[Taxacom] Wikipedia rewrites

Wed Feb 11 18:43:15 CST 2009

I want to thank those who recently drew attention to Wikipedia. I had
been thinking about it for some time as it is a unique situation where
it is possible to have otherwise suppressed viewpoints displayed
alongside the majority views. The example I have most immediately in
mind is the orangutan theory of human origin. I'm a bit slow with
unfamiliar programs, but today I had my first successful go at entering
information about the orangutan theory alongside the traditional
account. I plan to go viral more or less and track down every
traditional assertion about our purported common origins with the
chimpanzee and provide the alternative. Its going to be very interesting
to see what happens. This may not be a first, but it will be a first for
human evolution theory where the orangutan theory has been successfully
excluded from traditional accounts. In due course if I get comfortable
enough with the techniques I might also add an orangutan origins page.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kleo Pullin
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 11:23 PM
To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU; Doug Yanega
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikipedia rewrites

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

> Kleo Pullin wrote:
> 
> >I like contributing to a free knowledge base, so I do
> edit Wikipedia
> >articles, mostly California native flora and fauna
> pages, plus
> >marine life.  However, I don't edit microscopy
> articles because it
> >is frustrating seeing accurate information deleted,
> revised, and
> >dumbed down to incorrect, or seeing inaccurate
> information carefully
> >watched and maintained.
> >
> >There are areas on Wikipedia where experts don't
> stand a chance.
> 
> I have to ask, though: upon encountering the deletion of accurate 
> information (presumably by a single specific editor), did you raise 
> the issue with an administrator?

I raised the issue with other editors, who alerted an administrator,
who, admittedly without any topical knowledge of the issue, sided with
the edits of the problematic editor.  I questioned this as I was
providing a group of solid references for the edits I felt were
necessary for the article, but the administrator told me that the other
editor had a long established editing history while I was editing from
an IP.  When I registered with a user name and attempted to make similar
edits the same administrator interfered with the edits.  

The bulk of my edits to Wikipedia have stood the test of time, remaining
in their articles for years.  I mostly make corrections and add current
references from review articles in the peer reviewed literature.  The
small number of articles I have started still exist.  For me, it's just
in this one area where editors are entrenched and will allow no
outsiders (non-owners as Wikipedia describes them).

I think if I had aggressively pursued the issue, or asked editors who
were willing to read the literature I used to support the accurate
description of the topic, that I would have prevailed.  However, it was
a lot of work dealing with this issue, and I was editing articles for
fun.  

I simply stopped editing in my area of expertise to no longer encounter
the problem.  I continue to edit in other areas, and my articles
withstand the scrutiny of other editors, including resident experts in
the fields. 

Like Tony (below),  I had reached my limits

>"I have argued the toss in a few cases, but mostly reached the limit of
>effort I am prepared to expend arguing against the more persistent
(there >are always one or two...) and walked away, on the basis that
someone else >can always go in to bat later if the argument is
defensible."

>from Tony
> 
> I would strongly encourage folks like Kleo, or Paul, who have 
> obviously had negative experiences on WIkipedia, to look over the big 
> "List of Policies"
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies)
> and see if
> that looks like a system where "anything goes".
> There is nothing that
> they have not thought of and do not have a policy to deal with - 
> ingenious fools may have their day on Wikipedia, but that's ALL they 
> get. Ultimately, they will lose, *unless* no one opposes them.

Although I had a negative experience, I enjoy contributing to the
knowledge base for accessible, current information about my local floral
and fauna, and in a couple of other areas.  I think the idea is sound,
and I think that the critical mass of having a good encyclopedia may
eventually weed out the usefulness of the Wikipedia nerd over editors
with limited time but genuine knowledge of a subject area.

I consider my contributions worthwhile.

Kleo
> 
> Sincerely,
> --
> 
> Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology
> Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314        skype:
> dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not 
> UCR's)
>               http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either of

> these methods:
> 
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or use a Google search specified as: 
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List

Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either of
these methods:

http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or use a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here