, yet they remain objective facts. Physicalism is the overwhelmingly dominant view in (Anglo-American) philosophy, has been for nearly a century, and those arguing for dualism find it very hard to get published (though in the last decade things have begun slowly to change). I have no idea what could count as proof of that, yet it remains an objective fact. If one can only put in a Wikipedia article what BM already knows to be the case, or even what can be formally proved to his satisfaction, it's going to be a pretty thin enterprise. 172.186.238.114 16:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not asking for formal proof. When you say that something is an "objective fact", this is just another way of saying that you believe it. I have only been asking you for your rationale for believing it. If it is that all your friends and professors tell you this, go ahead and say so, although perhaps you might concede that this is not very convincing. I think it is likely that Anglo-American analytic philosophy is largely materialist, but I do not know how dominant analytic philosophy is these days in American philosophy faculties. Nor do you, apparently, or else you would have told us these facts. I would be very surprised to learn that materialism is the entrenched view outside certain academic departments. The United States is a country where the vast majority of people are creationists, where the majority of people think that creationism should be taught in schools, and very substantial numbers of people think that evolution should not be taught. You are living in a very unusual environment and should not make the mistake of thinking that it is typical. On the "lively" point, finally you are producing some objective facts with the student feedback forms and attendance information. You could have mentioned that before, if you had not been so intent on berating me for asking for evidence. I might still ask you: how do you happen to know these facts about student feedback forms? Are they published somewhere, in a campus newspaper perhaps? --BM 18:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • To 172.186.238.114: I'm glad to see that you adopted my suggestion for a compromise.
    To BM: I hope that this can end matters. On the question of liveliness and iconoclasm, I see from a previous version that you changed "lively [...] lectures" to "lectures [...] which are reported by her audiences to be lively". Aside from the rather plodding and clumsy effect of the latter, surely if you're willing to accept that those who go to the lectures find them lively, then you're willing to accept that they are lively? Or is there an implied "(but they might be wrong)"? On what grounds? And if she argues against received wisdom, then she's iconoclastic — that's just a statement of fact, perfectly consistent with a NPoV. Couldn't this revert-war end now? Mel Etitis 16:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No, there was an an implied "reported to whom exactly"? The problem with "lively" is that we actually don't know whether they are lively. For all we know they could be boring, or kooky. In any case, there is no fact-of-the-matter about whether lectures are "lively" or "boring". These are opinions: one man's "lively" is another man's "boring". What is a fact is whether people report the lectures as "lively". 172 says they are lively because he is at Oxford (probably) and his friends who have been to the lectures say they are lively. But there is no apparent way that anyone can verify whether they are lively because the lectures are not notable enough for anyone reliable to have written about them. This is why 172 and Dr King object to being required to substantiate these characterizations. That kind of thing isn't supposed to go in the Wikipedia. As for "iconoclastic", even if dualism isn't very popular in the Oxford philosophy faculty and other bastions of analytic philosophy, lectures about Descartes from a dualist perspective aren't iconoclastic. Descartes was a dualist and people have been giving lectures from dualist perspective on Descartes and other philosophical matters for centuries. Our friend 172 wants to portray A.C. as a doughty iconoclast bravely standing up to the entrenched forces of physicalism, but this is just puffery. --BM 17:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • To be honest, this is rather hair-splitting at best. Wikipedia – indeed, all encyclopedias, reference works, and other academic and non-academic – contain descriptions containing terms like "lively". The idea that independent proof of the character of her lectures is only missing because Christofidou isn't important enough is, of course, ridiculous. I know of little evidence for the lectures of most philosophers, living or dead, important or not. Exceptions include Kripke... and I can't really think of anyone else.
    • For this reason most encyclopedias would refrain from making unsubstantiated characterizations of lectures. Also, some encyclopedias work on a different model than Wikipedia and allow their authoritative authors to render their opinions. Wikipedia is not such an encyclopedia -- at least it is not supposed to be. --BM 19:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I'm afraid that your comments on Descartes, and those who lecture and write on him, suggest that you're not very knowledgeable in this area. Of course Descartes was a dualist, and of course many philosophers have lectured on him, but very, very few have done so from a dualist perspective (in fact, note that the article doesn't attribute the iconoclasm to dualism; that came in with regard to publications). It has been noted by philosophers such as Williams (who himself was no dualist, incidentally) that "Cartesian" has become little more than a term of abuse in modern philosophy.
I'm a philosopher, and I know of Christofidou; not well enough to write about her, though well enough to be able to confirm that she has a considerable reputation as a teacher, and has a considerable following of students and ex-students. Still, though I don't agree with your position on her inclusion, I'd be happy to admit that there are many other gaps in Wikipedia that I'd fill before getting round to her (and I'm making a start on helping to fill them). Nevertheless, she is indeed known (and not only in Oxford) as a determined battler against the current orthodoxy. Some approve, others don't, but that's another matter. If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that such figures exist, even if you didn't know that she was one of them. You'd also know that physicalism is indeed deeply entrenched in philosophy (and other disciplines) in the U.K., the U.S., Australia — in fact throughout Anglo-American philosophy, and in a very unphilosophical way, and that 172 is actually being extremely restrained in his or her account of it.

