Woudloper

Missing signature

Hello Woudloper. You forgot to sign your comment on Stewards/confirm/2009/Oscar, and I signed it for you with {{user:Pathoschild/Template:Unsigned}}. (I'm letting you know in case you'd like to replace it with your regular signature.) —Pathoschild 21:26:05, 08 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks, this will do. Sorry I forgot! Woudloper 15:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to add here, I am not certain how to leave you a message and wanted to say thanks for mentioning brand in your recommendations. I am no longer participating because I was blocked for "tendentious" behavior, which in this case amounted to questioning the way the process was structured and pointing out that the accommodations I asked for because I have disabilities were never addressed (this breaks US law). Eventually when I was asked to see the rules that applied to the block I was told that the rules for Wikipedia did not apply to the taskforce but was not given rules for the task force. I have yet to be told how to dispute the block. I didn't want you to think I disappeared of my own accord without telling anyone in advance. Thanks again for bringing up brand and thanks for the time you spent trying to understand the concepts I was posing. Unfortunately, participating in this confirmed my worst fears about Wikipedia and I have totally reconsidered my opinion of the overall project. On another topic, I saw your pictures of rocks and processes -- I home school my daughter and plan to use the information you put on Wikipedia to help her learn geology. Thanks for sharing it all. Brenda. PS: Philippe deleted my task force page without my permission however my bhneihouse user page is still up on Wikipedia if you want to reach me. Bhneihouse 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)bhneihouseBhneihouse 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On Quality

Hi, thanks for your response to my comment. This is just a quick note to emphasize that I meant no disrespect or criticism of your essay (so far I uniformly appreciate and value your contributions o this discussion) and also, I did not think you would disagree with me (i.e. that we would disagree with each other).

I am glad you think all of your points are in your essay. perhaps we siffer simply in how we communicate. But there was one important thing I felt was missing from your essay: accuracy. I would have made this one of the core criteria for quality content. I could also see accuracy (and for present purposes we could call this, "accurate representation/account of scholarly sources, views, debates." I could also see "accuracy" falling under "encyclopaedicity of content" ut the way I read your essay, by this hrase you were referring to format and style.

I know that Wikipedia can never have an "accuracy" policy. My understanding is that, when Wikipedia was first created by Jimbo with larry Sanger as the in-house philosopher, "NPOV" was intended as a substitute for or way to bypass "accuracy" because according to Sanger's philosophy, as well as other philosophical approaches (e.g. pragmatism), accuracy is a tricky concept, virtually impossible to define in a useful way because the clearer and more concrete the definition the more likely someone will disagree with that definition or set of criteria. From a purely practical perspective, I think NPOV and adjunct policies, V and NOR, do take the place of accuracy. In a perfect world where we had a large and diverse group of editors whose expertise mirrored or represented humankind's expertise on the whole range of human knowledge, and those editors strictly complied with NPOF, V, and NOR, I believe they would produce a complete and accurate encyclopedia, and there would be no need to make "accuracy" a formal or explicit criteria.

The problem is, we do not yet have a corps of editors whose knowledge mirrors that of humankind's, and most editors do not strictly adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. A simple case in point: it has been my experience that most editors who try to comply with our policies come to Wikipedia with a clear POV and simply search the web for "verifiable sources" they can use to support their POV and they edit accordingly. Such edits comply with policy, but the overall effect alas fails the ideals of NPOV because all significant points of view are not represented accurately.

Now, it is conceivable that an editor working on a topic - let's pick a controversial topic, bisexuality - that editor could identify the major peer-reviewed journals in gender studies, sociology, anthropology, psychology, do a search for all articles published in the past five or ten years on bi-sexuality, read them and organize them according to different debates and different views within those debates, and then edit the Wikipedia article to make sure those debates and the views within them were represented accurately and proportionately. I assume you would agree with me that the result would be an article that achieved a high quality for content.

