User talk:Peter Damian

Peter, per the clear community consensus at the administrators noticeboard, you are now unbanned. I've unblocked this account and removed the protection on the pages. Worm^TT(talk) 13:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI—I've restored the original anti-vandal semiprotection on his userpage, since IPs seemed to enjoy screwing with it in the past. Let me know if you want it removed. As an aside, out of curiosity, what does "οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω" mean? "Not good/useful many???: that I be (a) ???." My Greek is terrible and I don't know that word. :\ Anyways, cheers, and good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouk (not) agathon (good) polykoirania (multiple leadership) , eis (one) koiranos (king, leader) let there be (esto). Hence "the rule of many is not good, let there one ruler be", quoted by Aristotle at the end of book 12 of the Metaphysics, where he 'proves' the existence of God. It's from Homer I think. Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Homer.Peter Damian (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! The verb "to be" always gave me trouble with its many inflected forms. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on being let out of the pokey.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Back in the salt mines Peter Damian (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I'm the first to welcome you back, cool! After all that has gone down, I'm almost surprised you still want to edit this site, but I'm very glad you do, you're a great asset. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A warm welcome from me, too. Very glad to see you back! Huldra (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And from me, Peter. It's nice to see your name on my watchlist again. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Peter Damian (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Congratulations, mate. Along with your first barnstar in your new wikilife. :)) And thanks to all those who spoke up for "Peter Damian". Andreas JN466 14:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For commitment to the truth in relation to the Contribsx ArbCom case.Vordrak (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're just the kind of person who needs more kittens. William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... to everyone who participated, for better or worse. (Perhaps a bit more thanks to those who voted for the unban, but whatever, I am sure everyone had their reasons). Peter Damian (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hanging in there, Peter, it was a long and bitter wait, I'm sure. Just remember to do your venting at the other place and to dodge conflict here. It's really not worth getting worked up over in the final analysis, there is always plenty of work remaining to be done on some other topic if someone gets in your face about something else. All the best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. They are ALL yours. Bonaventure, Anselm of Canterbury, Lanfranc, Robert Grosseteste, John Peckham, Robert of Melun (and any other medieval English bishop who also was a philosopher or theologian...). Oh, sooooo glad to see someone who actually likes philosophy to hand the upkeep and upgrading of those guys to... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am working on a paper on Grosseteste at the moment. How are you doing? Peter Damian (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back. Glad someone is glad to work on philosophers. I've been working on filling in obscure nobles and clerks that were in the DNB and are in the ODNB but aren't here yet. When I have the time to work on wiki. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back and able to edit. For what little it might be worth, to the degree that I can help, which probably ain't much, just ask. Also, you might find the WP:RX helpful, particularly for reference works and articles or whole books. I know that I have found it, and some of the contributors there, particularly useful for getting items I don't have ready access to myself. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me too. The unban discussion closed too quickly for me to be able to participate in that (I had assumed it would stay open longer). If you ever get round to looking at Robert Boyle (still on my to do list), let me know, though I'm sure you have more than enough to do in other articles. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will be in touch some time. Peter Damian (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to byzantine Arbcom retardation I was unable to post to the WP:AN thread. The handful of opposes were an amusing stroll down Grudge-Holding Lane. Good luck, maybe Kohs can be the next one back into the fold. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you and thanks for popping by! Peter Damian (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I can help with anything, just ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While patrolling today, I came across a stub which may be of interest: structural evil. I've given it a quick wash and brush up but I suppose that there's a lot more to say on the subject. I'm not sure if you are especially interested in ethics but your experiences might add some spice to the work. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have little competence in ethics. Clearly the subject exists, however the title does not appear to. Thanks for letting me know. Peter Damian (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across something today that might interest you. I recently returned to an old draft in my userspace: User:Carcharoth/Article incubator/Selig Brodetsky Memorial Lecture. I first started this back in 2010 when my interest was piqued after writing Leon Mestel and noting the existence of the lecture. I then tried (and failed) to list the initial lecture series between 1960 and 1989. The lecture series was discontinued after 1989 and revived in 2002. I then constructed a list from 2002 to 2012 using a (now dead) source from the philosophy department at Leeds (this is where I remind myself I really need to learn how to archive web pages). This dead link is the first of the two external links currently at the bottom of the userspace draft. The second link there is one I found by Googling to try and find details of the latest two lectures.

Initially, I was pleased to find that second link (this page). On closer examination, I was less pleased to find that it appears to be a direct copy of the list I had made. This is somewhat ironic. It is not the issue of licensing and copyright (as simple lists are not copyrightable), but the issues of attribution and circularity in references. If they had not copied the information direct from my userspace draft (the links to redlinks are still there!), I would not have realised. It seems the information went from the Leeds Philosophy website to my userspace to the Centre for Jewish Studies website (also at Leeds). You would have thought they would have got the information from their own records? Or am I reading all this wrong? Maybe the British Society for the History of Science will have independent records? Or even the Leeds University main site here? It make me wonder how many 'reliable' sources are copying Wikipedia... According to this search, the page in question was posted on July 28, 2013.

The other thing I noticed is that 'Charles Burnett' is a redlink - he is this bloke here (Professor of the History of Islamic Influences in Europe at the Warburg Institute). He seems to easily meet WP:PROF and seems to write on philosophical and medieval subjects at times. Do you think a Wikipedia article on Burnett would be useful, or, as I suspect you will say, should the attention be more on the articles on the subjects he writes about? Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is citogenesis right? (2) Charles Burnett yes I know him, he is at the Warburg. He is a specialist in Arabic influence on medieval West. I hesitate to put him onto Wikipedia unless a clear criterion has been developed around this (that said, I will look at WP:PROF). Peter Damian (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I had a look at PROF. The problem is that the criteria are easy to meet, since you only have to meet "any one of the following conditions", yet I imagine most of the eligible candidates are not on Wikipedia. E.g. my co-writer Jack Zupko, eligible on three counts ("An extremely significant contribution to the study of Scotus", chair at Alberta, editor of the Journal of the History of Philosophy), has no article about him. I think most of the articles are probably written by the professors themselves. My view would be to make the criteria much tighter, and weed out 'Professor Cruft'. Peter Damian (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more, and these are not mere professors, but giants in their field: Sten Ebbesen, Simo Knuuttila [1], Alain de Libera [2], Paul Vincent Spade, Lambertus Marie de Rijk, William Courtenay (medievalist), Egbert Bos etc. Some have articles in the foreign language Wikipedias. So, where does one start? Peter Damian (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points and good examples. I really favour not having a biography article at all until after the subject is dead (and at that point, if needed, the historical assessment process starts, or in some cases concludes) and up until that point you either have no article, or a strictly word-limited article (plus picture if available) with a link to an official website or other resources, if they exist. The reason for limiting the word count is to make it easier to maintain BLP articles as short informative stubs (I mean really short!). On the other hand, if you don't couple that with a tightening of the notability criteria, you end up with a Who's Who directory. But that might still be better than the current situation. Not all the bios are written by the subjects themselves. If you look around the history of John Ebling, you should be able to see what happened there. Among the other drafts I have are one for the Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture (only one redlink there) and working on ones for the Fleming Memorial Lecture (John Ambrose Fleming) and the Shoenberg Memorial Lecture (Isaac Shoenberg). One of the links on the Fleming Memorial Lecture list is a 'Samir Shah' who is this person. But Samir Shah currently redirects to some Indian comedy TV programme where there is an actor of that name. Going back to the Selig Brodetsky Memorial Lecture list, do you recognise many of the names there? Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only Burnett, on a cursory reading, and because of his work on the transmission of the classics.Peter Damian (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that John_Ambrose_Fleming was involved in creation science.Peter Damian (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a celebration of Fleming's centenary in 2004 [3]. Yeah, the ones from the Brodetsky 'new series' don't seem that prominent (yet, at least). From the earlier series, I think Wheeler is the most famous, though Ginsberg was known in his time as well. Sometimes the prestigiousness of an award or lecture can slide downhill, though this one seems to have always been a bit of a mixed bunch. It is easy to end up going a long way down a rabbit hole with some of these lists of links - the contrast with the modern presenters is fascinating, though.

