The non-notability of Wikipedia news item
The "notability" rule is one of the fetishes of the cultish Wickedpedia administrators, but they apply the rule in a hightly discriminatory fashion. For example, there is a general rule against using personal blogs as sources, but on Cheri Yecke's bio my blog was not allowed because it is supposedly "crappy" while other personal blogs were allowed because they are supposedly "notable."
The Wikipedia article for the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was started in late August. As of August 30, the entire article was the statement, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a Ben Stein documentary about intelligent design." On that date, a comment was added which said, "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links . . ." Nonetheless, the article continued unchanged until Sept. 28, when the news story about the Darwinist interviewees' claim of being misled was added. I assert that this news story does not satisfy the Wikipedia rules for notability, which say,
The story has not received "substantial coverage in reliable sources" -- apparently the only major news media outlets that have covered the story are the New York Times and Guardian Unlimited.
The Wikipedia rules on notability also say,
This news item has hardly even received a "short burst" of news coverage, considering it was not widely reported by the official news media, and there is nothing to indicate that this news item is of long term interest.
The author of the NY Times article is Cornelia Dean, who reported another piece of trivia about the evolution controversy: the National Association of State Boards of Education's review of its election procedures after Kenneth Willard became the only candidate for president when his sole opponent withdrew.
Hat tip to Moulton for pointing out this Wikipedia article.
.
The Wikipedia article for the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was started in late August. As of August 30, the entire article was the statement, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a Ben Stein documentary about intelligent design." On that date, a comment was added which said, "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links . . ." Nonetheless, the article continued unchanged until Sept. 28, when the news story about the Darwinist interviewees' claim of being misled was added. I assert that this news story does not satisfy the Wikipedia rules for notability, which say,
The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.
The story has not received "substantial coverage in reliable sources" -- apparently the only major news media outlets that have covered the story are the New York Times and Guardian Unlimited.
The Wikipedia rules on notability also say,
Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.
This news item has hardly even received a "short burst" of news coverage, considering it was not widely reported by the official news media, and there is nothing to indicate that this news item is of long term interest.
The author of the NY Times article is Cornelia Dean, who reported another piece of trivia about the evolution controversy: the National Association of State Boards of Education's review of its election procedures after Kenneth Willard became the only candidate for president when his sole opponent withdrew.
Hat tip to Moulton for pointing out this Wikipedia article.
.
Labels: Wikipedia (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/02/2007 08:07:00 AM
81 Comments:
What's notable is the practice of adopting otherwise obscure articles as 'coathangers' for pushing the POV of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design.
Of course Larry's post and Moulton's comment in reply have nothing to do with the fact that both Larry and Moulton were banned from Wikipedia for treating it like a soapbox for their personal opinions on ID and such.
Yes, surely there is no association between Larry and Moulton's negative feelings about Wikipedia, and their banning at Wikipedia resulting from exceptionally shameful and aggressive pushing of narrow viewpoints, unsupported by any evidence. That could not have had anything to do with it, could it?
I have not yet begun to lather.
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>> Yes, surely there is no association between Larry and Moulton's negative feelings about Wikipedia, and their banning at Wikipedia resulting from exceptionally shameful and aggressive pushing of narrow viewpoints, unsupported by any evidence. <<<<<
Wrong, dunghill. We often use the same evidence as the Darwinists -- we just interpret the evidence correctly. For example, the Wikipedia page on the Discovery Institute says,
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section.
The sole basis of the claim that Ding Elsberry's text comparison program was "accepted in Federal court" for the implied purpose of comparing the similarity of ideas in two different texts is the following statement from the Dover decision:
By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: . . . . (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; . . .
Elsberry's program was not even mentioned at all -- and at most its contribution to the decision was just a word count, something that can be done by means of virtually any word-processing program, or even by hand.
If anyone should be censored for repeatedly telling lies, it is dunghills like you, Voice in the Wilderness, Kevin Vicklund, Voice in the Urbanness, Hector, etc..
Unfortunately, my lousy ISP, AOL, aids and abets Internet censors by not -- or rarely -- changing the IP address of my AOL proxy. It is not worth my while to use other ISP's just to evade blocks of my IP address, and anonymous proxies no longer work because they can somehow be detected.
The main Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design is slated to be a Featured Article of the Day on October 12th. Whether this notoriety accounts for a recent flurry of edits and proposed edits is hard to judge.
But I note that there is some ongoing discussion on the talk page about the opening paragraph wherein Intelligent Design is defined.
Here is my suggestion for defining "Intelligent Design" ...
"Intelligent design is the belief that some features of the natural world are so complex and so marvelously adapted to their functional purpose that they cannot have arisen through natural processes such as random evolution, but must have been created by an intentional process of 'intelligent design'."
"Here is my suggestion for defining Intelligent Design ...some features of the natural world are so complex and so marvelously adapted..."
At Wikipedia Moulton claimed to not a be an advocate of ID. Yet here he betrays an emotional bias in making the case for it. Not surprising since: 1. This comment is made at the blog of a dedicated ID pusher. 2. ID promoters have a well established history of bad faith claims meant to hide their agenda. Yet more evidence of dishonesty and misdirection on the part of ID's promoters.
