Assume good faith. Assume good faith. Assume good faith. Assume good faith.
My mantra for today. Wikipedia editors believe to keep the project civil we should always assume that the other editors (some from the opposite side of the fence) are also working to create the best encyclopedia possible.
This is why when I started looking further into some edits made in the last couple days on the page for Paul Kurtz I started to get a bit upset.
Another time was at TAM8, where one of my photo goals was to try and get a image of Kurtz and Randi together. I thought it might be difficult as they had been at odds with each other for years. I found getting the image to be really easy as they were together often.
So when I learned about Paul Kurtz's death yesterday I went over to his Wikipedia page to make sure there was no vandalism, and to make sure it was in great shape so that when the media started to access the page to find out more about this amazing man, they would find something worth looking at. In the back of my mind I was worried about someone with a agenda saying that he had converted to XYZ religion on his deathbed, then the media picking up on that and the next thing you know it is on the front page of some newspaper.
First thing I noticed was that two people had spent a couple hours taking up a big chunk of the page to showcase his last project, The Institute for Secular Human Values. Personally I don't think that an organization that has only existed for 2 years should get more prominence on the page than CSICOP which has been around for 30+ years.
10/23/2012
Out of curiosity just thought I would take a peek at the stat views for Paul Kurtz's page. I almost cried. This is why this project is so important.
http://stats.grok.se/en/201210/paul%20kurtz
Extra credit points for the first person who sends me a news story that obviously copied the WP article.
My mantra for today. Wikipedia editors believe to keep the project civil we should always assume that the other editors (some from the opposite side of the fence) are also working to create the best encyclopedia possible.
This is why when I started looking further into some edits made in the last couple days on the page for Paul Kurtz I started to get a bit upset.
-----------------------------
As you all know by now, one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement died on Saturday, Oct. 20. I've met Dr. Kurtz several times, once for a week summer session at CFI in Buffalo. He was one of our instructors on Naturalism. I'm almost embarrassed to say that I had no idea what he was talking about most of the time. I am just one of those people who can not grasp philosophy, I'm sorry if that shatters your illusions of me as an intellectual, but that's just the way it is. Another time was at TAM8, where one of my photo goals was to try and get a image of Kurtz and Randi together. I thought it might be difficult as they had been at odds with each other for years. I found getting the image to be really easy as they were together often.
So when I learned about Paul Kurtz's death yesterday I went over to his Wikipedia page to make sure there was no vandalism, and to make sure it was in great shape so that when the media started to access the page to find out more about this amazing man, they would find something worth looking at. In the back of my mind I was worried about someone with a agenda saying that he had converted to XYZ religion on his deathbed, then the media picking up on that and the next thing you know it is on the front page of some newspaper.
First thing I noticed was that two people had spent a couple hours taking up a big chunk of the page to showcase his last project, The Institute for Secular Human Values. Personally I don't think that an organization that has only existed for 2 years should get more prominence on the page than CSICOP which has been around for 30+ years.
The second thing that concerned me was this sentence. "Upon being forced out of the Center for Inquiry, by the board and
management for power and control of the vast network and holdings he had
envisioned, developed, managed and maintained for decades, he launched
the Institute for Science and Human Values as a separate entity."
That definitely can not remain, there is no citation to prove this statement, so it sounds just like opinion.
Assume good faith. Assume good faith. Assume good faith. Assume good faith.
Lei just removed another major addition to the page. Someone added in over 2,000 characters of content, trying to prove that Kurtz was opposed to militant atheists. While this might be true (I don't know) an edit this big and controversial needs to be discussed on the Talk page first. And added in only after a discussion of why it is necessary and should take up a good sized chunk of the page.
That definitely can not remain, there is no citation to prove this statement, so it sounds just like opinion.
Assume good faith. Assume good faith. Assume good faith. Assume good faith.
Lei just removed another major addition to the page. Someone added in over 2,000 characters of content, trying to prove that Kurtz was opposed to militant atheists. While this might be true (I don't know) an edit this big and controversial needs to be discussed on the Talk page first. And added in only after a discussion of why it is necessary and should take up a good sized chunk of the page.
At this moment I'm not that interested in knowing who these people are, I'm sure it would be easy to figure it out if someone wanted to, but I'm busy with other pages waiting to be looked after. I'm only curious why they thought that these kinds of edits would pass unnoticed? Do they not understand that the page might have a hundred editors watching the page?
I'm more interested in drawing attention to the fact that we need to make sure that our skeptical spokespersons pages are always in great shape. We need to keep a good eye on this page the next few days and keep the discussion on the talk page going.
Professor Paul Kurtz deserves better. Not only because he was one of our founders, but because he represents us, and we him. Now before the media starts getting the wrong impression, lets get this page in shape.
I'm more interested in drawing attention to the fact that we need to make sure that our skeptical spokespersons pages are always in great shape. We need to keep a good eye on this page the next few days and keep the discussion on the talk page going.
Professor Paul Kurtz deserves better. Not only because he was one of our founders, but because he represents us, and we him. Now before the media starts getting the wrong impression, lets get this page in shape.
10/23/2012
Out of curiosity just thought I would take a peek at the stat views for Paul Kurtz's page. I almost cried. This is why this project is so important.
http://stats.grok.se/en/201210/paul%20kurtz
Extra credit points for the first person who sends me a news story that obviously copied the WP article.
"Upon being forced out of the Center for Inquiry, by the board and management for power and control of the vast network and holdings he had envisioned, developed, managed and maintained for decades, he launched the Institute for Science and Human Values as a separate entity."
ReplyDeleteWhile this sentence is essentially true, it is somewhat tendentious and incomplete in its description of the facts. The "forced out" part was a democratic process, for example, and the person left in charge as Kurtz's successor, Ron Lindsay, is someone Kurtz had supported to be his successor.
"trying to prove that Kurtz was opposed to militant atheists" -- this is also true, and was one of the points of contention in Kurtz's departure. Kurtz was never an American Atheists-style attacker of religion. This is, however, slightly ironic in that Kurtz himself had been criticized for years for combining humanism and skepticism under the CFI umbrella by skeptics. (This was largely done behind the scenes, though it would sometimes see public expression as in, for example, this 1999 letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer from leaders of local skeptical groups: http://www.discord.org/~lippard/skepticalinquirer-janfeb1999.html) Kurtz, however, thought they should be combined, and his personal emphasis was on the humanism side.
This obit by R. Joseph Hoffmann does a good job of explaining Kurtz's views on the new atheism and religion: http://www.rjosephhoffmann.com/2012/10/23/paul-kurtz-december-21-1925-%E2%80%93-october-20-2012/
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteMs. sgerbic:
You say you have "Paul Kurtz's back." Please make sure that you are not also stabbing him in the back in the process. While I completely agree with you that inaccurate assertions should be challenged, it has been brought to my attention that you are actually undoing the live links within the text to Paul's organizations The Institute for Science and Human Values and journal The Human Prospect. This is petty and quite unbecoming for an official Wiki editor. The links are going to be restored, as they should be. Please do not disable them.
Thank you,
Nathan Bupp
Institute for Science and Human Values
DeleteI apologize and retract my last comment. The person who brought this to my attention evidently misunderstood the way the links work on Wiki, saying, "they only go to another wiki page not to websites."
Nathan -
ReplyDeleteMany people find the Wikipedia syntax confusing and the community rules are downright frustrating. We are lucky to have Susan and her team to act as our advocates in that regard. Perhaps providing them with the information and letting them synthesize it into the wiki page would be the best approach.