In the television lecture list (which took far longer than I thought it would - it is now here for what it is worth, not much, I fear), there is a mix of famous BBC grandees, government broadcasting regulators, television executives, and as you go further back, some moderately obscure scientists and some very obscure BBC engineers who did lots of the pioneering work on early TV engineering (I had to laugh, though, when I came across Talk:Barclay Knapp).

The missing article that stands out immediately from the crowd is James Dwyer McGee, who was elected FRS. The usual slips are present in the sources. The Royal Television Society page insists that the 1963 lecture Television Signals - from Transmission to Receiver was given by a professor 'J.D.E. Ingram'. That should in fact be 'D.J.E. Ingram' (the name below him in the list is the aforementioned J.D. McGee, which may explain the typo). While trying to find out who D.J.E Ingram was (Professor and physicist David John Edward Ingram of Keele and later Kent University, in the NPG here), I came across this article about a university rare book collection unceremoniously sold off (but I digress). It is no surprise that there are four David Ingrams on Wikipedia, none of which are the one I was looking for (David S. Ingram is a more famous academic). In a similar vein (with a name almost as common), you have at least 11 people named George Russell, none of which are the Sir George Russell of Newcastle University (see here) who was at the time Chairman of the ITC.

I don't think it is so much a case of 'Professor Cruft' as 'People Cruft'. The trouble with people is that there are a lot of them... (Gordon Cook, Ronald King, Thomas Scott, and William Wright being more examples of common names - invariably, some sportsperson has taken the name first; I'm interested in the optical lens designer Gordon H. Cook and the Royal Institution professor Ronald King and the radio engineer Thomas Robertson Scott and the professor William David Wright, but there will be many other people with a similar name that have (or may one dau have) articles under the current notability guidelines). Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're just the kind of person who needs more kittens.

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lie, sorry 'like' Peter Damian (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter:

You might be interested to participate in this Request for Comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits there, but I don't agree with the use of sources that don't discuss the subject of the article. Usually I'm telling this to people pushing a fringe position, which of course you certainly aren't trying to do. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can you clarify that please? The hypothesis is that the years between AD 614 and 911 didn't exist, so I added some facts about manuscripts which can be dated to that period. Or is the objection that the sources (e.g. Book of Kells) don't mention the hypothesis (which they wouldn't) so it's a form of original research? I guess that would be true. Peter Damian (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. If the sources don't mention the hypothesis, it's OR. That's in the first paragraph of WP:NOR, then below under the section "Reliable sources" it says " Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below." And 'below' links to WP:SYN. It can be a real bind in some articles, as in the Phantom Time one, where few reliable sources have bothered to tackle something that is so obviously wrong. But that also keeps out some fringe stuff as some falls below our notability threshold because of that. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK well shall I delete it? I can see it would be a problem if I was arguing for something that was obviously dodgy. However, it might help our readers to understand same basic problems with the hypothesis. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult for me to actually tell you to leave it in given what I've said to other people. I wouldn't have added it, but I'm pretty keen on keeping with our NOR policy as my experience is that although it's a pain at times, as I've said, it benefits the encyclopedia. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (sob). Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad, I agree, Peter. I remember one time I tried to add a textbook on quantum mechanics to What the bleep do we know!? article and had my hand slapped for original research. However, I have grown accustomed to the rule and actually now think that it lends itself to a kind of rigidity in Wikipedia that allows us to remove a lot of fringe claims and nonsense that gets added with ostensible sourcing. One of my favorite things to appeal to is WP:FRIND which basically says that we are free to remove any content in Wikipedia that hasn't been substantively dealt with by reliable sources that are independent of the fringe proponents. This allows for a lot of terrible content to simply be removed rather than rebutted with original research. You might also find that WP:FTN might be a good place to hang out if you're so inclined. jps (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK I understand. I might do some research on the subject for my own website Peter Damian (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to that interesting paper. Have you seen New Chronology (Fomenko)? Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, and there are a few others in that 'family', but none so interesting IMO as Phantom Time. Perhaps it's because Phantom Time involves some of the periods I study as part of my own work. Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However, I have grown accustomed to the rule". Another approach could be to ban those inserting fringe claims wherever you find them and remove the claims where they have inserted them. The real issue is that people writing in an encyclopaedia find themselves arguing with fringe proponents. Arguably interest in wikipedia would not have been maintained to current levels without the competitive element though. Second Quantization (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be in the "spirit of Wikipedia" of course.Peter Damian (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd be quite happy reinstating "evidence against" or even changing it to "evidence disproving." It is well-known in the skeptical community that there isn't clear and unambiguous scholarship refuting some of the more insane theories that are advanced, because they are sufficiently absurd on their face that no serious scholar will devote a chunk of his or her career to dealing with them. This is such a case, and the idea that Wikipedia policy requires us to treat the "Phantom time hypothesis" as a serious piece of historiography is a mistake. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment :) Or (as I now think) a section on the time period itself, suggesting, without explicitly stating, that there are sources a lot of things in the phantom period. I wrote an essay (WP:FLAT) a while ago, exploring the problem that there isn't much academic attention paid to the really eccentric theories, and so it is hard to find reliable sources. One area where Wikipedia really comes into its own is in the debunking of this kind of stuff. Peter Damian (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we are trading tales of dark spaces of Wikipedia, perhaps you might look at Gordon Pask and the related articles?

jps (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This copy of a Britannica article by Pask seems genuine, but the article is horribly written and ungrammatical. The related articles lack merit. I will take a look at the weekend. Peter Damian (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was a pioneer of cybernetics, but I really cannot make any sense out of Gordon Pask#Interactions of Actors Theory or Gordon Pask#No Doppelgangers. This is a problem that extends back years. You can read the talkpage if you want to get a headache. jps (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the talk page quite something. Peter Damian (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish. GangofOne (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The refs No. 59 and 61 (<ref name="am 2006 p91"/>) are broken [4]. There are more sources discussing this at G-Books but I can't identify "am 2006 p91". In the meantime, User:Francis Schonken reverts. It would be maybe better to develop History_of_Wikipedia#Formulation_of_the_concept or History_of_Wikipedia#Founding_of_Wikipedia, which briefly touches this part of the story. --Vejvančick�� (talk / contribs) 12:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't follow his logic but his reversion was noted. Hope you are well! Peter Damian (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... for calling you a troll (by using WP:DNFTT) and for referring to WP:DENY in my rationale to close the discussion at Jimbotalk. Furthermore, I admit to making a bad assumption about your motives based on things I read off-wiki - which is not only against policy, but none of my business.

I do think the discussion was no longer going to generate value at the time I recommended closure, and was becoming a drama-fest. I do think closing such discussions is not only allowed but is a good thing, for numerous reasons. Nonetheless, I reiterate my sincere apology for all of my bad actions noted here. To avoid further drama, I suggest I not bother to strike my offensive words there. Say the word, however, and I will, or link to this comment. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. By the way, the discussion on WO was merely about time stamps, if you read it. I made one comment about 'extraordinary', and that was it. I appreciate your apology. Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, what would one of these look like? I suppose it would have to involve expert review - if we're measuring more than just prose and formatting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this. First step is precise guidelines for article writers. Reviewers could then use the same guidelines for reviewing. More later. Peter Damian (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was considering (if allowed) writing a guest blog post for your Wikipediocracy blog regarding The Wikipedia Adventure and the "research" done to support it. Would this be allowed? Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am not in WO any more, but if you would care to email me there is something else I would like to discuss. Sorry to be mysterious. Peter Damian (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter Damian! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:59, Friday, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Begone, creature of darkness Peter Damian (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, but I feel like I've fallen down a rabbit hole. Discussions on Wikipedia appear to be about as logical and intelligent as the talk at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party or the courtroom of the King and Queen of Hearts. Or maybe somehow I've boarded an "Ark Ship" full of Golgafrinchans on their way to start a new planet.