As expected, Larry mischaracterizes Wesley's program. Here is a more accurate description of what his program contributed to the decision (leaving aside all the follow-up discussion):
By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), ... were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
Note that the ellipses refer consist of the following phrase, which does not refer to the output of Wesley's program:
which appeared approximately 150 times
That's right - the one thing Wesley's program didn't do was provide a word count - a word processor was used for that purpose. In fact, Wesley's program was used in exactly the same manner for the Dover case as in his comparison of the Whether ID is Science section of the decision, including a side-by-side output for visual comparison.
Jones unequivocally accepted the output of Wesley's program, and it was an important part of the decision.
One of the features of a mature approach to conflict resolution is the ability to fairly state the position of one's adversary without distorting it.
Failing that, one is obliged to admit that they don't apprehend their adversary's beliefs, affective state, or mindset.
I frankly don't understand the beliefs, affective state, or the mindset of most those on Wikipedia who now wish to style themselves as my adversary.
In the meantime, one is obliged to suffer through some inchoate vexagonistic drama.
>>>>>>>>>
If anyone should be censored for repeatedly telling lies, it is dunghills like you, Voice in the Wilderness, Kevin Vicklund, Voice in the Urbanness, Hector, etc..
Unfortunately, my lousy ISP, AOL, aids and abets Internet censors by not -- or rarely -- changing the IP address of my AOL proxy. It is not worth my while to use other ISP's just to evade blocks of my IP address, and anonymous proxies no longer work because they can somehow be detected.
<<<<<<<
As I have told you before, wiki is not your personal forum. There is a discussion tab for each article that is specifically used for what it says: discussion, rebuttals, etc. Obviously, you failed to follow directions and continued to make your unsupported opinions on the article itself. Keep in mind your "rebuttal" regarding Yecke's link to intelligent design was that it was, in YOUR OPINION, blown out of proportion. Source: Your opinion, which was somehow reached after going through pages of archived newspaper articles, audio recordings, and other public records proving the link between Yecke and ID.
Your gripe was that other blogs were used as sources, so why not your own? Well, Elsberry's blog was used a reference regarding Yecke's own efforts of trying to wipe out her past actions using Reputationdefender, which contacted Elsberry directly on Yecke's behalf. Meyer's opinions, which basically confirms Yecke's link to ID are also sourced from many of the journals and other references listed in the Yecke wiki article. His blog was also featured in a legitimate science publication, and he himself was active in the Minnesota education system both as a professor at U. Minnesota and a member of Minnesota Citizens for Science Education.
Now, what are your qualifications, Larry? Have you even been to Minnesota? What about Florida? Were you involved in the education system in either of these states? You were rightfully banned because what you attempted amounted to petty idealogical vandalism after being told your contributions violated wiki's user guidelines. It's an even bigger hypocrisy that you would accuse myself and others of lying when you are the biggest liar of all.
Actually, Anonymous, it was even simpler than that. Larry's four sources were himself, himself, himself, and himself, which is forbidden by Wikipedia rules: note that Wesley observed the Wikipedia rules by making suggestions in the discussion page, rather than editing a page where he was used as a source. It probably didn't help that his "rebuttals" didn't actually address any of the points made in the Yecke bio, but rather were attacks on points made elsewhere on the internet.
>>>If anyone should be censored for repeatedly telling lies, it is dunghills like ... Kevin Vicklund...<<<
Yet another lie from Larry the Liar. Oh, and that's an unsourced claim, to boot. Tsk, tsk...
For clarity:
'his "rebuttals"' = Larry's "rebuttals"
Kevin, in your opinion, is it fair to say that Larry found himself in a state of anger and resentment over the way Yecke was characterized on Wikipedia?
Is it also fair to say that Larry's (presumptive) state of anger and resentment was amplified by his own unfavorable reception there?
>>>Kevin, in your opinion, is it fair to say that Larry found himself in a state of anger and resentment over the way Yecke was characterized on Wikipedia?<<<
No, in my opinion it is not fair to say that (though an outsider could fairly come to that conclusion). Larry found himself in a state of anger and resentment over the way certain blogs have kicked him off for his atrocious behavior and refused to let him post on their blogs. His interest in the Yecke article was a) an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack those bloggers, and b) an attempt to continue his prior attack on Wikipedia. If it weren't for those two factors, Larry (in my opinion) wouldn't give a rat's ass about Yecke.
>>>Is it also fair to say that Larry's (presumptive) state of anger and resentment was amplified by his own unfavorable reception there?<<<
Well, that is pretty much a given. In a similar vein, a stalker's anger and resentment is likely to be amplified by the unfavorable reception that comes with the enforcement of a restraining order, so that really doesn't say much.
Thanks, Kevin. That's very helpful.
How would you characterize the complementary affective state of those whom Larry antagonized in his encounters?
