User talk:Tiyuiyutn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't refer to information you don't immmediately understand as nonsense. Please assume good faith. Please avoid expressing your point of view when editing articles. Tiyuiyutn 19:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is a fact, not a point of view. I could cite for this fact innumerable sources. Indeed, even John Seigenthaler was willing to begrudge us that much [1]. You yourself may not think much of it as an encyclopedia, but that is beside the point. I suggest furthermore that you review Wikipedia policies before attempting to use them to your advantage, particularly WP:NPA. It may also interest you to know that I am not the editor that reversed your changes, as the history shows. Please keep your bias out of Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that "is a fact" contradicts even the content of the article, which states "notable perspectives are summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth". You are asserting as objective truth that this is an encyclopedia. Tiyuiyutn 22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm asserting as fact something that is. That's the point of an encyclopedia. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For your citations to have authority, they must be enumerated, and must originate from a reputable peer-reviewed source. That Seigenthaler was quoted in USA Today repeating popular slang does not comprise citation of peer reviewed literature about what is an encylopedia. This is not about what I think about this project, but about what reputable publishers with expertise in the field have defined as an encyclopedia.

Further, your claim that my reference to Wikipedia as a database -- based on a reputable published source AND on common sense -- is nonsense comprises a personal attack. I correctly responded to you for your malicious posting that demeaned my good faith in support of your point of view. Your allusion to "it is considered vandalism" uses an unattributed source (who considers it) to advance your personal opinion in what comprises a personal attack. The rest of your statements comprise wikipedia bullying in an effort on your part to avoid the matter at hand - which may be discussed dispassionately and as a purely technical matter -- what peer reviewed sources support the publisher's promotional claim that this database comprises an encyclopedia? Tiyuiyutn 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious then, what are your sources for stating that Wikipedia is a database?

If you read WP:NPA again, you will see that an assertion that your statement is nonsense does not constitute a personal attack. Additionally, my posting was in no way malicious. Rather it is a standard message given in response to edits that appear to be vandalism. I give out hundreds of those while monitoring recent edits (see my contributions). It's unfortunate though that my message gave you a bad impression of my intentions, my only goal is to help maintain the quality of Wikipedia articles not to maliciously suppress POVs other than mine. Hope that straightens things out. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That only straightens things out in so far as it confirms my observation that administrators of this project systematically selectively troll edit lists looking for confrontations while making no effort to intellectually understand the content of edits they describe as "nonsense" or "vandalism".

That Wikipedia is a database is strongly supported by development of the language that describes new data-management technology. "Database" has described program environments that assist in conceptualization, structuring and platform-independent data manipulation since the 1960s. (System Development Corporation, 1964; Fry and Sibley, 1974). There is no question that Standard Query Language is a language for interfacing with data systems widely called "databases." This term is found in thousands of peer-reviewed publications -- those documents Wikipedia never cites because most Wikipedia sources are free Web-based publications. Few if any scholarly, reviewed publications will be found that assert Wikipedia's database comprises an encyclopedia. Some may adopt the owner's nomenclature without challenge, but few if any will be found explaining why an open-content database is an encyclopedia. This is a case where Wales claimes "we are an encyclopedia", Wikipedia repeated the claim, and the claim made it into popular usage unchallenged until the editor of a well-established reputable encyclopedia offered more precise nomenclature.