I see that you've recently returned from a block. You don't seem like a very confrontational personality - more like a calm and quiet voice of reason. You should wear your block as a huge badge of hono(u)r.

The culture of throwing around unmerited threats in this place seems to come right from the top ... "if you disagree with me/revert my edit/do this or that again I'll ban you from my Talk page/block you from editing this article/block you indefinitely/boil you in oil" ... it all seems so puerile.

Is having no or poor self-esteem a prerequisite for participating at Wikipedia that nobody told me about?

Take care. — not really here discuss 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a bit puzzled that you contributed to WP for some time as an IP but never realized this obvious fact. 'Calm and quiet voice of reason' is how I like to be most times, but I occasionally get excitable when it gets too Mad Hatterish, and that's what earned me a ban. Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of answering your question in some detail I should instead have thrown your question right back at you. As I stated below, my only mistake is perhaps hoping that things might have improved somewhat by returning a few months later (the first time) or some five or more years later (this time around). My recent experiences lead me to believe that the cultural problems with Wikipedia emanate right from the top. I didn't have that perspective in previous involvements ... I just assumed that I had run into (or had observed; most of my bad impressions came from watching others being badly treated rather than from any personal conflicts) some editors that were particularly belligerent or boorish and that after a few months or years they would be spreading their malice and stupidity elsewhere on Wikipedia, or hopefully by then they would have been kicked off (indefinitely blocked). My departures were in some manner my refusal to feed the trolls in addition to my own real life needs at those times not to waste so much of my online time here.

So I am much more puzzled that you continue to stick around, particularly after having been blocked (meaning, most rational people will not return to where they are not welcome). As I stated in my OP to you, you seem like a rational and reasonable fellow, but much of what you post simply gets ignored ... intentionally so IMO (because people living lies tend to avoid having to deal with the truth), not because it makes no sense and is best ignored. What keeps you motivated? You appear to be in academia - why would you spend time here opting to be a sort of lone voice in the wilderness, or editing articles to the sound of crickets, rather than, say, spending it in philosophical discussion with your university peers? Most intelligent people do not have access to such opportunities after graduating college and so have to make do with sloppy seconds - such as burying our heads in books and surfing the web, etc. Trying to edit Wikipedia probably comes way down that list. — not really here discuss 21:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Most academics ignore Wikipedia, true. My concern is that it’s a sort of knowledge pollution. There are good sites (such as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) which deal in my subject area, but they are of a level of complexity that doesn't suit the average reader. I'm thinking here of the average reader as being someone who is smart and interested but doesn't have the technical background required to understand some of the SEP articles. So the average reader is more likely to turn to WP, and gets misinformed. That concerns me, just as a factory spilling out pollution would concern me. On the fact that my posts are ignored, well if you went to the people who ran the factory and told them about the pollution, what would happen? Some of them might be rude. I got banned from one of the WP mailing lists simply for suggesting that there were problems with articles. Others might be polite and reasonable, but their 'reason' would have some underlying element of denial. Hope that explains things. Peter Damian (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Continuing and expounding on your own analogy of pollution, there are many different types and levels of environmental pollution. For instance, the exhaust emissions from automobiles that pollute our atmosphere and environment on a daily basis is a world wide problem. However, you cannot eliminate or reduce that sort of pollution by attempting to stop the whole world from buying and driving cars or trucks, nor can you cut the supply off at the source and close down all the auto manufacturing plants, because there are too many of them and the auto industry in most countries is too critical to the economic prosperity and GNP of those nations, not to mention being too well connected politically. To address that kind of pollution you have to lobby international governments and oversight agencies and try to get them to put into place legal limits and control measures that will cap or reduce the exhaust emissions to "acceptable thresholds", which in turn will cause the auto industries in each nation to innovate technology (such as catalytic converters) that will allow them to manufacture cars that meet the newly mandated emisssion levels.

OTOH, if a single factory was found to be heavily polluting all the water supplies of the local environment with mercury, the huge uproar and backlash in the local community would almost certainly cause it to be immediately shut down, and the pollution problem resolved in that more direct manner. There are other approaches for addressing pollution that probably fall somewhere between these two methodologies, or combine aspects of both. But I have yet to hear of an approach to battling pollution that consisted of taking a job in the polluting factory or corporation and working directly on their production line helping to increase the output that was considered to be polluting the environment. Which, if you edit and expand WP philosophy articles, is exactly what you are doing. I just don't see your actions as being in any way effective in stemming the continued flow of toxic information and pollution of the overall human knowledge base.

OK, I guess you would argue that unlike the factory that polluted the local water supplies with by-products that contained mercury toxins, while the products it actually created were something that were relatively harmless to the environment, Wikipedia is the complete opposite situation, and it is the main product that WP produces that is toxic and so damaging to the human knowledge base. Thus what you are doing by improving some philosophy articles is the equivalent of managing to guarantee that one in every thousand cars that come off a Chevrolet production line is more environmentally friendly than the other 999 cars produced. Nevertheless, it still seems like a case of pissing in the wind to me. Not to mention the possibility that three weeks after you have just spent a month's worth of effort modifying and expanding a WP philosophy article such that it would be worthy of inclusion in the SEP or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, some jerk could revert most of what you have written and introduce new levels of nonsense and absurdity (not to mention spelling typos and grammar gaffes) back into the article, thus rendering all your hard effort redundant.

Wouldn't a better plan of action be to cause Wikipedia to somehow go away so that your average reader is then forced to access the superior quality SEP (or some other equivalent) site should he still wish to pursue his lay interest in philosophy? That would be one approach, at least, and it would be the parallel of the closing down of the single polluting plant, whereas Wikipedia's current situation is more akin to that of the world wide auto industry - i.e., most of us are now addicted / reliant to some extent on its output so it is not possible to simply make it go away (although it might possibly self-destruct and implode if WMF funding was no longer forthcoming). Maybe some sort of external regulation and monitoring of its pollution levels are required instead? I'm not really sure what the real life (WP-applicable) version of that regulation and monitoring scenario would be, nor am I advocating anything here - I'm just following through on your pollution analogy to see if it leads anywhere useful. Plus I'm still trying to work out exactly how I feel about Wikipedia myself. Did I really see Jimbo tell Neil that his reading comprehension may not be quite copacetic re his interpretation of the news article about Greta Scacchi? I'm so glad he spotted that before I did. :) — not really here discuss 08:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just back from holiday, I will catch up at some point. Peter Damian (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hello and goodbye really. The clueless smart-ass culture in this place is enough to get Job a permanent ban. Re "this obvious fact" (not sure if this referred to only one of my observations or the whole kit and kaboodle) ... when you edit away in your own little neck of the wood (meaning whichever articles you may happen to be invested in for whatever reasons) Wikipedia works very well. It's only if and when someone obstreperous shows up to create confrontation there that the seedier side of Wikipedia may rear its face. Depending on where and what they edit, many editors might never experience any such interactions and their time on Wikipedia may consequently be all roses. The other way to encounter the seedier illogical and/or confrontational side of Wikipedia is to go seek it yourself (not intentionally, of course) by, say, posting on Jimbo's (or even someone else's) Talk page, because this ensures you will interact with others by means other than just ES.

This is not my first spell on Wikipedia; it's probably my third incarnation. If one counts my editing as an IP as a separate spell, then it will be my fourth. Each time I leave in exasperation. Not because I get blocked or anything ... both my previous accounts are in good standing, just dormant. (I don't know if those accounts would be classed under editors who have exited in all these studies done on the demise of Wikipedia, nor whether my IP address and current user accounts are treated as one or two new accounts.) I first started editing around 2006/7 so all I've experienced of WP is its decline. None of the possibly early heady days. Each time I return it is worse. The whole culture of the place is too juvenile. Nobody knows how to discuss anything in a logical discourse as in a debating society or a philosophical discussion; it's all about scoring points off each other. It brings to mind the Monty Python argument sketch ... "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It's not just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. No it isn't! Yes it is!" That's pretty well how things go here, and also how you get dragged into it.