In Wesley's case, bemusement (especially since Larry's "refutation" was actually the logical basis for Wesley's argument), PZ probably didn't even know about it, and the regular editors probably experienced a mix of bemusement and exasperation.
Storytime: when my wife was a child a close friend of hers had a sandbox. One day, they decided to build a sandcastle. After a while, the neighbor kids came outside and asked if they could join, and my wife and her friend said OK. A few minutes later, one of the neighbor kids kicked over the sand castle. The neighbor kids laughed and ran home. My wife and her friend, though upset, rebuilt their sandcastle. The next day, they discovered that the sand castle had been kicked over. They confronted the neighbor kids, who boasted that they did it. So my wife and her friend rebuilt the sand castle, and when the neighbor kids came over to ask if they could play, my wife and her friend said no. The next day they discovered that the neighbor kids had kicked it over yet again. So my wife and her friend rebuilt the sand castle, and that evening, my wife's friend heard a loud scream of pain and ran outside to see one of the neighbor kids rolling on the ground with a broken toe. You see, the sand box didn't have a bottom, and so my wife and her friend had dug down to the clay underneath and mixed it with the sand - in the hot August sun, it had baked brick hard, yet still looked like sand.
Some people can't seem to see a sand castle without developing an overwhelming urge to kick it over, and Larry is one of those people. Unfortunately for people like Larry, some people that build sand castles also know how to make bricks.
Kevin Vicklund driveled (October 02, 2007 5:20:00 PM) --
>>>>> That's right - the one thing Wesley's program didn't do was provide a word count - a word processor was used for that purpose. <<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill. We don't even know that a word processor was used for the word count. The words might have been counted by hand, since the drafts of the book might have been in printed form and it might have been considered too much trouble to scan the pages into a computer.
>>>>>> Wesley's program was used in exactly the same manner for the Dover case as in his comparison of the Whether ID is Science section of the decision, including a side-by-side output for visual comparison. <<<<<<
Wrong again, dunghill -- the Dover opinion said nothing about that.
Anonymous driveled (October 02, 2007 5:46:00 PM) --
>>>>>> As I have told you before, wiki is not your personal forum. <<<<<<
The Darwinists consider Wikipedia to be their personal forum, dunghill.
>>>>>> There is a discussion tab for each article that is specifically used for what it says: discussion, rebuttals, etc. Obviously, you failed to follow directions and continued to make your unsupported opinions on the article itself. <<<<<<
I can't post anywhere on Wikipedia, dunghill -- including the discussion pages.
>>>>>> Well, Elsberry's blog was used a reference regarding Yecke's own efforts of trying to wipe out her past actions using Reputationdefender, which contacted Elsberry directly on Yecke's behalf. Meyer's opinions, which basically confirms Yecke's link to ID are also sourced from many of the journals and other references listed in the Yecke wiki article. <<<<<<<
The Wikipedia rule is no personal blogs as sources, dunghill. Whoever contacted Ding Elsberry is irrelevant. If Sleazy PZ Myers' blog is referenced by permissible sources, then Wikipedia should cite only those sources and not his blog itself.
>>>>>> His blog was also featured in a legitimate science publication, and he himself was active in the Minnesota education system both as a professor at U. Minnesota and a member of Minnesota Citizens for Science Education. <<<<<<
The rule is no personal blogs, period, dunghill. Have you ever heard the "best butter" story from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland? The March Hare thought it was OK to put butter in a watch because it was the "best butter." If the Wikipedia rules say no butter, then the "best" butter is not allowed.
>>>>>> Now, what are your qualifications, Larry? Have you even been to Minnesota? What about Florida? Were you involved in the education system in either of these states? <<<<<<
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say something so stupid?
BTW, the website of Florida Citizens for Science is referenced in Cheri Yecke's bio, but Sitemeter statistics show that I have been getting more hits than that website over the past year -- see here and here! So how can it be said that the FCS website is more "notable" than my blog?
> If anyone should be censored for repeatedly telling lies, it is dunghills like you, Voice in the Wilderness, Kevin Vicklund, Voice in the Urbanness, Hector, etc.. <
At last you explain why you banned ViW on your "no censorship" blog. Did the truth hurt that much, Larry? Don't you feel better now?
> Kevin, in your opinion, is it fair to say that Larry found himself in a state of anger and resentment over the way Yecke was characterized on Wikipedia? <
As someone who knows Larry personally, I can tell you that he has been in a state of anger and resentment for most of his life.
> Is it also fair to say that Larry's (presumptive) state of anger and resentment was amplified by his own unfavorable reception there? <
Larry gets an unfavorable reception on most blogs due to his name calling, his posting of unsupported claims, his outright lies and misrepresentations, and his mindless arguments followed by crowing that he has either proven something or won an argument, neither of which seem ever to have happened. He has probably been banned on at least a half dozen blogs. Some here may know of more.
Thanks for the response and the sandcastle story, Kevin.
Bemusement seems an unlikely emotional state to justify blocking further engagement. Exasperation, on the other hand, would jibe with that kind of harsh response.
Exasperation typically applies to being stymied at a goal. So that begs the next question, Kevin, if you don't mind...