Curiously, I note that Wikipedia's entry on Encyclopedia lists no reputable sources to support the paragraphs about what is an encyclopedia, but instead relies on original speculation based on the etymology of the term, on citations of prior collections of knowledge that were not named "encyclopedias" and a recounting of early documents that bore that title. In fact, Wikipedia's article on Encyclopedias includes no references whatsoever (not even to support the claim that "Encyclopedias are essentially derivative from what has gone before, and particularly in the 19th century, copyright infringement was common among encyclopedia editors""). Instead of attribution of sources with proper recognition for original authors,, the artilce lists only "see also, Further reading and External Links". Nowhere does the article offer any insight as to why books written before the term "encyclopedia" was coined are labled as such, nor why a new networked database comprising a compendium of putative knowledge is referred to as an "encylopedia. This is a case where Jim Wales decided to call his database in encylopedia, he allowed somebody to write an article repeating his claim, and nobody bothered to challenge it until the publisher of a well-recognized encyclopedia offered more descriptive language. Tiyuiyutn 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject" [2]. It seems clear to me that Wikipedia fits this definition of an encyclopedia. Just because a single publication refers to Wikipedia as a database in a single sentence does not make it so. As for your accusations regarding Wikipedia administrators, they are absurd and I think you know it. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You admitted on this very page that you troll contribution lists looking for editors to confront, then when confronted with your own behavior you claimed the observation of your admission is "absurd". This is why Wikipedia fails to meet the definition of encyclopedia in many people's view. It doesn't offer knowledge. Knowledge is not defined as "any idea that happens to spew from somebodies mind and which at least somebody believes." Wikipedia is not a collection of knowledge. Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced hearsay. That is why many people don't believe this database is an encyclopedia. Further, you deviate from your own policies by claiming to hold objective knowledge. All you know is that some people call this an encyclopedia and some call it a database. Tiyuiyutn 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to be helpful, but you still refuse to see reason. There is nothing further to be gained from this discussion. This is our final interaction. Goodbye and good luck. Canderson7 ^(talk) 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Wikipedia is an encylcopedia is no stronger than the claims to the contrary cited below - some are from scholars, others from editors of Web sites or just regular folks - no more or less authority than that behind the POINT OF VIEW that asserts as objective fact the construct that wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

• "It will never be an encyclopedia," Danah Boyd, PhD candidate, University of California Berkely School of Information.

• "...it's a wikipedia, an entity in and of itself -- not an encyclopedia. If it isn't plainly varifiable, then take it with a grain of salt," said Scott Baradell, journalist and former Fortune 1000 media company executive.

• "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia; rather it's a totally new phenomenon that so far can only be referred to by its proper name," said Igor Faslyeff.

• "Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia," said Chris Wagner, who supports Wikipedia as a source of information.

• "It's not an encyclopedia," said User:IMSoP, BSc, Infomatics, University of Reading.

• "the simple fact is that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia: it's a search aggregator," said Josh Rothman, Masters Candidate, English, Harvard University.

• "I wouldn't care so much if ... its branding didn't imply that it's an encyclopedia," said Dave Winer

• "Both are large databases of user-submitted writeups. ...the entire contents of Wikipedia are technically suitable for addition to Everything2, E2 is not an encyclopedia." (Everything2 site information)

• "Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia. It is not." openpolitics.ca

• "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia," said Steve Dembo, editor of Teach24.com

• "somebody needs to sue wikipedia for false representation. they are emphatically NOT an encyclopedia, and they need to stop presenting themselves as such," said Pault Theodoropoulus.

• "Wikipedia is interesting but not an encyclopedia or even a reliable source," said Ron Brown.

Before Nupedia was abandoned, contributors formed GNUpedia, and then changed the name to GNE -- for "GNE is Not an Encyclopedia". At about the same time, Wales and Sangler set up an open page system to accept draft content for the Nupedia project. Wales eventually declared that these perpetually revised drafts comprise "knowledge" and advanced an original claim that collectively they are an encylopedia.

[edit] Wikipedia Review

You seem to be an intelligent chap. Thought I'd let you know about Wikipedia Review, which is an open forum for criticism of Wikipedia. We do have some minor issues which we are working out there, but it is a valid forum for varied opinions on Wikipedia's flaws. You may also want to contribute to the older forum, which is strictly anti-Wikimedia - although you should be aware that the founder of the board has been accused of being a virulent neo-Nazi. Personally, I don't think that is really any reason for serious concern, although some have slammed the board for that reason. Regards, Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)