Re your puzzlement over why someone editing anonymously might not see all the warts associated with Wikipedia (it doesn't apply to me because my IP phase was my third phase) it will depend on what sort of edits they do anonymously. If all they do is make minor corrective typo and grammar edits then that sort of editing will be relatively hassle free. If you try and make wholesale changes to an article that is "owned" by a group of editors then they will probably rise up in unison against you, and even use your anonymous status against you, trying to make out that you are vandalizing "their article", so you will then most certainly see the seedier side of Wikipedia. I actually found anonymous editing much less confrontational (as per my response to JBL) despite the fact I made some fairly big changes to some articles.

My only mistake was to expect things to be improved each time I returned. My editing under this moniker is really only a continuation of my anonymous editing due to losing my static IP address, so there has really only been three phases of editing, thus only two returns from time away, so it's not quite a case of repeatedly shooting myself in the foot that it may appear at first glance. Because my frustration has been greater in each editing spell, that is the reason I became interested in discovering if others perceived Wikipedia the same way as I did, or was it just me? Looking for articles from external sources about a possible demise of Wikipedia is why I developed over the last few months the views I expressed in my first posting in that "Is WP getting better?" section of Jimbo's Talk page, and also why I can find RS to back them up.

IMO Wikipedia is a bit of a freak of nature. Everything would lead you to believe it cannot possibly work. Surely an encyclopedia that can be edited by anybody would fall victim to the vandals and spammers, etc. All the core concepts on which it is based are corruptions of real concepts - "consensus" on WP means two or more editors ganging up against another one (that's "mob rule" not "consensus"); "verifiability" is hardly anything Karl Popper would put his name to; despite the fact that the TL;DR guidelines/essay states up front that using it inappropriately is actually abusive it never gets called that way; and when Jimbo can't even adhere to AGF himself you really have to despair.

I'm now convinced that the toxic environment comes right from the top. Jimbo sets the low tone. I thought his Gamergate remark was out of order per AGF, and he directly lied about saying he was discussing "quality" - he never used the word. No retraction; no apology; no class. There was a source reference I was going to post (but I can't be bothered now) that described the resulting exclusion of more varied contributions from exiting editors as shifting "the balance of power on Wikipedia to those fewer active editors, and in turn could make Wikipedia more like a fraternity than a community-driven social encyclopedia." That was back in 2009 and I think it was a very astute / prescient observation because I'm beginning to believe that is exactly what has happened. Also, the more editors leave, the more the remaining mediocre ones make the environment more hostile to new blood because that keeps them as a big fish in an ever shrinking pond. Thus WP has become / is becoming an encyclopedia that is only editable by an "anti-elitist elite". "Elite" because those editors have been here the longest or made the most edits and are now part of the inner sanctum (not necessarily because they are the editors most fit for purpose), and "anti-elitist" because you can see how they clearly despise any sort of rival traditional publications (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) produced by peer-reviewed subject-matter experts rather than "by the people for the people" (which is how many view Wikipedia).

Anyway, this place can ungratefully suck the soul out of you if you allow it to, so I think it may be time I go on yet another hiatus lest that happens. Apologies for the wall of text. — not really here discuss 23:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs featuring Mellotron, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Richhoncho (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When I transclude your voter guide (and the others) into a single page (to facilitate reading and comparisons), the resulting page becomes a member of the [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides]]. To correct that, the Category in your page should be protected by a pair of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. In the Main space, I would have done that by myself. In your Userspace, I think it is polite to ask your permission. Pldx1 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, and thanks for asking. I will have a go. Peter Damian (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah not, that didn't work. Perhaps you could help?Peter Damian (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try and ask for confirmation. Pldx1 (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the nowiki - try it now. Peter Damian (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what went wrong. I copied the 'nowiki' bit as well. It should work now. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems OK now (I have changed for the long addresses of your macros, since they are transcluded too...). Thanks again. Pldx1 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long names are also required for the icons, since they are transcluded. I have double checked to be sure I have not messed your votes. But please, check again, for being sure ! Pldx1 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aylmer Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Transport. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to you. Peter Damian (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to you all.Peter Damian (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Peter Damian (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMF_Transparency_Gap
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri

You look like the sort of person who might be interested in temporal finitism, at least in its mediaeval aspects William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I can see a problem with "Modern cosmology accepts finitism, in the form of the big bang, but on physical rather than philosophical grounds". Aquinas argued that there were no philosophical grounds one way or another. This looks an awful lot of work. Peter Damian (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, potentially a lot of work, but I hope it could be interesting work. I wrote the sentence you quote, just recently :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Well it's not wrong, but could be misleading. Peter Damian (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say you find it "hard to believe" that Gayle Young is stating she has no trust in Tretikov. Sounds like you haven't been reading the Signpost, or William Beutler's blog. Note the comment by "WMF Staffer" at the blog. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was a rhetorical "hard to believe" - I have indeed read those articles. Although I still find it hard to believe. Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled by what is passing for philosophical explication at [5]. It's a jaunt through some pretty awful nonsense that is none the less surprising because this, apparently is the writer of the article.

Wow. How does SEP tolerate such awfulness? Do you know?

jps (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First, leaving any philosophical nonsense aside, is there any scientific nonsense? I am not an expert on the quantum stuff, as you know. Second, in reply to your question, this kind of thing can happen in a project like SEP, if the walled garden is large enough. I had a similar debate with the editors of IEP regarding 'Objectivism'. Peter Damian (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of "out on a limb" kind of stuff. I would say that most scientists who know about quantum mechanics would find the arguments being proffered to be more than far-fetched and the article seems to dwell quite a bit on ideas that are removed from actual quantum mechanics calculations. Interesting comparison to objectivism. I'll have to think on this. jps (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know some of the editors at SEP. If you can identify some specific passages, and explain to me what is wrong, I will take it up. But as you know, I am not an expert in quantum anything. I have skimmed through 2. Philosophical Background Assumptions and it is broadly philosophically OK (not that it is saying anything new). Peter Damian (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if I got some other physicists to have a look and provide their critique. I'll collect some of our thoughts and get back to you. jps (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, sadly this whole thing went nowhere. I contacted a few physicists and philosophers and realize that there is an incredible gulf between consciousness philosophers who think that physicists are just naive physicalists and those who realize that there is something rotten in the state of "philosophy of consciousness". It doesn't help that arguments over the interpretations of quantum mechanics are not resolved. In short, while I think it was a mistake for SEP to choose the author they did for that article, it's actually hard to know what to do about it. jps (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your edits to the above mentioned section. I am so surprised that editors were being called by their first names in such a controversial matter. What would really help the narrative is if those who are talked about were identified as to whether they are/were on the Board at the time of the incident, if they are staff, if they are editors, just friends, etc., so we know how seriously to take their emails and the context of the emails. Editors like me don't spend much of our time studying what WMF is up to and who the big players are. So, I don't know who all was on the board at the time, or who for example "Pete" is. Basic facts like that are frequently missing from these narratives. It would be pretty simple to identify the players. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best. Probably needs a 'cast of characters' introduction? Peter Damian (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start here. Let me know what else I should add! Peter Damian (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would use something more NPOV than "cast list" though. I thought you were joking about using that name for the list. Something like "Participants", "Identification of Editors", "List of Commentators", "Authors of Emails", "Parties" or something like that. Of course, some people might not be "participants" but more like observers/commentators. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of another one, not so NPOV: "Players". --David Tornheim (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This gives some context as to who Pete is. Obviously he worked on some grants, so he is not just another editor who was friends with James. And SlimVirgin is an admin. who I believe has been with the project for a while. Those kinds of details are helpful too. I don't feel comfortable editing Doc James's page directly, or I would make the changes myself. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know per a request by Chalst on my talk page, I've restored User:Renamed user 4/logic and placed it at User:Peter Damian/logic just so it wouldn't get U2'ed. If you don't want it there, I'll be happy to find some other home for it. Courcelles (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looks good. Many thanks Peter Damian (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, re: your comments about James on Jimbo talk: my understanding is that there were board meetings on 7–9 November last year, followed by a meeting between certain trustees and the staff. The meetings were held to discuss staff discontent with the ED. The secrecy around the Knowledge Engine was one reason for the discontent. (These meetings have been discussed in various places, including most recently here from c. 00:54:00 mins.)

