[Taxacom] Rubbish, lies and hate by academic fraud Wolfgang Wuster on Wikipedia!

[Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman]

Doug, your comments below, do put into question your ability
and ethics in terms of your position as an ICZN commissioner.


When you cut out the bullshit, you and everyone else of
relevance knows that material on the Wikipedia hate page is patently false and
untrue and should be removed.


Now please do so! 

 


Snakebustersâ - Australia's best reptilesâ

The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.

Reptile partiesâ, events, courses
Phones: 9812 3322

0412 777 211

 
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:39:23 -0700
> From: dyanega at ucr.edu
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Rubbish, lies and hate by academic fraud Wolfgang Wuster on Wikipedia!
> 
> On 10/9/13 2:54 AM, Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman wrote:
> > By  contrast we just had it from another correspondent here on taxacom that Wikipedia has no interest in factual accuracy whatsoever and that all they need is an IP address they can link to.
> >   
> Here is the actual text of Wikipedia's official policy (from 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TRUTH):
> 
> " Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability>, used to define 
> the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "*verifiability, not 
> truth*". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material 
> added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable 
> source <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES>. Editors may 
> not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to 
> be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply 
> because they disagree with them.
> 
> The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" 
> meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum 
> requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a 
> sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be 
> appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative 
> to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT>.
> 
> Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and 
> reflections of current published debate within the relevant fields, an 
> overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related 
> to another core content policy, Neutral point of view 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>, which 
> holds that we include all significant views on a subject. Citing 
> reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged 
> gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most 
> appropriate sources have been used, and used well (see below 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TRUTH#.22If_it.27s_written_in_a_book.2C_it_must_be_true.21.22>).
> 
> That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean 
> Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's 
> reliance on rules of evidence 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence> does not mean the 
> court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it 
> /requires/ verifiability. Unlike some encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not 
> try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they 
> trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our 
> readers. We don't ask for their blind trust."
> 
> As someone who has personally made over 10,000 Wikipedia edits, and is 
> intimately familiar with WP policy and its enforcement, the Raymond 
> Hoser article there (which I had not read before today) is remarkably 
> objective, fulfilling WP's policies on NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and 
> Verifiability. There is not a single example of an ad hominem attack *by 
> an editor* - all negative comments are quotations from published and 
> cited sources, and the article even quotes Hoser's comments in his own 
> defense. As such, there is no legitimate point of contention here, so 
> far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. Mr. Hoser: It is ultimately 
> irrelevant whether you feel personally offended by the low opinion the 
> world has of you and your work; that low opinion is your own doing, not 
> the result of any conspiracies against you, AND it is a matter of public 
> record - a record that the WP article accurately reflects. If you don't 
> want that to be your legacy, then maybe you should reconsider how and 
> why you do things. Have you ever read "A Christmas Carol" by Dickens?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> -- 
> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (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 Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.