alt.fan.tolkien

On 2022-02-09, Paul S Person wrote: >[stuff] You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's unfortunate.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:44:23 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote: >On 2022-02-08, Paul S Person wrote: >>>There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all >>>reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by >>>Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research >>>editor can check the accuracy of the article. >> >> If you say so. > >You can read Britannica's article submission policy as well as I >can. This isn't Wikiepedia. > >>>Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission >>>original research? >> >> I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what >> you are responding to. > >Please try to pay strict attention to what is written. I didn't >attribute the quotation to you, I just quoted some words from the OP, >whose position you are (partly) supporting. Precisely -- I am PARTIALLY Supporting it. Quoting him as if I agreed with him any point I haven't mentioned is clearly a form of bad behavior. Believing it can be excused is a sign of dementia. >> Consider the article >> >> >> It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have >> /any notations at all/. >> >> Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and >> /not allowed on Wikipedia/. > >Correct. If anybody had any interest in the article, they could flag >it accordingly. I have no interest, so I'm not going to. You are free >to. Thank you for confirming the OPs point, to the extent that his submissions were as reasonable as the items cited. BTW, such citation-free sections are quite common. The idea that Wikipedia merely repeats what others have said is nonsense; and, even it they did, simply gathering it together in one place constitutes original research -- unless the compilation has a citation. -- "I begin to envy Petronius." "I have envied him long since."

On 2022-02-08, Paul S Person wrote: >>There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all >>reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by >>Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research >>editor can check the accuracy of the article. > > If you say so. You can read Britannica's article submission policy as well as I can. This isn't Wikiepedia. >>Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission >>original research? > > I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what > you are responding to. Please try to pay strict attention to what is written. I didn't attribute the quotation to you, I just quoted some words from the OP, whose position you are (partly) supporting. > Consider the article > > > It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have > /any notations at all/. > > Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and > /not allowed on Wikipedia/. Correct. If anybody had any interest in the article, they could flag it accordingly. I have no interest, so I'm not going to. You are free to.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 18:31:00 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote: >On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person wrote: >> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply, >> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public >> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of >> crackpottery. > >But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be >checked by re-doing the research oneself. >Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real >publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net. > >> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been >> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out. > >If they have been published, there's a source. > >> Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to >> extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it >> is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/. > >It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of >grass. You are (deliberately?) missing the point. >There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all >reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by >Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research >editor can check the accuracy of the article. If you say so. >Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission >original research? I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what you are responding to. Consider the article It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have /any notations at all/. Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and /not allowed on Wikipedia/. And yet, there they are. The principle of requiring references is not, in and of itself, evil; but when it is used to squelch unwelcome information, it becomes evil. When the criterion is /really/ "do I like it?" with "original research" as an excuse for rejecting it, it becomes, indeed, censorship. -- "I begin to envy Petronius." "I have envied him long since."

In rec.arts.books.tolkien Julian Bradfield wrote: > On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person wrote: >> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply, >> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public >> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of >> crackpottery. > > But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be > checked by re-doing the research oneself. > Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real > publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net. And when it is wrong,it needs to be regularly denounced. >> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been >> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out. > > If they have been published, there's a source. > >> Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to >> extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it >> is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/. > > It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of > grass. However,it is profoundly foolish to treat a particular published reference as conferring validity on a ubiquituously known fact. > There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all > reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by > Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research > editor can check the accuracy of the article. > > Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission > original research? Britannica has signed articles on a variety of topics that represent the writer's scholarship. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In rec.arts.books.tolkien Michael F. Stemper wrote: > On 07/02/2022 12.31, Julian Bradfield wrote: >> On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person wrote: >>> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply, >>> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public >>> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of >>> crackpottery. >> >> But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be >> checked by re-doing the research oneself. >> Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real >> publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net. >> >>> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been >>> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out. >> >> If they have been published, there's a source. > > One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth > in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because > it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information > only". > > So rejecting information about LotR because it has no citation is hardly > "Tolkien Censorship". What it is is consistent with their published policies. Which policies constitute indefensible censorship best described as such. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 07/02/2022 12.31, Julian Bradfield wrote: > On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person wrote: >> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply, >> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public >> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of >> crackpottery. > > But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be > checked by re-doing the research oneself. > Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real > publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net. > >> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been >> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out. > > If they have been published, there's a source. One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information only". So rejecting information about LotR because it has no citation is hardly "Tolkien Censorship". What it is is consistent with their published policies. -- Michael F. Stemper The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder". It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.

On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person wrote: > That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply, > both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public > works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of > crackpottery. But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be checked by re-doing the research oneself. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net. > Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been > published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out. If they have been published, there's a source. > Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to > extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it > is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/. It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of grass. There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research editor can check the accuracy of the article. Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission original research?

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:52:59 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote: >On 2022-02-06, Louis Epstein wrote: >>> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome" >>> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather >>> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations > >If you don't understand why Wikipedia works as it does, perhaps you >should just not care about it. > >The prohibition of primary research is of course irritating - I'm an >expert on quite a lot of (genuine technical) things, but I still can't >write on them other than by citing published work. >However, it does have an obvious purpose: if something is stated on >Wikipedia, you should be able to trace it to a reputable published >source, not some random loony on the Internet. >Those of who use Wikipidia professionally (I tell all my students that >it's a very valuable resource) appreciate that it doesn't allow >"primary research" - otherwise the articles on, say, NP-completeness >or Goedel incompleteness would be full of stuff by crackpots claiming >to have solved/refuted them. That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply, both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of crackpottery. Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out. Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/. Note that I am interpreting his points through my own filters. He is free to disavow my examples. -- "I begin to envy Petronius." "I have envied him long since."

Posting-Frequency: Monthly (FAQ also posted monthly) Welcome to the Tolkien newsgroups! Our FAQs can be found at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/ Even if you haven't read all of /The Hobbit/ and /The Lord of the Rings/, you are welcome here, but be careful! Spoilers for the stories can be anywhere, even in the subject line of a message. To help you join our community as comfortably as possible, we do ask that you read our Frequently Asked Questions lists before posting. The FAQs discuss proper "netiquette" for participating in discussions here, and also introduce the basics of our most frequent debates (the main Meta-FAQ page lists the most "important" questions in bold). Once again, welcome! We look forward to your participation.