During one of the meetings, according to James, Jimbo said something about removing certain trustees. This made James feel under pressure not to rock the boat any further, especially as he was in the minority and was therefore rocking it without effect, in his view. He therefore not only supported accepting the Knight grant, but proposed doing so after someone suggested that he propose it. So clearly the word "following" was used in the causal sense.

If we knew exactly what was said, things might be clearer. I asked Pundit and didn't get a clear answer. I've lost track as to whether anyone has asked Jimbo. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah - my difficulty is that James at one point explicitly denied using "following" in the causal sense. There are also other inconsistencies in his story. It is hard to judge whether this is connected with his evident difficulty in expressing himself clearly, or whether he is being deliberately misleading. I agree that it is difficult without knowing exactly what was said. Peter Damian (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think James is trying to explain by offering the minimum amount of information necessary to do so, which means we're missing important details. Apparent inconsistencies are arising because of the repetition of that same information from slightly different angles but without fluffing it out. Then people get annoyed with each other (e.g. "that wasn't what you said last time" or "why are you still going on about this?") SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sitting on the fence on this one. However, that in no way excuses remarks like 'utter f-ing bullsh-t'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue of pressure was first raised when James wrote: "I supported its [the Knight grant's] approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board." [6]

Jimbo responded: "I am specifically checking with every board member to try to get some idea of what, if anything at all, this accusation could be based on, and I have so far come to a preliminary conclusion that it is a flat out lie." [7]

After that (I forget where), James alleged that it was Jimbo who had made the remark(s).

For me, this is perhaps the most serious of all the issues. If one trustee indicated that other trustees might be removed (and this could be done in a very indirect way), it raises questions about whether it has happened before and how independent the board is. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. But we are entirely lacking the context in which 'comments about potentially removing members of the Board' was uttered, indeed there is no concrete evidence it ever was uttered. I wish Darius had been forthcoming.Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone asked Jimbo: "During the 7–9 November meetings, did you say anything in front of James about removing board members?" SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, AFAIK, and it would be the logical next thing to ask. Peter Damian (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. [8] SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the claim, it would sadly show James in a bad light - he made a motion that the foundation do something to keep his volunteer position? That sounds quite without integrity, honesty, or even good faith - to make a motion to do something for personal gain? As for removal, is the claim that he did not even read the corporation documents on trustees? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan I am not with you. Which 'claim' are you referring to? Peter Damian (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Indent is a problem - but basically the second paragraph of SlimVirgin's OP comment in which SV represents what James did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "During one of the meetings, according to James, Jimbo said something about removing certain trustees. This made James feel under pressure not to rock the boat any further, especially as he was in the minority and was therefore rocking it without effect, in his view. He therefore not only supported accepting the Knight grant, but proposed doing so after someone suggested that he propose it. " ? Peter Damian (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a situation that sometimes happens in real life (i.e. outside Wikipedia). Faced with the choice of taking the high road, and losing any kind of influence to improve things, and backing down and trying to fix things from the inside, the latter course is often the best to take. I honestly can't blame James for that. It's very hard to judge, without more detail. Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. From my own experience, it doesn't much happen in real life that people who are fiduciaries move the corporation to enter into a contract because they want to benefit themselves personally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What 'contract' was James entering into? How was he 'benefiting himself personally'?Peter Damian (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the alleged circumstance is a board member moved the corporation to enter into an agreement with another foundation to protect his own seat. (The alternative, of course, being that it really is a good deal for the corporation on it's own merits, which would mean that it was the pressure of the good merits of the deal, which would be the only fiduciary reason to move the corporation to do it - where you are putting the corporation's interests before yourself - and not to save a seat for yourself. But it appears the fuss that has been made is it is a bad deal for the corporation.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This makes little sense to me, when the alleged 'benefit' was not being dismissed. The question is, as I already said, which action better protects the ultimate interest of the Foundation? If you are threatened with being dismissed, and you resign, that may not be in the best interests of the Foundation. Peter Damian (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Perhaps asking questions will help then. What is the duty of a fiduciary? To put the corporations interests above his own. What is the duty of a fiduciary into entering into a deal for the corporation? To judge whether the deal is good or bad for the corporation and if it is is a bad deal to refuse it. If you are, nonetheless, approving the bad deal, you have deliberately injured the corporation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, it should be crysal-clear by now that the board was intent on approving the Knight Foundation grant anyway, whatever Doc James did. And it needs to be said that as far as the actual deliverables of the grant are concerned, there is nothing much objectionable in it – a point Jimbo Wales has made repeatedly. I think James would see that much the same way, and there is nothing wrong with voting for the grant, or proposing it.

As I understand it, James's problem has always been with the lack of communication about the long-term vision of the plan: its total costs approaching $35 million over several years (which Jimbo has now confirmed), and its overall strategic direction, as spelt out in the supporting documentation included in the grant agreement. Now, according to Lila, it was the board who didn't want to publish the grant agreement; the reason given was "donor privacy". Today we know that in fact the donor was all in favour of complete transparency, as they confirmed in response to a Signpost enquiry. It was only after the Knight Foundation contacted the WMF that the grant agreement was released. [9] Shouldn't that give us pause for thought?

And incidentally, to this day nothing in the grant agreement conflicts with the Discovery FAQ page on MediaWiki. Jimbo has been stressing that the Knight Foundation grant (which covers only the first stage of the project) is for optimising internal search only, but even so, he has confirmed the scale of the overall project costs and duration, as discussed by the board, and begun to tell people that "an interesting and useful conversation could be had about what non-WMF resources might be included in a revamped discovery experience".