What goal did the exasperated editors have in mind, that they felt stymied at reaching, with respect to Larry's participation?
>>>>>> Larry gets an unfavorable reception on most blogs due to his name calling, his posting of unsupported claims, his outright lies and misrepresentations, and his mindless arguments followed by crowing that he has either proven something or won an argument, neither of which seem ever to have happened. <<<<<<
Comments are censored because they are good, dunghill. There is no good reason to censor a bad comment.
Bloggers who arbitrarily censor comments have no credibility.
"Exasperation typically applies to being stymied at a goal."
Indeed. And how's your effort to fix Wikipedia working out for you?
Taboo, or Not Taboo.
That is the Question.
"What goal did the exasperated editors have in mind..."
A more relevant question for Moulton is what goal did he have in mind when he published a commenter's private information, IP address and apparently employers name, on his blog?
Responsibility.
"Responsibility."
And how does publicly outing someones personal employment information serve that goal?
As a blog owner you have a responsibility as well to those who participate on your blog whether you agree with their views or not. Deleting comments is one thing, but publishing their employment information is quite another. That fact that you'd even think outing participants is a proper response, much less that you actually do it, goes a long way in explaining why your blog is a backwater with near zero participation and recognition.
It's not surprising that you'd find Larry's brand of lunacy appealing.
It works the same way as WikiScanner. It tends to keep people honest, civil, and responsible.
I don't mind giving even my harshest critics a voice, but I also like to accurately credit and attribute all contributions to the conversation, whether they are critical, neutral, or laudatory.
Moulton, you violated Blogger's content policy:
"PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: We do not allow the unauthorized publishing of people's private and confidential information".
Your choice here is to either remove your comment or be reported to Blogger and Google.
Skip, feel free to do what you have to do, either to protect yourself, or to protect Macy's.
>>>>>It works the same way as WikiScanner. It tends to keep people honest, civil, and responsible.
<<<<<
It also works to intimidate and silence. Doing so shows that you address criticism with anger and spite, so do not pretend to profess that your own actions were honest nor civil.
Skip, it would appear that you are neither intimidated nor silenced, so your own behavior disproves your own theory.
"Skip, feel free to do what you have to do, either to protect yourself, or to protect *employer's name*."
And he does it again. Amazing his lack of regard for others and poor judgement on his part.
So which is it, Skip?
Are you amazed or aghast?
It seems unlikely that you could be in both states at once.
Are you that naive to presume that all people will freely speak their minds if their anonymity was removed? Granted some people take advantage of it, but in something I'd like to call the real world, there are people with legitimate concerns who are afraid to voice them for fear of reprisals once their identity is uncovered. You yourself may profess to not care, but what of others who share your view but are willing to go that extra mile to harass and intimidate with that private information that you just oh so conveniently made available?
This is the Internet, which is only a mere reflection of the so-called "real world."
The Internet, as you may have noticed, has an air of surrealism to it.
But if you're genuinely interested in bona fide cases of harassment, I can supply you with hair-raising examples of sociopathic behavior along those lines.
And I can supply you with incidents where information obtained from the internet was used to harass, intimidate, and even kill people. These days, the internet is serious business. Either you yourself are living in some surreal alternate world, or you willfully ignore it.
The fact that people have been harmed and even killed using information obtained on the internet shows just how much "responsibility (lack thereof) you have.
Also, you've obviously have a problem with following the rules as indicated by your violation of both wiki and google blogger rules .
What makes you think that rule-governed systems work the way Hammurabi once imagined?
Has it ever occurred to you that rule-driven systems might be inherently erratic and dysfunctional?
"AD" (Apprentice Design) is the belief that some features of the natural world are so complex, yet so poorly adapted to their functional purpose (as indicated by some 99% of all species that ever existed having become extinct) that they cannot have arisen through natural processes such as random evolution, but must have been created by a klutzy process of Attempted Design.
Next week's lesson: "SD" (Satanic Design), accounting for the existence of evil.
... rule-driven systems might be inherently erratic and dysfunctional?
Moulton, I thought you made a rather convincing case for the at least sometimes truth of this observation a while back.
It's close to a mathematical theorem.
"What makes you think that rule-governed systems work the way Hammurabi once imagined?"
And what leads you to believe that the Google and Blogger content policies do not apply to you?
You seem to be the exception that proves the rule that rules-driven systems are indeed inherently erratic and dysfunctional.
Actually, it goes back to Henri Poincare, who laid the groundwork for rigorously proving that thesis well over a century ago.
But the empirical evidence for establishing the misbegotten character of rule-driven architectures dates back at least 3500 years.
It's close to a mathematical theorem.
Um, not exactly. "Rule-driven systems" tend to spend most of their time sedately following the rules, with occasional lapses into erratic dysfunctional instability. Which, yes, is "inherent".