The problem is, no one editor is likely to do this. And right now, we do not have among us editors who regularly read all those journals and who thus already know what the debates are and what the different views are within those debates and which views are mainstream, majority, minority, fringe. I believe we have two or three editors who know a great deal about some important views found in this scholarly literature. And then we have a host of editors, some of whom are bisexual, and some of whom are gay or straight, who edit to make sure their own POV is represented.

My point is that the result of the status quo is not only that some views are represented disproportionately; some views are represented inaccurately. With a controversial topic like this it would take one person, or several people who really know how to collaborate, spending serious time at university libraries, to really get an accurate understanding of the current state of research on the topic.

I still believe in NPOV, V, and NOR, my point is that these policies will produce accurate articles only if we have an adequately large and diverse enough group of editors, among whom are enough people with enough expertise. Since we do not, these policies are not enough.

And I really do NOT believe we should make "accuracy" a policy. I understnad why Jimbo and Larry rejected the idea years ago, and I still think they were smart to do so.

But among ourselves, I really think we need to talk about accuracy as a criteria for quality content. Even if it is hard to operationalize, even if making it a policy would just create impossible conflicts and must thus be avoided, in discussions among ourselves, I really think we have to look at accuracy. I mean of course accuracy in a broad sense, so, not just representing a view accurately, but representing the context for the view accurately.

In fact, perhaps these two things are so important they deserve to be spelled out i.e. as two separate qualities for content: accurate view and accurate context. I know a lot of edit wars where people kept arguing over the accuracy of a view, when the argument really was about how that view was (or was not) being contextualized. A good example of this is at the article on fascism - there have been long edit wars over labeling fascism a form of socialism, or labeling it left-wing or right-wing, where one side had a verifiable source and the other side was fumbling around for a way to make the simple point that, absent adequate context, that source could only be misinterpreted. I believe that the commitment at NOR to distinguishing between primary and secondary sources (even though many people find this distinction problematic) is driven by a concern for the question of context (primary sources are sources that are usually taken out of context and easy to misunderstand out of context; secondary sources put primary sources in their context). All these debates about primary sources and secondary sources and original research, when ultimately, the problem is that representing a view accurately often depends on representing it in context i.e. representing it's context accurately.

For me, we always end up back at accuracy - a word we cannot put into any Wikipedia policy, but the quality of the encyclopedia, the quality ... the reliability ... of its contents, depends on accuracy.

We shy away from discussing this at Wikipedia, because it is so complicated, but I think this task force should face it squarely.

Well, sorry to have taken up so much space, if you have followed me thus far, I appreciate it. Slrubenstein 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Verzoek

Woudloper, zou jij een verzoek willen doen om mijn blokkade op te heffen of indien men dat niet wil om een blokkadeverkorting willen vragen? Ik heb dit al een keer eerder aan anderen gevraagd en iemand heeft toen tevergeefs een verzoek ingediend. Ik vraag het opnieuw omdat ik het zeer onredelijk vind dat ik een blokkade van een half jaar heb gekregen. Ik vind het stijlloos dat ik zo word behandeld en zeer onschappelijk. Zou jij met een beroep op de redelijkheid dat verzoek willen indienen? Wikix 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Beste Wikix, sorry dat ik niet eerder reageerde. Ik volg op het moment wp-en en meta niet erg. Ik heb het een en ander nagekeken, en vond dit overzicht van blokkades. Als het goed is:

• Ben je wegens overtreding van een arbcomuitspraak op 21 juni voor een maand geblokkeerd;
• Werd wegens een nieuwe overtreding van de arbcomuitspraak, tijdens de 1 maand blokkade, die blokkade op 22 juni verhoogt tot 4 maanden (+3);
• Werd je wegens "spammen van het OTRS-formulier" nog eens 6 maanden extra geblokkeerd op 28 juni (het totaal is nu 10 maanden).

Omdat de eerste twee blokkades voortkomen uit een arbcomuitspraak, is er geen beroep tegen mogelijk. Voor de derde blokkade geldt dat niet.

De enige manier die voor je open staat om in beroep te gaan tegen de derde blokkade is door de arbcom zelf aan te schrijven over deze blokkade. Ik neem aan dat een toezegging van jouw kant dat de overlast zal stoppen je kansen kan vergroten.