When this started out, James indicated that Discovery was a major change in strategic direction: a very large search engine project that would cost the WMF tens of millions of dollars, that it was not just about improving Wikimedia-internal search, and that he was uncomfortable with the lack of communication with the volunteer community, who was completely in the dark about what was being planned. As far as I can see, all of those points have merit. You can argue to what extent the community should be involved in decisions like this, but there have been multiple events in recent years where lack of community involvement in software engineering decisions led to major breakdowns in relations between the WMF and the volunteer community. Given this backdrop, you can't really blame someone for warning the board that a lack of communication with volunteers might lead to problems down the road. Andreas JN466 20:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you claim, the Knight deal is good for the corporation, than no one would see a need to approve it for any other reason than the deal itself is good for the corporation, but the apparent claim now is that it was not even proposed for approval to the corporation because it was good for the corporation on its own merits but because someone wanted to protect their own seat. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, there is some logic in what you say. Your point is that if James was threatened with dismissal unless he moved the Foundation to enter into an agreement, and if he so moved in order to prevent being dismissed, then he is morally to blame. Is that your point? If you accept that the Board threatened him with dismissal, are they without blame? Peter Damian (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point is that if you are a fiduciary entering into an agreement for the corporation you must put aside fear or favor (real or perceived) for oneself in judging whether the agreement itself is good for the corporation. There will always be a real or perceived threat that others will not approve of your judgement and the only remedy for that is if they all trust that each other's decision in entering into the agreement (or refusing the agreement) was made solely on the basis that it was good (or bad) for the corporation. In truth, I don't know how any threat was delivered. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening, Alan. The approval of the Knight Foundation grant is not the issue here. Firstly, the board wanted to accept the grant. There is nothing wrong with accepting money supporting work you are going to do anyway. Secondly, who formally proposed the motion to accept the grant was of no consequence here, given that the board was in favour of accepting it anyway. It had previously been discussed with the board at Wikimania Mexico. Thirdly, the grant only supports 10% of the costs for the first stage of the project, which is indeed about Wikimedia-internal search. It's a restricted $250,000 supporting a project the board estimated would cost over $30 million. In money terms, it's peanuts; the Foundation takes more than that on many a December afternoon. The whole issue is about the lack of communication about the long-term plans, and the various instances of dissembling and obfuscation that have occurred in relation to those plans, which also played a part in the staff unrest prior to Lila's resignation. Andreas JN466 05:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The approval of the Knight grant is the issue when discussing the cause for it being proposed to the board. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been proposed and approved anyway, Alan. But when a board introduces a motion, formality requires that someone be recorded as having proposed it, and someone else has to be named as having seconded it. The "cause" of it being proposed is that the board supported the project and the grant application. As Jimmy Wales has pointed out, that was several months prior. "Lila gave us a run down at the board meeting in Mexico and we encouraged her to move forward." [10] Andreas JN466 16:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter, there is speculation above that this may have happened before, which would basically appear to have the effect of possibly impugning the integrity of everyone who has ever served on the board - how likely is it that they all never had integrity, honesty or courage? How likely is it that they have all have suffered putative threat in silence? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given what we have learned about communication styles in the board over the past few months, I'd say the likelihood of previous community-selected board members having suffered the occasional browbeating from non-community-selected board members is greater than zero. There is also the fact that the Superprotect fiasco had an impact on the kind of board members the community recommended for appointment; all three incumbents lost their seats, and several candidates campaigned on a platform for change. --Andreas JN466 20:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, you're converting what everyone says into an extreme parody of their position, then attacking that straw man. This serves only to reduce clarity and derail the discussion. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought you asserted that pressure regarding removal was "causal" in the making of this motion to the board and speculated on it happening before. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two questions (i) whether James said it was causal, or whether he felt threatened, rightly or wrongly, (ii) whether it was causal, i.e. whether comments were made with the intention of forcing James to make or approve some motion. This is important because Jimmy has an apparently strong case: the motion to approve came from James himself. James's defence is that he was threatened. But it seems impossible to prise open any of the underlying facts here. See Sarah's points below. Peter Damian (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Did potentially losing the seat cause or not cause the making of the motion to enter into the agreement to the board? I don't see an answer to that question below, not that I am expecting you or Sarah to have that answer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is because what is below is simply a statement of what we know so far, which is very limited. I fail to understand what you are getting at here, Alan. Peter Damian (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be the predicate question. If it was not the cause, we can move on from the Knight grant motion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, little of what you say makes sense to me. What is a 'predicate question'? Also you seem to be little moved by the idea of board members being threatened in some way. Indeed, rather than treat the person as a victim for being threatened, you seem to blame him for giving in to threats. That seems unnatural. Or perhaps I misunderstand you. As I just said, little of what you say makes sense to me. Peter Damian (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather that I have no information on victimazation. But if the suggestion or argument is that a board member was victimized into making a motion, is that true? And that would start (predicate) with why the motion was made. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for (ii), Peter, I don't think the comments about removing board members were made to force James to introduce the motion. James has said they were made in a prior conversation, and the big question the board dealt with at that meeting, just a couple of days before the all-staff meeting, was Lila. We also know that James was strongly opposed to Lila staying on, based on what staff told him, and that the other board members very much wanted to give an impression of unanimous board support for Lila. I think that provides a very plausible context for those comments (about removing board members) having been made. And to my mind, it also solves (i). By the time discussion moved to the KF grant, it was clear to James that dissent would not be tolerated, and that he could not expect to remain on the board unless he "played ball". In that sense, the comments about removing board members were causal, in that they influenced James' conduct, even though they were not made with the specific intention of forcing James to propose that motion. They were made with the more generic purpose of intimidation. Andreas JN466 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your argument that James' conduct was uniquely compromised in the way you say? Because it is linked below that Pundit says:

. . . I also had a lot of initial doubts, and was suspicious of the grant (that's why I requested additional information about it), but we reviewed it and were convinced there was no secret monkey business going on (while, admittedly, grand/iose language, some silly cloak and dagger ambitions, etc. may have influenced the application, it became clear to us that the donor shared the WMF's understanding of much more modest deliverables, and there was no "secret big project" actually under development). If I had remaining doubts, I would have voted against - even if there was pressure from other trustees. I did vote against fellow trustees, in spite of pressure, on occasions when I believed it is in the best interest of the WMF, and I believe this is a critically important quality for a trustee (to be able to resist pressure). . . .[11]

(Peter, as a side note, perhaps Pundit's comment helps you understand me better - I did not know of Pundit's comment until it was linked below by Sarah.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, paying close attention to what people have said:

There were board meetings in San Francisco on 7 and 8 November 2015. During those meetings, the board voted unanimously to accept the Knight grant (minutes). The grant was probably a minor matter at this point, because the board also discussed staff discontent with the ED. The staff appear to have asked that she be removed from her position. The board disagreed, and on 9 November Patricio and Jimmy met staff to affirm the board's support for the ED. Jimmy or Patricio told staff that the board's support was unanimous, but that was apparently not true. (See Wikipedia Weekly from c. 55:40 mins.)

During the 7–8 November meetings, according to James, Jimmy made a comment about removing board members. Note the plural (emphasis added): "potentially removing members of the Board" [12] and "potential removal of board members". [13] It seems likely that this occurred within the context of board support for the ED. Perhaps Jimmy was having difficulty persuading certain trustees, and he wanted the support to be unanimous to avoid weakening the ED. This is understandable. (Again, see the Wikipedia Weekly link above.)

Two trustees, Jimmy and Dariusz, have responded to the removal-comment claim, but they responded to a straw-man position, namely that James had been threatened with removal if he did not support the grant. But James has not said that Jimmy's comment was about the grant (he has made clear that it was not), or that the comment was directed only at James.

• Jimmy, 10 February: "If I do find out that any board member made such a threat, I will be astonished. ... Given James enthusiastic endorsement of the grant at that time ... it is mind boggling that he expects anyone to believe this nonsense now."
• Dariusz, 13 March: "My recollection of what happened is that James was not threatened in relation to the Knights grant." When Dariusz was asked whether Jimmy had said something about removing trustees in relation to any other issue, he did not respond.

To address Peter's concern about the word following – "I supported [the grant's] approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board" [14] – it was in the causal sense in that the grant and ED issues had become intertwined.

If Jimmy did comment on removing trustees, who would it have been directed at? The following trustees were present: Patricio, Alice, Frieda, James, Dariusz, Guy, Denny, Jan-Bart, Jimmy and Stu. We can assume it wasn't Guy (he was supportive of the ED), and Jan-Bart and Stu West were about to leave anyway. That leaves Patricio, Alice, Frieda, James, Dariusz and Denny. James has said he did hear such a remark. Dariusz's replies have evaded the issue.

Doc James, are you able to add anything to this? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IMO is an accurate recap of events. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah asked if there was anything you could add to this, James. Once again, what makes this all so frustrating is your tendency to give the minimum explanation possible, which of course makes for a poor explanation. Is there anything you can add that would help us understand these events better, please? Peter Damian (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful for us to have a review by experienced Wikipedians of the situation in question. These Wikipedians would need to be given appropriate legal access and would than provide a report of findings. I know some are unhappy with the degree of details that I have already provided. This is based on a number of people sending me emails expressing their unhappiness with my announcing my removal from the board to me publishing internal emails I sent to others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, then, I take James to be confirming that Jimmy's remark was made in the context of discussing Board support for the ED, not in the context of the Knight grant, and that it was directed at more than one trustee.

We don't know how many trustees did not support the ED. We know only that the decision was not unanimous, although Jimmy and Patricio told staff, on 9 November, that it had been.

James, three questions:

(1) Can you say which trustees the "removing trustees" remark was directed at?

(2) We know that the decision to support the ED was not unanimous, and we assume that you opposed. Did anyone else oppose and, if yes, can you say who?

(3) Do video or audio recordings exist of the 7–8 November board meetings, that you know of?

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Can you give the exact context like who said what and why it came up?

(5) Was this in Executive Session and is that why trustees won't talk about it?