>>>>>> That's right - the one thing Wesley's program didn't do was provide a word count - a word processor was used for that purpose. <<<<<<
>>>Wrong, dunghill. We don't even know that a word processor was used for the word count. The words might have been counted by hand, since the drafts of the book might have been in printed form and it might have been considered too much trouble to scan the pages into a computer.<<<
An argument from ignorance is an ignorant argument. Your rampant speculation does not prove me wrong in the slightest. You might as well claim that I am wrong because they might have decided to generate their count by letting pigeons poop on the original documents.
That said, your speculation is spectacularly wrong. According to Barbara Forrest's testimony:
This graph was created based on a word count of the word, a count of the number of times the word "creation" was used, the number of times the word "design" was used. The counts were conducted on ASCII files on the raw text of the draft.
Furthermore, Wesley's program requires computer files to work, so you speculation was clearly erroneous and in contradiction to your initial claim!
>>>>>> Wesley's program was used in exactly the same manner for the Dover case as in his comparison of the Whether ID is Science section of the decision, including a side-by-side output for visual comparison. <<<<<<
>>>Wrong again, dunghill -- the Dover opinion said nothing about that.<<<
More arguments from ignorance. 100,000 pages of exhibits, testimony, and motions, and Larry thinks that that much information can be condensed into a 139 page document and still maintain that level of detail? Barbara Forrest's Supplemental Expert Report covers that little tidbit in footnotes 2 and 4:
2 See Appendices A, B, C, and D. Wesley Elsberry, Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education, constructed a computer algorithm that matched the text in the various drafts. The appendices show the computer’s detection of similarities between manuscripts of the 1993 Pandas and the earlier drafts provided by FTE. Matches are listed when the matching text is at least ten words in length and at least six of those words occur in both texts. Words may match approximately, either by matching a longer word to a shorter form, or by matching at least 75% of the characters common to two words. The content of matches is easy to see in this form. The longer and the more numerous the matching sequences, the more certain one can be that a later work is derived from an earlier work.
4 Visual examination reveals additional similarities because the computer algorithm explained in note 2 is designed to detect word strings of at least ten words, matching longer pieces of text. Visual examination therefore reveals the preservation of significant creationist terminology, such as “master intellect,” which is shorter than ten words. See my examples of the use of “master intellect” later in this supplement.
And Wesley in his own words describing how he uses side-by-side outputs with his program (with links to actual output files showing side-by-side comparisons):
Fifth, I like seeing a side-by-side comparison of texts as well as getting the numbers. That is why I have always provided such views as supplements to the summary numbers when I.ve done this sort of text comparison. The present instance is no exception, notwithstanding the apparent inability of some naysayers to notice and follow the provided links.
Checkers might be 'sedate', but Chess and Go can be quite suspenseful and dramatic. When you add a lot more rules and a lot more players, you generally get a lot more chaos.
Moulton's definition of ID is an excellent and unbiased one, something which I've rarely seen on the Internet: where herds of uncritical Darwin-fans graze:
"As a Darwinist, I'm simply a sheep
Who needs to be led where I leap.
It's un-Darwin, I say,
To think or to stray,
And we sheep? Just count us, and sleep."
Moulton's definition of ID is an excellent and unbiased one ...
How about my definition of AD?
But here's one for ID:
"Intelligent Design is the belief that the problem of the infinite regression of First Causes can be economically disposed of by simply ignoring it."
Kevin Vicklund drivels,
>>>>>> More arguments from ignorance. 100,000 pages of exhibits, testimony, and motions, and Larry thinks that that much information can be condensed into a 139 page document and still maintain that level of detail? Barbara Forrest's Supplemental Expert Report covers that little tidbit in footnotes 2 and 4: <<<<<<
"Little tidbit," my eye. You stupid fathead, how does mere mention in an expert report mean that something is "accepted in Federal court"?
>>>"Little tidbit," my eye. You stupid fathead, how does mere mention in an expert report mean that something is "accepted in Federal court"?<<<
Because the output of the program was accepted in Federal court as part of the expert testimony. Of course, we weren't discussing whether the program had been accepted in Federal court, but rather what the program itself did (in terms of input and output and of function). As I demonstrated, you are ignorant of all the details of Wesley's program and completely mischaracterized its contribution as a result.
Larry brayed...
> Comments are censored because they are good, dunghill. There is no good reason to censor a bad comment. <
Then the comments of ViW that you admitted and even rationalized censoring were good?
> Bloggers who arbitrarily censor comments have no credibility. <
You are right. You have no credibility. You have failed to give any examples of others censoring arbitrarily
Moulton answered "Responsibility".
Up to this point, Moulton seemed to have been taking the high road. This single answer has shown him to be something quite unlike a responsible person.
A Darwinist sheep is an oxymoron. The only sheep here are the religious zealots who would even betray their own moral principles by using lies and deception to spread and convert others to their beliefs.
Why is the concept of a Darwinist sheep an oxymoron? To believe in the theory of evolution is to recognize the methods that Darwin and others used in developing the theory. The scientific methods used involved questioning existing theories, and perhaps the most important parts, making observations, experimentation, gathering data, and formulating a theory based on conclusions drawn from said data. As better methods of experimentations are developed, the theory can change. If some new data is obtained by a previously unavailable method that contradicts earlier conclusions, the theory can be modified accordingly. To apply the same methodology to Christian teachings would be considered heresy, and that's why the most zealous of the religious fanatics either live in conditions akin to the dark ages, or lead lives of hypocrisy in which they profess to follow the teachings of the Bible yet secretly or openly indulge in many activities explicitly forbidden by biblical scripture. (Seafood anyone?)