De moderator die de blok uitdeelde, MADe, ken ik niet als iemand die vaak anderen blokkeert. Dat hij dat in dit geval toch deed, betekent dat er iets ernstigs aan de hand moet zijn geweest. Heb je hem eigenlijk al persoonlijk benaderd?

Vr. groet, Woodwalker_talk 07:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Verzoek 2

Omdat jij lid bent van de arbitragecommissie wil ik het volgende onder je aandacht brengen. Ik ben op 31 juli voor een jaar geblokkeerd om iets wat ik al jaren gewoon ben op mijn overlegpagina te doen, namelijk sommige kopjes een beetje aanpassen zodat duidelijk is waar het om gaat. Ik heb dat niet gedaan naar aanleiding van mijn verzoek om geblokkeerd te worden noch naar aanleiding van de waarschuwing die ik had gekregen om niet andermans commentaar te bewerken (ik vind die waarschuwing trouwens niet terecht). Ik heb hierover een e-mail verstuurd plus twee contactberichten. Omdat mijn overlegpagina ook is geblokkeerd, richt ik me hier maar aan jou. Mijn verzoek is of je deze blokkade ongedaan wil maken. Wikix 09:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Beste Woudloper, zie dit bericht van Trijnstel en mijn reactie op Wikix' verzoek. Vriendelijke groet, Mathonius 11:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Beste Wikix, ik kan, juist omdat ik in de arbitragecommissie zit, helaas niet verder ingaan op deze zaak. M.v.g., Woodwalker_talk 08:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitragecommissie - opmaakbewerkingen, blokkade

Onderstaande heb ik ook reeds via het contactformulier alsook via een e-mail aan de arbitragecommissie verzonden.

Nog een aanvulling over wat ik aldaar heb geschreven. Ik ben van mening dat over het algemeen de opmaakbewerkingen die ik heb gedaan Wikipedia ten goede zijn gekomen. Een deel daarvan zal naar eigen inzicht zijn gedaan maar daar hoeft niets mis mee te zijn, zolang het verbeteringen betreft en het reeds geschrevene respecteert; ik ben van mening dat daarvan sprake is. De aanname van het verzoek vind ik daarom niet terecht. De persoon die het verzoek heeft ingediend, heeft liever zo min mogelijk opmaakbewerkingen, zo krijg ik het idee; dat kan echter niet als artikelen vanwege hun onverzorgde (of nog verder te verzorgen) opmaak daar toch om vragen.

Nogmaals het verzoek mij eens met rust te laten. Eerst een zeer overtrokken verzoek over 'gebrek aan overleg' en nu een zeer overtrokken verzoek over 'ontwrichtende opmaakbewerkingen'. Dit raakt kant noch wal en in zoverre het dat wel doet, worden die kanten en wallen slechts zachtjes geraakt. Dat zijn geen uitspraken van de arbitragecommissie waard.

Tot slot het verzoek mijn blokkade op te heffen. De bewerkingen die ik deed op mijn overlegpagina zijn bewerkingen die ik wel vaker daar doe zodat de titels laten zien waar het over gaat. Voor redelijk overleg sta ik altijd open, zoals het ook hoort op een samenwerkingsproject zoals deze door iedereen vrij bewerkbare internetencyclopedie.

Verzoek bovenstaande op mijn overlegpagina te plaatsen. Wikix 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Beste Wikix, ik hoop dat je begrijpt dat ik, als lid van de arbitragecommissie, geen bewerkingen voor je zal doen op Wikipedia. Dat zou nl. kunnen worden opgevat als hulp bij blokontduiking. Vr. groet, Woodwalker_talk 06:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Superprotect letter update

Hi Woudloper,

Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.

Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.

I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.

Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.

Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously voted in the 2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) election.

This is a reminder that if you have not voted yet on the ratification of the final Wikimedia Movement Charter draft, please do so by July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC.

You can read the final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter in your language. Following that, check on whether you are eligible to vote. If you are eligible, cast your vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 15:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)