(6) Does it involve personnel matters and is that why trustees won't talk about it?

(7) Were you aware of the board's powers to remove before the meeting (someone in the linked comments suggests you knew before)?

(8) Why did you move the board to accept the Knight grant?

Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, for (4) can you be more precise? Exact context of what? The decision to support the ED? When you ask 'why it came up', does 'it' also refer to that decision? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) It was directed at me at least. It is up to the others to speak up if they wish.
• (2) Yes I opposed in the votes. If others wish to state their position it is up to them to do so.
• (3) There is no recording by video or audio
• (4) We disagreed about what to do regarding issues in Nov. The KF grant was part of these issues. And the comments occurred after these discussion in relation to these discussions.
• (5) These discussions occurred in both executive and non executive sessions.
• (6) Yes it could be seen as involving personnel matters.
• (7) Yes I was aware that the board technically had the ability to remove their own members via a simple majority vote before the meetings in Nov.
• (8) I was asked to. As mentioned the short term deliverables were not the problem. The Knight foundation grant was part of a larger issue which I had lost the vote on. I did not see me opposing at this point in time as being effective in achieving anything significant.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James, that's pretty clear, and you have also made clear which questions need to be asked of others. Peter Damian (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James. The "it" in question 4 was referring to Sarah's "removal" "remark" in question 1, sorry if that was not clear. Could you be more fulsome on the context (who said what, etc.)? Also, this series may have introduced a new question. Was there more than one removal comment or discussion on different issues at different times during those November meetings? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC) (On the last question, who asked you to?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Doc James, thank you for the replies. We keep coming back to the need for an inquiry, suggested by Peteforsyth at User:Peteforsyth/Heilman15. Perhaps people with information would feel more comfortable talking to a committee. What should we do to move toward setting something up? Pete's idea was:

• "Appoint an informal committee to collect and synthesize information that is currently spread over numerous wikis, external web sites, and email lists. If the committee is able to solicit additional information, that will be a benefit; but merely making it easier for stakeholders to evaluate what is already known would in itself be very useful.
• "Establish a legal fund for James Heilman. This would allow him to get expert answers about information the remaining Trustees consider confidential, but which Heilman may believe should be known by Wikimedians."

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have transcribed part of the podcast Sarah refers to above. My question is how much are Andrew and Liam discussing stuff that is public domain and how much is inside knowledge. Andrew implies he is 'pretty plugged in'. In particular, is this the only source for the information that the vote on Lila was not unanimous? The stuff about the systematic lying was new to me. Not unexpected, but it was news all the same. Peter Damian (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thank you for doing that. There was a discussion on Wikimedia-l about the vote not having been unanimous, and James has confirmed here that it wasn't, although we know only that he opposed. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on Wikimedia-l, for discussions on the 'unanimous vote' thing. Where did anyone actually claim that the vote on Lila was unanimous. There are references to Patricio's statement about 'full confidence', but full confidence doesn't necessarily mean unanimous. I can't find Patricio's statement. Peter Damian (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a question on Patricio's page. Peter Damian (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was made in an all staff meeting on Nov 9th, 2015. Oliver comments on it here [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however this is just Oliver saying something. Peter Damian (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

There is also this post on Mar 7 by jytdog that:

The really hard thing is that we have on the one hand the board stating very clearly that it was unanimous back in November with regard to Lila, and James writing, "it was not unanimous". We have the board saying that James' dismissal had nothing - nothing - to do with transparency, and James saying that this was absolutely relevant to the conflicts that led to his dismissal. I don't know about others, but I find these contradictions to be almost unbearable.