We "Darwinists" don't follow Darwin's teachings to the degree of religious fanaticism that the Christian zealots would suggest, although I'm not surprised they would make this assumption because they themselves only know this kind of blind devotion to their own faiths, perhaps by only knowing this fixed level of devotion that they would accuse the Darwinists of the same thing as there are similarities in the level of perceived convictions to suggest the same behavior. If we are sheep, we would still be following Darwin's original survival of the fittest/natural selection theories verbatim, and not the multitudes of further developments that have been made since then. Also, being sheep, we would cease to question the existing theories and in that case, no new scientific developments in biology would be happening. Obviously, with the amount of scientific developments being made since Darwin, that is not the case.
I even have a new theory on why the creationists would use this indirect personification of Darwin as some sort of messianic figure to fight against the evolutionists. Given that Christian scripture is rife with passages promising pain and death for worshiping of other gods, heretics, pagans, or just plain nonbelievers, it is used as a sort of rallying/unifying force to create an "us vs. them" mentality. The ironic conclusion is, the Darwinists didn't deify Darwin, but the Creationists did.
Kevin driveled,
>>>>>> Because the output of the program was accepted in Federal court as part of the expert testimony. <<<<<<
You are playing with words, dunghill. The expert reports of Behe, Dembski, and other defendants' expert witnesses were also "accepted" in Federal court.
>>>>>> Of course, we weren't discussing whether the program had been accepted in Federal court, but rather what the program itself did (in terms of input and output and of function). <<<<<<<
We were discussing whether the program was "accepted" in federal court, dunghill.
>>>>>> As I demonstrated, you are ignorant of all the details of Wesley's program and completely mischaracterized its contribution as a result. <<<<<<<
Wrong again, dunghill -- I wrote an article about Ding Elsberry's word-counting program.
Infinite regressions and recursions do tend to bedevil a lot of people, but Archimedes, Newton, and Leibniz showed that it's possible to reckon infinite sequences without going mad in the process.
One of the payoffs for working out the mathematics of infinite sequences is the advent of Fixed Point Theory, which incidentally helps to explain how life is possible, notwithstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
>>>You are playing with words, dunghill. The expert reports of Behe, Dembski, and other defendants' expert witnesses were also "accepted" in Federal court.<<<
Since Larry is determined to play with words (while falsely accusing me of playing with words), let's try making it more precise. The portion of the expert testimony of Barbara Forrest that relied on the output of the program was accepted in the Opinion of a Federal Court.
>>>We were discussing whether the program was "accepted" in federal court, dunghill.<<<
And then I corrected your blatant mischaracterization of Wesley's text comparison program, at which point we were discussing details of the program itself. The details of the program are independent of whether the program was accepted.
>>>Wrong again, dunghill -- I wrote an article about Ding Elsberry's word-counting program.<<<
Wrong - you wrote an article in which you completely misunderstood Wesley's program, to the point of mis-characterizing it as a word-counting program. It is not a word-counting program. It is a text comparison program. Word processors such as Word do not have the text comparison capabilities that his program has, and the closest standard program (diff) takes hours to do what his program can do in minutes. You have shown absolutely no understanding of what his program actually does, Larry.
Kevin, you should already realize that arguing with Larry Fafarman is like running in the Special Olympics: Even if you win you're still retarded.
Well, some people like a challenge. I don't think any of us here would expect to eventually convince Larry to the error of his ways, but it's certainly fun to make him look like a complete tard. I'm here because Larry vandalized the section of Yecke's wiki article that I personally started.
Since Larry wanted to use wiki for his own personal drama bullshit, I'd thought I'd return the favor. Particularly by destroying the credibility of anyone he parades around for his causes by digging up all the dirt I can.
>>>>>> The portion of the expert testimony of Barbara Forrest that relied on the output of the program was accepted in the Opinion of a Federal Court. <<<<<<<
Sigh. Let's go over this again. Here is the part of Forrest's testimony that was accepted by the court (quoted from the Kitzmiller opinion):
By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
Nowhere does the opinion say that Judge Jones -- as dumb as he is -- accepted use of Ding Elsberry's program for the general purpose of comparing the similarity of ideas in two texts by means of the following method -- which you cited from a footnote in Forrest's expert report -- that was used to compare the opinion and the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief:
Matches are listed when the matching text is at least ten words in length and at least six of those words occur in both texts. Words may match approximately, either by matching a longer word to a shorter form, or by matching at least 75% of the characters common to two words.
>>>>>> The details of the program are independent of whether the program was accepted. <<<<<<
How can the program be accepted without accepting the details of the program? Only Judge Jones would do something like that -- but he didn't.
