User talk:Trishm/Archive 1

Hi

I wanted to touch base with you, checked your edit history first, found this which gave me more confidence to contact you. You clearly intend to be/become a good editor here at Wikipedia. Perhaps I can be of assistance? I promise to be less grumpy... AvB ÷ talk 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a friendly approach is always welcome, and I would appreciate your thoughts. I honestly do think that almost all editors are genuine, intelligent and trying to improve the article. I am well aware that the ID article is an absolute minefield, but it is an extremely important one as around the world as various ministers attempt to take evolution out of the school curriculum, sometimes to the cost of their careers. I would like to do what I can to help demystify the debate that is raging in the public arena. If you have looked at that edit, you will have gathered that I think that NPOV is a difficult balance, and that the different editors have different priorities assigned to the different aspects of NPOV.

I haven't actually successfully submitted that request for assistance, and looking through the policies some more, it seems that it should be a RfC anyway, in conjunction with other editors.

What advice would you have for starters? I promise not to bite.Trishm 04:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly thinking of giving you my take on specific problems you may run into as they happen. I do have some general advice though - please ignore things you already know, and feel free to comment.

Most importantly, the balance between NPOV and consensus is rarely fully understood by relatively new editors. I don't know if the penny has really dropped for you, and it's not so easy to explain. It comes with lots of practice. WP:Consensus does not trump NPOV (both the principle and the policy), but at the same time all we have to write, interpret and enforce policy is WP:Consensus. New editors are generally flabbergasted when it dawns on them that admins and ArbCom do not handle content disputes but only make sure that our policies & processes are followed. In short, we have methods to facilitate the consensus process. No expert to determine final content, only editors between them deciding what are reputable sources etc. etc. And you're right in concluding that editors may be looking at different aspects of NPOV at different times. Once again it's something you'll get better at with experience (your mileage may vary - I've seen teenage admins working at a level I think I'll never reach). It may be interesting to hang around on policy talk pages and even, if you dare, try to get a consensus for improvements. If nothing else, explanations from resident folks like Kim Bruning or SlimVirgin (and many more) may be quite helpful. Not that the senior types always agree about everything. And I've seen them disagree with an obvious change I proposed, only to see, to my delight, they had agreed on that same change when I returned from a wikibreak; my strongest opponent, the author of the original text, is now the strongest defender of the new language and has long forgotten who disputed the original text.

You've started to pick up the finer points of the ever-shifting balance between editing practice and adherence to/modification of policy text. Editing less controversial, less developed articles through undisputed changes or regular consensus-building should be easy for you. However, if you want your changes to stick in well-developed, well-monitored articles like the ID one, you'll need to (1) have WP editing down to an art form (2) have a rock solid standing as an editor, preferably be an admin but at least have a good editing history with thousands of edits in a variety of articles (3) be aware of the personal relationships between the various editors currently involved in the article, etc. etc.

Some of the above involves activities you may not be (too) aware of, as well as ones you've been starting to use, the latter most notably including the various parts of the WP:DR process as initiator, involved participant or outside commentator. There are all kinds of community chores where you may want to participate, add your opinion or vote, or simply get to know more editors, for example at WP:AfD, WP:RfA. I personally find it worthwhile to do RC (Recent Changes) patrol using VandalProof. Some people hang out at the WP:VP. If you look around in Wikipedia you will see other things to do and/or learn about while helping Wikipedia grow and keeping it neutral.

If you're going to invest lots of time in Wikipedia it will be good to ask yourself what exactly you want to achieve here. For me personally it's the basic thought: knowledge will set people free that are not free now. Wikipedia is our gift to the world. That's why I'm mostly working on the English Wikipedia even though I'm Dutch. I sometimes work on articles related to the Christian faith simply because I happen to have some expertise there. Admittedly, all I knew about ID was Europe-centered so I had to spend several hours getting up to speed with the subject. OK I should stop, I'm not here to ramble on about myself :-). AvB ÷ talk 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I couldn't agree more with your thought about the power of wikipedia to make knowledge available to all. I am interested mainly in education and the misinformation that abounds. Maths, science and history are special interests. I am interested in ID mainly because of the misinformation about it. Given your criteria for having changes stick in ID, and acknowledging how I'm not there yet on any of them, I'm amazed that as much as has stuck as it has! I think you are right, I need to broaden my scope a bit, and get involved in the community chores. I thank you for the suggestion of hanging around the policy talk pages.Trishm 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're certainly on your way there. Your edits still have to stand the test of time but I'm optimistic. Still, the ID article is extremely resilient to change. Whenever a newer participant seems to have given up, their changes seem to autodestruct unless (1) most regulars think it was a real improvement (2) one of the regulars took part in improving the edit. I can't really blame them; Wikipedia has no mechanism to freeze articles (but we're working on a snapshot that will at least function as a temporary freeze, see WP:1.0). I'm not so sure I'll stick around long enough to become an ID regular. I'm certainly not needed there; the current regulars are good, experienced editors who will defend current content. The "longstanding consensus" trick is nice and I think it may become policy at some point (assuming many other articles are being similarly defended). AvB ÷ talk 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative

You may not like the term, but the context was within the United States, and the term conservative is used in the context provided by the refernece cited. When you start changing words in specifically cited sentences, you should first consult the reference, as you may be invalidating the citation. I'll change it back since I have the reference, and conservative is the word that was used, and whether or not he meant literalist is not clear cut. By the way, I hope this doesn't sound hostile, but I was careful to faithfully reproduce the point made by the author, and am a little concerned about simply changing words.

StudyAndBeWise 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed. Anyway, feel free to change it back again if you think I am wrong. But please add a topic to the discussion, and I will respond tomorrow after I get some rest.

StudyAndBeWise 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't realise that it was a direct quote, so I can see why you want it left alone. You're right, I don't like the term. Apart from being US centric, and I would hope that the audience that Wikipedia is writing for is broader than that, I find it woolly and misleading. When I see the term used in a religious sense within a US context, conservative seems to mean "literal" most of the time, as well as implying a long tradition without claiming any specific tradition. Other times, "conservative" borrows the sense of right-wing ideology from the political arena, where the sense and who it applies to is even less clear, but I don't think that's what the author meant.

From the context of the sentence, couldn't you more accurately replace "theologically conservative" with "creationist", if you don't like "literal"?

BTW, this issue has already got a topic here.Trishm 12:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID

I'd be happy to help with any of the problems you're having with the ID crowd. Please just let me know where the relevant pages are. I noticed your AMA request (I'm not an AMA advocate, I'm just nosey. :P ) I feel for your frustration. I'm having similar problems with psudoscience in the area of race and intelligence.

SBC

I've added them back to the list with a citation. JoshuaZ 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. They are certainly more fundamental than they were. And yet it is not reflected in their beliefs on their website, or at the Scopes trial? Do you know more?Trishm 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The 1982 resolution is worded very strongly but I can't find anything more recent than that that is a convention level resolution or such although sbc.net has many articles bashing evolution and supporting ID and creationism (I don't know to what extent those are meant to be official opinion). The statement of core beliefs refers to the "special creation" of man which in most contexts means not evolved but it may have a different meaning in this context (possibly some theological subtlety that I'm missing). Since the denomination is less centralized and makes a point of emphasizing fewere doctrinal details than most other denominations its hard to tell. In general, most conservative protestant denominations in the US have become more creationist in the last 40 years. JoshuaZ 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shift is certainly there. The RC and Anglican interpretation of "special creation" is of the soul, and quite compatible with evolution, so even that can't be taken as definitive. It was also how the Baptists that I knew saw it, back when. I have been reading recent resolutions, and even those that speak about teaching in schools are concerned about homosexuality, and without mentioning evolution. Just speculation, but it seems that the Fundamentalist leadership takeover of the early eighties seems to have been a push to change what was the most doctrine-free tolerant crowd I ever came across closer to a fundamentalist stance, and I'm not sure that it has been entirely successful.Trishm 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this isn't too off-topic, but having come here to make it clear that remarks about teddies were just my Scottish sense of humour, found myself diverted into editing Creation-evolution controversy#History of the controversy to note that "radical Quakers, Unitarians and Baptists welcomed [Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation]'s ideas of "natural law" supporting their struggle to overthrow the privileges of the Church of England" based on Desmond and Moore's biography, and add in Moore's point about a shift in attitudes in the US which he relates to the First World War. So in 1844 some Baptists were happy to support evolution (if not human origins) as part of their struggle - at that time the C of E had huge influence in England, and you had to sign up to the C of E to attend university at Oxford and Cambridge, which till lately had been the only English universities. As the establishment church they opposed evolution as a threat to their position, and to the social order – radicals were even proposing giving the vote to the lower classes and to women! .. dave souza, talk 09:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish! Well that explains everything then, mate. I'm an Aussie myself. Trishm 12:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AMA request