Peter Damian (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The famous "unanimous" statement occurred in an email Patricio sent to all staff. See Molly White's timeline:
  • Patricio Lorente sends email to Wikimedia Foundation staff
  • Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees chair Patricio Lorente sends an email to Wikimedia Foundation staff, referencing concerns and a statement on the internal wiki. The email goes on to state, "We recognize there were legitimate concerns in certain areas, such as staff management, communications, and style of leadership. We acknowledge that many of those issues arise also from poor communication from the Board in setting expectations for change and the asks we have made to Lila, our Executive Director. We are working with Lila to put together a plan to address these issues. We are confident that she has the capability and the commitment needed for this challenging time, and we know that, at the present time, she is listening carefully to the Board, to you, and to the community. To that end, the Board remains unanimously committed in our support of Lila in her role and in her efforts to adapt her leadership and to address these issues. We ask everyone to move forward. We will continue working with the Executive Director and supporting her progress, and we rely on your help in this process and your personal commitment to the WMF and our shared vision."
• Also quoted here, and see also the following post by jseddon:
  • Similarly the following remark was made by Patricio at the all staff meeting in November: *"I want all of you know that the Board unanimously agreed to support our current leadership." --Andreas JN466 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't apparently know how many votes (or whatever straw polls mean, one meaning would be no one called the question or made a motion) there were: eg., do nothing: no; unconditional support:no; have a remedial plan and support with remedial plan: yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here Peter Damian (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had the opportunity to collaborate with you on any other projects in the past so I don't know who you support or don't support. What I do know is that I have had my fill of Jytdog's aspersions and innuendos which he has relentlessly used to discredit me. Regarding the Griffin article, you really need to know the truth about what took place there. My only purpose at Griffin was to make an awful coatrack of a BLP which raised concerns about liability a good article. That's what I do on WP - I work to get articles promoted to GA and FA. One of my attempts to improve Griffin can be seen here. Little did I know that we have a specific group of WP editors who believe it's ok to discredit living people and "expose" them as would a tabloid article digging up opinions of enemies of that person completely throwing NPOV out the window. The RfC regarding the lead at Griffin was closed in my favor, but the Griffin haters did not honor it. I tried to make them understand what they were doing to a living person but I was outnumbered and out-tenured so I backed away after months of them beating me with a stick because of their own misinterpretations of my intent - they in fact were the conspiracy theorists. You might also want to read the following which includes some of the highlights of what they've put me through for no justifiable reason: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Statement_by_Atsme. As we're seeing now because of what you've been led to believe, the denigration and misinformation about me continues. Perhaps my last comment at the Project Accuracy TP will also help clear up some of the fog. I consider it an absolute travesty. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Try not to get personal! Peter Damian (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this - I've been looking over the Nigerian articles and I don't think they suffer from the same verification problems as the others, although I have found problems in the past e.g. [16]. There may be other problems with notability and copyvio/close paraphrasing e.g. [17] (not actually as bad as it looks and some are probably copied from the article, but worrying all the same since this is a GA) but they've certainly added good content as well. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Difficult call eh Peter Damian (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Peter - I just wanted to add that in my very limited experience with Wikicology, it was all quite pleasant, he seemed knowledgeable and he actually did offer good advice and helped me with some of the preparation in presenting my idea to IdeaLab. He seemed like a really nice, enthusiastic young editor who, in retrospect, appears to have made mistakes but has since turned a page, grew with experience and is now showing potential to be a good editor. I saw a few proposals at AN/I for him to be mentored, and his authorship overviewed - make him fix the articles that are problematic - which may be a much better option than blocking or site banning him. I'm thinking along the lines of editor retention but will leave the matter to your good judgment. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, he hasn't learnt at all: edit today and my analysis at ANI. SmartSE (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that thanks. What I find amazing is that it wasn't picked up for so long. The very first thing I looked at had problems. Peter Damian (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Jimbo's talk page, it needs to be made clear that outing is not a concern here, as the editor has fully identified on his user page, and that the ANI discussion currently has majority support for an indef block. With ArbCom, remember that they can't and won't make policy. They will only enforce policies as written. If there is nothing in policy about fake credentials, they won't and can't make any pronouncements about this. Andreas JN466 15:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a general question in any case, whether or not the editor has said who they are. If they have identified themselves, then it is usually easy to verify what they say. The question is a general one, about the case where an anonymous editor claims to have credentials. I think a lot of Wikipedians will argue 'credentials don't matter', but the question is whether credentials do affect your judgment. Peter Damian (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A related question is why anyone would want to state credentials on their user page. Presumably to imply some sort of authority or status? Peter Damian (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's just a harmless aspect of being a social being. You state credentials on your user page. Just heading out the door with my better half – it's sunny. --Andreas JN466 15:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struggled with the question of how much personal/professional information editors are required to reveal when/if there's potential for a COI, but there's no way to really know beyond suspicion accompanied by questionable investigation that could end in an action against the accuser. It's crazy. I made newbie mistakes years ago by not fully understanding the potential for harassment, invasion of privacy, doxxing, etc. that could result from posting one's affiliation(s). A very kind, veteran editor advised me to get it removed ASAP and pointed me to OS. I was advised by OS that the post had been removed. I stopped editing WP after that brief and somewhat unpleasant experience. I came back after retirement a few years later. It wasn't long following my return that I received an email from an editor advising me that some of the photos I uploaded to Commons could be traced to my real identity while another editor advised me that the original post I thought OS had removed was still visible but not an easy find. I worked with a couple of OS editors to get the personal information removed but they couldn't extend any assurances. They thought they got it all but I later learned they had not. Long story short, I was fully outed (could probably label it doxed) despite my protests. When it was all said and done, I said WTH, I have nothing to hide so I made known potential areas some editors may accuse me of having a COI. Disclosure: I breathe for a living; therefore articles about the respiratory system may subject me to a COI. In one breath the community demands full disclosure while in another breath full disclosure spawns criticism of egotism. Editors tend to edit topics within their area of interest so it's very difficult to not be seen as having a COI. It's all very confusing. Perhaps Project Accuracy will help eliminate some of the problems we're facing now. Why wouldn't the introduction of a verifiably credentialed ERB reviewing articles be considered a major milestone for WP? WP editors can still remain anonymous and as the ERB becomes accepted as mainstream, few will even care who is editing WP articles because if the FA doesn't pass the scrutiny of the ERB, it simply won't be promoted. Readers will come to learn which articles are reliable by looking for the gold seal VS the ones that have not been reviewed; therefore, making reliability determinable instead of what we have now; i.e., no WP article is reliable and students risk a failing grade for using it as a reference. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my arbcomm statement I made reference to WP:EXPERT and WP:Honesty. If someone claims expert status, they should be honest about it. If they are honest about it, it should not be difficult to (in private, if necessary) demonstrate that they were honest. Years ago, I was dinged for saying that I was hired as a "professor" at a community college when I was actually hired as an "instructor". I myself didn't realize the error until after about six months of having the job because no one really talked about the particular name of the job under which I was hired (it was a tenure-track position which, upon achieving tenure, automatically transmogrified into associate professorship -- there was no equivalent of the assistant professor at the institution where I was working). In any case, I don't think much hay was made out of this, but it is clear that this kind of credentialism can lead us astray just as much as dishonesty can. However, I think that these situations are pretty easy to resolve among good faith actors. The problem comes when people think there is something intentionally dishonest going on. jps (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I thought WP:Honesty was a great essay, a shame it's not policy (although it is part of the Terms of Use). Peter Damian (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.23.241 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I don't know who you are, except it is a Nigerian IP, and so I don't know whether to 'trust you'. If you have anything to say in confidence, why not create an account on Wikipedia, then use the 'email this user' to contact me in confidence. Peter Damian (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Hi... I've submitted evidence to the Wikicology ArbCom case and you and SlimVirgin are mentioned from ANI because I am commenting on Wikicology's response. I thought I should let you know as a courtesy. Cheers. EdChem (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute at Talk:Timothy Leary and Talk:Aldous Huxley regarding whether the subjects of those articles were philosophers. In particular, should the articles include "philosopher" as an occupation? I don't think any editors of philosophy topics have commented so you may like to have a look. The issue was mentioned at WT:PHIL but there doesn't seem to be much activity there. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, neither of them were philosophers in the sense of academic training in philosophy. Certainly not Leary. Peter Damian (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What should, in your opinion, be done with these considerations: [18]? I don't know, being new to this. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jehoram and Kingdom of Israel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I found your Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy vs. Wikipedia study to be very interesting indeed; it does an excellent job of illustrating the shortcomings of Wikipedia's system. It deserves more attention and will certainly have a place on the Content project page, so if you don't mind, I made some minor cleanup (adding a word for better flow, correction broken links, etc.) and updated an entry or so. For instance, the Aesthetics article now has a Japanese section, but it is a mere three sentences. I just wanted to let you know, and since it is your userspace you can of course revert any undesired changes. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 14:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck and will try to help where I can. Peter Damian (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the text I copied from your workshop article covering (among other things) the semantic of logic, you wrote:

This view (psychologism) was taken to the extreme in the nineteenth century, and is generally held by modern logicians to signify a low point in the decline of logic before the twentieth century.

It would be good if we could find a source for this. I suggest [19], but you might have a better source in mind, seeing as my proposed source is in fact a little lukewarm about the claim. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I searched. I think it might have been Church that said it, but I suggest deleting it if you can't find a source. WP is much stricter than it was. Peter Damian (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I can rephrase that sentence so that it matches what is in Constant's article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way you brought me up on Jimbo's talk page, inferring that my work is riddled with inaccuracies was in exceedingly poor taste. As bad as the DM article itself in my book.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the problem? Peter Damian (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you're too gutless to talk to me on wikipedia.. I have an IQ of 149. Stupid you say? And Andy the Grump is exactly one of the reasons why I don't actually produce much content here any more. Go tell that to your troll gang on wikipediocracy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charming Peter Damian (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you mean. I said "He must be very stupid. He is still insisting that he didn’t realise who the IP was, quite forgetting that, right from the very beginning, he was calling him a snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university who thinks he can bully "lesser folk" on wikipedia because he is a respected author." Peter Damian (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter, I've been pondering next steps on Wikipedia quality and my thoughts are crystallizing around User:WereSpielChequers/Invisible flagged revisions. Would you be so kind as to run an eye over it? I suspect I've partly spoiled my case by my usual excess verbosity. But at some point I think it worth trying for an RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 15:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks I shall have a look. It's been a while .. Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I of course don't know your exact views on the subject, I think we may share a feeling that something is amiss regarding the editor who was recently scolded for harassing a BLP subject. After reading about it, I felt a firm conviction that the user definitely owed the BLP subject an apology. Instead, seeing the non-apology that resulted and was rewarded with an unblock, I now feel as though I am owed an apology, on top of the now-overdue apology to the article subject. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My exact feelings are not hard to summarise. First, there was the appalling treatment of McCann, see the sequence of events I set out here. Then (as you comment further down) there was the way that the editor continued with a highly self-serving account of those events, and which most of the ‘community’ seem to have accepted without question. Then there is Singora who threatened to write to McCann, perhaps to apologise, who knows, upon which there are accusations of 'wiki terrorism', as though McCann's critique of what happened was in any way inaccurate or untrue, which it wasn't. Singora then lets rip with the 'are you taking your meds' stuff, and gets blocked, rightly so, but then there is this awful pile on at AN of the kind that shows Wikipedia at its very worst, where anyone with an axe to grind, score to settle etc can get the witch burned. If McCann were looking for further evidence of Wikipedia's dysfunctionality, he would find it here, no? Peter Damian (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia adults disgusted by The Wikipedia Adventure, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to remove The Logic Museum from the spam blacklist? Most of the pages on it are inaccessible to the public anyway.

Imo the spam blacklist extension needs to be revamped so that (1) it uses a log entry-generating special page instead of a MediaWiki: namespace page, and (2) each entry potentially has an expiry. MW131tester (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was surprised it was still on the Spam blacklist, and would be grateful if it were removed. The Museum is referenced in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy after all [20]. Peter Damian (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is a test

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this former journal meets NJOURNALS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StarM 15:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Logophonetic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a distinct concept; a term with marginal use as far as I know. Every logographic writing system in human history has some phonetic element. Term should be a redirect to Logogram.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Remsense诉 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Damian (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]