>>>>> you wrote an article in which you completely misunderstood Wesley's program, to the point of mis-characterizing it as a word-counting program. It is not a word-counting program. It is a text comparison program. <<<<<<
It is a program that compares texts by counting words.
>>>>>Word processors such as Word do not have the text comparison capabilities that his program has <<<<<
Thank goodness. I have already explained many times why these computerized text comparisons are completely unreliable: the ideas in a text can remain the same even while the text is completely reworded by using synonyms, adding or removing superfluous or unnecessary words, paraphrasing text, and scrambling sentences and paragraphs.
>>>>>> and the closest standard program (diff) takes hours to do what his program can do in minutes. <<<<<
Considering the speed of modern computers, I couldn't imagine a computer taking hours to accomplish this futile and pointless task of text comparison. And speed is not the issue -- the issue is whether a computer can do this job at all. The answer is no.
Kevin, you are just wasting my time by continuing to kick this dead horse. You and the Wickedpedians have lost the argument. Get over it.
I rather doubt arguments like this one can ever be declared won or lost. More accurately, they can be observed to be unsettled, and perhaps even undecidable.
As one of Larry's adversaries points out, there is a strange and remarkable compulsion among the disputants here to challenge, taunt, discredit, aggravate, demonize, scandalize, and stigmatize each other, within the affordances of Wikipedia and related blogs.
The antisocial dynamics of these kerfuffles tends to conform to some well-researched models, including Victor Turner's model of Liminal Social Drama and Rene Girard's model of dramatic conflict.
The dynamics of these antisocial processes tends to persist and recur indefinitely, until the disputants experience some kind of epiphany that transforms their drama from Greek Tragedy to Molierian Parody.
> there is a strange and remarkable compulsion among the disputants here to challenge, taunt, discredit, aggravate, demonize, scandalize, and stigmatize each other, within the affordances of Wikipedia and related blogs. <
It is a case of being drawn into the other one's game. Since he lacks the ability for logical thought and lives in a dream world, Larry has rarely been able to avoid personal attack in his replies. Try to find a single post without an insult.
As to his dream world, Larry has in the past claimed that meteors come from within the atmosphere, that the moon landings were faked, that there not enough factories in the world to account for the consumer goods found on store shelves and they must therefore come from supernatural sources, that the Los Angeles Times and the World Almanac are published and distributed with supernatural aid, that after being laughed out of court on every case he has filed, that he is an "unrecognized legal genius", etc.
If someone puts a sign on their back that says "kick me" and then bends over, how can we resist? If Larry supplies the lemon merangue pies and mashes a few into his own face, how can we resist the temptation to throw some of the others?
Perhaps it is, as the now banned ViW says, too much like "pulling the wings off of flies", but the fly quickly dies while Larry just sprouts a new pair and asks you to pull them off again.
The game metaphor is an apt one here.
Whether one works from basic Game Theory or from more advanced models such as Drama Theory, the same basic interpersonal dynamic of mimetic enthrallment applies.
In the worst case, the dynamic descends into a banal and interminable soap opera. In the best case, it can evolve into an enlightening and edutaining epiphany.
To evolve from the most pathological case to the most mirthful one remains an unsolved problem in the Theory of Emotions and Learning.
> that there not enough factories in the world to account for the consumer goods found on store shelves and they must therefore come from supernatural sources <
It sounds like Larry's illusion corresponds with those of the "Cargo Cults" of New Guinea.
Moulton's concerned and earnest tone here would be a lot more convincing were it not for the fact that he has intentionally revealed private information of commenters at his blog, then refused to remove it when confronted and went on to taunt his mark. Any attempt to take the high road after that is evidence of duplicity and bad faith as far as I'm concerned.
What are you expecting to learn from this experience, Skip?
> What are you expecting to learn from this experience, Skip? <
You were gaining a good reputation on this blog until you took this tack, Moulton. Now you are looking more like Larry. If you did not want people to be able to post in anomymity, you should have not had that option. You have not shown much integrity in "outing" Skip. Perhaps you consider who should learn from that experience.
Skip wasn't posting anonymously. He was logged into Blogger as Skip when he posted on my blog.
I'm still interested in learning what Skip expected to learn by electing to engage in a dialogue with me, both on my own blog and again here on Larry's.
"Skip wasn't posting anonymously. He was logged into Blogger as Skip when he posted on my blog."
Having one's username appear and having one's employer's name and IP address are two very different things, Moulton. Shame on you for acting as if they're not.
I can safely say that no one commenting at any blog expects to see their employer's name and internet address intentionally revealed by the blog owner. Your lack of judgement on the matter belies the learned and responsible image you're so obviously trying to cultivate.
I'm still interested in learning what Skip expected to learn by electing to engage in a dialogue with me, both on my own blog and again here on Larry's.
Probably how not to run an effective blog.
How do you know who his employer is?
Do you know that because Skip confirmed it here?
All I knew was that he posted from a site registered to Macy's.
For all I knew, he could have been a customer in an Internet cafe operated for the benefit of the customers of Macy's.