I saw that you had placed an AMA request. You appear to be civil and very well-intentioned, and if you still need assistance I would be very happy to accept your case. Seraphimblade 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

In response to your inquiry, WP:NPOV and WP:V address these possibilities to some extent. For example, if a view is held by an extremely tiny minority, it generally shouldn't even be mentioned or factored in except perhaps in an article specifically about that minority. For example, we don't mention the Flat Earth Society in the Earth article, as that would be giving their position undue weight. On the other hand, if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, we do mention the viewpoint, but it should be made clear that the view is a minority one. While writing here, no matter how much we ourselves may "know better", it is necessary to present things neutrally and according to sources.

Have a look over WP:NPOV, especially the section on undue weight. If you think that section or anything else needs to be addressed or changed, I've participated in quite a few policy discussions, so I'd be happy to give you any advice you might require. Seraphimblade 10:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed your AMA case as you requested withdrawal. Still, if you need advice, please don't hesitate to ask. :) Seraphimblade 12:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the Creationists

Trishm, I added some comments to Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Counting_the_creationists, and filll provided a possible reference (which I also commented on). I have not changed your addition, but only commented in your talk contribution on the addition. Just a heads up. StudyAndBeWise 06:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at Counting the creationists, part 2. I came across something that is causing a conflict, details of which are fully described at the above link, as well as how I stumbled across this. StudyAndBeWise 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I overlooked your comment at talk:ID, ID proponents misrepresent evolution as making a religious statement, which it does not, and also as being scientfically controversial, which it is not, and omits to mention that it is an incredibly useful, well-tested and well-defined framework for explaining the diversity of life.

ID proponents often fail to appreciate that the bulk of evolutionary researchers simply sidestep the issue of religion, in all honesty, just as astronomers and chemists do. Not to acknowledge this is discourteous, and possibly insulting. I wish they'd be more polite.

It's also confusing to say that evolution is scientifically controversial when it's more accurate to say, "the science is controversial", meaning that 55% to 85% of Americans disagree with biology's findings. The former phrase makes it sound like there is a controversy within biology, which is frankly ludicrous. 99.8% acceptance leaves little room for a controversy; the 0.2% clearly are in the minority.

Omitting mention of the framework's usefulness is again bad taste and actually undermines their own arguments about science. Einstein didn't badmouth Newton; he only touched on a rare, special case. Momentum and acceleration are concepts that work very well for heavy, slow things like cars and planes (rocket ships are another story, but still the relativistic effects are so slight as to be practically negligible).

All in all, ID proponents (and evolution critics generally) are shooting themselves in the foot by being so dismissive of evolution. I wish they'd be more reasonable, and above all, courteous. --Uncle Ed 01:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caretaker Gazette

I was wondering why you are adding the Caretaker Gazette to the AfD list. The discussion ended a while ago. Do you have the correct article? superapathy man 03:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why Trish would write "I couldn't agree more with your thought about the power of wikipedia to make knowledge available to all." and then Trish wanting to delete helpful, revised information that is in the same format as all other wikipeida listings for publications. Trishm writes that Caretaker Gazette is advertising, yet it is not advertising, and if User:Trishm thinks this is advertising, then Wikipedia needs to delete TIME, NEWSWEEK, MOTHER EARTH NEWS, and all the other publication descriptions contained in Wikipedia, which have the same information as is contained here. Take care, Gary C. Dunn, Publisher, THE CARETAKER GAZETTE, PO Box 4005, Bergheim, TX 78004 USA, (830) 755-2300, email: caretaker@caretaker.org website: www.caretaker.org Celebrating The Gazette's 25th Year of Publication!

Please point me to any Wikipedia contribution that you have made that was not self-promotional (of either yourself or your spouse).Trishm 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors participation drive!

Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! BuddingJournalist 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the good wishes.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shome pisstake, shurely? ...

While Talk:Intelligent design#Future research? Possible applications? has been rather entertaining, this does not seem to me to be the edit of an IDiot. ... dave souza, talk 21:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oz or nz it would seem. Perhaps User:Thedewi is somewhere in your neighbourhood! Didn't know you got The Young Ones, perhaps it was in revenge for Neighbours! ... :) ... dave souza, talk 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]