[Taxacom] Wikipedia rewrites

John Grehan jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Fri Feb 13 11:20:54 CST 2009 

Perhaps there would be less ruckus, but I'm not interesting in keeping
orthodoxy comfortable. What would be the point? In conventional
publication formats unorthodox versions could be given access and this
would not cause too much ruckus because orthodox articles could continue
to be published that pretend the alternative does not exist. I see this
in biogeography all the time. 

Wikipedia offers a potentially unique situation in which orthodoxy has
no necessary control over content. So they may not like it. But so what?
Science is supposedly about evidence, not popularity. If 'people' think
I am giving too much attention to the orangutan theory is that any
different to my view that I think they are giving too little? 


John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Zander [mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:54 AM
> To: John Grehan; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Wikipedia rewrites
> 
> There might be less ruckus if you put up a separate entry on orangutan
> origins rather than copiously annotate the standard theory. You can
then
> put a link at the bottom of the standard theory entries to your
> alternative, and thus duck "corrections" on the basis of people
thinking
> you are giving too much attention to this theory.
> 
> *****************************
> Richard H. Zander
> Voice: 314-577-0276
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> *****************************
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM
> To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikipedia rewrites
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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

More information about the Taxacom mailing list