"For all I knew, he could have been a customer in an Internet cafe operated for the benefit of the customers of Macy's."
Hmmm...
"Moulton said... May I attribute that quote to you and identify it as coming from an individual at Macy's San Francisco Operations Center, posting from IP ... [smtp.macys.com]?"
Liar.
Where does it say that the individual posting from Macy's site is an employee?
He could just as easily have been a customer, sitting at an Internet cafe operated for the benefit of Macy's customers.
Had Skip simply been a customer, it's unlikely he would have cared one way or another. The fact that he posted a complaint here, and effectively confirmed his status as a Macy's employee was his dialogue move in our conversation. Skip provided far more evidence and information to identify himself than I did.
"Skip provided far more evidence and information to identify himself than I did."
You conveniently omit the obvious: He would have had to had you not outed him. You're twisting here; but try as you might you cannot escape your responsibility for the situation. Low, shabby behavior from someone who holds himself out as above the fray.
Where does it say that the individual posting from Macy's site is an employee?
LOL. Yeah, I'm sure Macys, like most companies, always lets its customers into its Operations Center. Jeez. Stop it, you're killing me.
Skip can correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Macy's operate a flagship store at that same location?
Moulton,
You are giving an example of why someone in a hole should stop digging. Admit your error and let's just go on. You are blowing your image.
Let's get back to more important things like whether it is possible for Larry to get professional help or why he continues to pretend that he is fighting censorship by practicing it.
Moulton,
You are giving an example of why someone in a hole should stop digging. Admit your error and let's just go on.
I agree. BTW, a reminder -- according to Montana Mouse, even "Moulton" is a pseudonym. What's sauce for the goose etc.
Montana Mouse is more than a pseudonym. He's a character who often chides Moulton. Nonetheless, Moulton and Montana Mouse get along fine.
Just as Jim Henson (and before him, Burr Tillstrom and Shari Lewis) devised characters to populate stories and sketches, the creator of Moulton, Montana Mouse, Barsoom Tork, and Gastrin Bombesin has similarly devised a variety of characters.
Now Skip is might have been well aware of all this, since he performed a Google search on Moulton's real name and visited Moulton's home page on September 28th (at 9AM PDT), where the only further pages he clicked on were two of the photographs listed there.
What puzzles me is why Skip seems singularly uninterested in anything else, other than my real name, home page, and photographs. That's why I keep asking Skip what he's trying to learn from me. So far, the only hypothesis I've been able to sustain on the available evidence is that he's not seeking to learn anything at all from my corner of the Internet.
And yet he continues to engage me, as if he were desperate to learn something that I am evidently powerless to offer him.
Anonymous, where were you when Fatheaded Ed Brayton was posting commenters' IP addresses on his blog? And where were you when Brayton and the blog administrator were violating the New Journalist Code of Ethics of Michigan Messenger by arbitrarily censoring comments on that blog?
Also, it looks like the trolls here have given up on their futile efforts to refute my arguments against Wikipedia and have instead resorted to making absurd ad hominem attacks against me.
Also, I did censor some comments here a long time ago because they gossiped about my private affairs, but trolls kept asking me to post those comments to show that the censorship was justified. So I just gave up and stopped censoring comments altogether.
Larry, if you turned off Anonymous Comments, then your respondents would be obliged to adopt distinct names (much like Skip).
That would avoid the confusion of multiple respondents using 'Anonymous' as their byline.
> And where were you when Brayton and the blog administrator were violating the New Journalist Code of Ethics of Michigan Messenger by arbitrarily censoring comments on that blog? <
Perhaps the reason is that nobody is aware of Brayton ever arbitrarily censoring anything, you lies notwithstanding. You were banned for cause, as has been shown time and time again.
> Also, it looks like the trolls here have given up on their futile efforts to refute my arguments against Wikipedia <
We have successfully refuted them but we recognize that any attempt to use logic on you will be futile.
> and have instead resorted to making absurd ad hominem attacks against me. <
Perhaps you could try to take a 12 hour period without resorting to name calling to give an example
> Also, I did censor some comments here a long time ago because they gossiped about my private affairs <
Those comments only exposed misrepresentations you made about yourself. If you don't want people to tell the truth about you, or make you the subject, stop the lies.
> So I just gave up and stopped censoring comments altogether. <
Except for banning ViW!
There once was a game called Torment
A game they all came to resent
With every new ploy
They would suck out the joy
Yet none could be called to repent
Moulton, please do not construe my absence of response to your latest post on the "hominid wrist" thread as lack of appreciation.
For most people, stories are more notable (and more memorable) than abstract theories.
Umberto Eco says, "Whereof we cannot make a theory, we must tell a story instead."
I say: Even if we can make a theory, we probably need to map it onto a story, anyway.
After all, most people's eyes glaze over when presented with an abstract theory.
People generally prefer their stories to be populated by characters with whom they can identify.
It occurs to me that these shreklisch blogospheric soap operas are a poor attempt at constructing a story, where theory would probably serve us better.
But then who am I to deny the characters here the ecstasy of their religious convictions?
Post a Comment
<< Home