    • Now you are doing it too. If I should know this, how should I know it? And if it is so obvious and easily known, why is it that when I ask for facts, I only get told how ignorant I am, and stupid for asking. If this is all based on anecdotal "buzz" in philosophy department lounges, then you shouldn't expect people who aren't professional philosophers to be aware of it, and if you don't have actual facts to support these opinions, you should be a good bit less aggressive when people ask for some evidence. Or perhaps, you might even consider whether your opinions are true. --BM 19:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • There's only two ways in which you could come to know something like this: either enter the philosophical world, or listen to those who are in that world. You consistently refuse to do the latter, so I suppose only the former is left to you.
        There are many things in this world that are true, and generally known and accepted to be true, but which are not easily or formally provable. The facts about the current status of physicalism within the philosophical world is one of them. One could point to many symptoms, to the pattern of publications in journals and books, to the attitudes expressed by prominent philosophers (indeed, I've already done some of that), but it's simply not the sort of thing that gets written about directly and openly, nor will it be until the situation changes. (Paradigms in a broadly Kuhnian sense, to use a close analogy, are not talked about or questioned until they begin to come under pressure, often not until they've nearly shifted.) As with many if not most disciplines, philosophers know what's going on in their own field when non-philosophers don't. The point of an encyclopedia is in large part to inform — that is, those who know pass on their knowledge to those who don't. Your attitude seems to be that only knowledge of a certain kind – that susceptible to formal demonstration – may be passed on. I disagree.
        It would appear that you take your non-philosopher's guesses, feelings, suspicions, prejudices, whatever, about philosophy to carry more weight than the explanation of a philosopher. Why, then, would you give way in the face of another source, published or not? What possible evidence would do the job? You've said that the opinions of those who attend a lecture aren't enough to show that it's lively, only that they think it is; then the opinions of those who awarded your putative and risible "lively lecturer award" would also not be enough. Perhaps only your own experience would be enough. You might find that that attitude works for you in life (though I suspect not), but it's surely singularly unsuitable for someone engaged in a project like Wikipedia. Mel Etitis 22:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you have not understood the particular situation of the Wikipedia. Other encyclopedias recruit recognized experts to write the articles. These experts are given a certain latitude in including their opinions. After all, they were chosen because they were deemed to be experts, and it is assumed that they would not have their good reputations if they wrote things that were not true, or at least very likely. That is not the situation of the Wikipedia. No contributor here can be assumed to be an expert, even those who claim they are. They are IP addresses or only-slightly-less-anonymous handles, such as "BM". That does not mean that they are incapable of producing an encyclopedia. But it does mean that the rules are different. Opinions must be substantiated by verifiable facts, or characterized as opinion, especially if challenged or questioned. On subjects where there is a range of opinion, that range must be presented as neutrally as possible. The contributors are not experts, but they have skills as collators of published primary and secondary sources, and as writers or editors. In addition, if there are two sides arguing that their point of view is "obvious" and "common knowledge" and refusing to bring forward facts that support their statements, then there is no way to resolve the dispute. This is why original research is not permitted, and why there is an emphasis on making statements that are supported by published materials. That means, basically, that facts which are "common knowledge" to experts but which for various reasons are not published cannot be included, especially if they are questioned. This is also a reason why non-notable people are not included in the encyclopedia. The facts about them are not published, and what facts are available are apt to originate from them and their circle, and not be reliable. Someone walking in, claiming to be an expert and an insider in a particular field, and refusing to play by these rules by virtue of his claimed expertise can actually turn into enough of a disruption as to cancel his expertise. Concerning the "lively lecturer award", I didn't imagine there was such a thing. I was using it as an illustration. Assuming there was one, whether someone had received it or not would be (in principle) a verifiable fact. Actually, eventually 172 did come up with some attendance information and student feedback information (although I don't know where he could have gotten the latter). That is what I was talking about from the beginning, and if he hadn't been so affronted by being asked for it, a lot of this could have been avoided. --BM 23:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


It seems to me that 172 has made a number of compromises, most recently with regard to the term "entrenched". Perhaps the page could be left in peace now. If you want to examine a page critically, my own article Lady Anne Finch Conway has recently gone up, and could do with some constructive criticism. Mel Etitis 19:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I'm glad to see that a compromise has been reached on "entrenched" and I hope we can find one on "lively and iconoclastic". 172 used the expression "widely regarded as lively and iconoclastic" which is a (theorically) verifiable fact in a way that just "lively and iconoclastic" is not. So I suggest something like "In Oxford she is best known for her undergraduate lectures on Descartes which are widely regarded as lively and iconoclastic". Kappa 00:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


That seems reasonable; I hope nobody minds that I've implemented it. If 172 objects, we'll have to sort it out, I suppose, but I hope that he or she doesn't... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/d/Talk%7EAndrea_Christofidou_0467.html"