Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page.
|
"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER
New discussion
Only 993172837 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 993172837 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th articleGuy Macon
--Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App
Calvin discovers Wikipedia
- "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon
Another chart
Page views for this talk page over the last year |
---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
(talk page stalker) A late friend of mine put it this way: "Arguing with idiots is wasted effort. They have no minds to change; and unlike you, nothing better to do with their time." Jeh (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
That works very well if turned about. "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because you are almost always -- or are indistinguishable from -- a self-righteous sixteen-year-old possessing infinite amounts of free time." Edaham (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.
Updated essay: see new "2016-2017 update" information near the bottom.
User:Guy Macon/Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:
- "Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
- What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2]"
So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change.
--Guy Macon (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
"...It looks like Wikipedia is really pulling out all the stops in their latest appeal to their users..."
Donations Needed: Wikipedia Has Posted An Appeal Asking For One Night Of Physical Intimacy From Each User --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
[ off-topic -- re MC14500 etc ]
hello, Guy Macon. I am curious regarding something unimportant -- NOT a crucial issue such as the Diameter of a Sewer cover. And it's not an official Wikipedia matter, so forgive me for approaching you through this channel.
You and I are both familiar with the MC14500 one-bit processor. And on the Internet I have a certain obscure notoriety for inventing and building a related device, a one-bit processor but one which conspicuously *lacks* an MC14500. It's even possible you've heard of it: http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/One-bit%20computer/One-bit%20computer.html
Sometimes I do web searches to discover places where my web site, laughtonelectronics.com, has been mentioned, and the results can be interesting, or even weird. One result I've seen repeatedly (from google, for instance) is a link to the WP page on the MC14500 which you helped to write. To be clear, when I google laughtonelectronics.com, one of the results is a link to the WP page on the 4500.
I'm curious to know why. I'm unable to find the string laughtonelectronics.com in the WP article or in the edit and talk pages. It ... just ... isn't ... there! Maybe the link results from some eerie clairvoyance on google's part.
I thought maybe you would know the explanation. If so, will you please very kindly share it with me? Thanks!
Best regards, Jeff 199.48.64.83 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fascinating! Besides my work in the area of microprocessors and microcontrollers, I have also does a fair bit of work reverse engineering the Google algorithms. Keep in mind that the actual algorithms are a closely guarded secret and that if Google's software thinks you are trying to figure out their algorithms they send you and only you wrong results in order to mislead you, so the following is no more than an educated guess.
- First, Google analyzed laughtonelectronics.com. Because it is linked to a lot [3][4][5] Google then decided that http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/One-bit%20computer/One-bit%20computer.html was the page that the most people were searching for.
- Next, Google tried to figure out what the term "laughtonelectronics" means. It checked dictionaries, Wikipedia pages, etc. No actual definition found. Not even "A laughtonelectronics is a..." on some random page. Then it looked for words and phrases that are often found close to laughtonelectronics on various pages. One of the most common turned out to be "1-bit / One-bit", but that didn't help Google much because it is used so many places. See [6]
- Still trying to figure out what what the term "laughtonelectronics" means, Google found another word that is often found along with it; "MC14500". And it found that http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/One-bit%20computer/One-bit%20computer.html has a link to the Wikipedia Motorola MC14500B page. And it found that pages that talk about laughtonelectronics often mention "1-bit / One-bit" and that that pages that talk about MC14500 also tend to mention "1-bit / One-bit"
- Based upon all of the above, Google's algorithm correctly deduced that people searching for laughtonelectronics would be likely to be interested in the Wikipedia Motorola MC14500B page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Barring a simpler explanation, I thought it must be something like that. Interesting subject! Drop me an email if you like -- address is on my site.
- (BTW, maybe the Wiki page should link to *me* -- in the One-Bit footnotes, I mean).199.48.64.83 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Woah
I was just dropping by to thank you for your reinforcement of a recent warning I left to a user on their talk page. However, I was instead quite stricken by #Yes. We are biased.
Did you just casually type that up? Is that actually original thought? Or did you copy it from somewhere else? If it's the former, brilliant. Just brilliant. Either way, I would very much like to copy it to my talk page with attribution to whoever wrote it.
Best,
~Swarm~ {talk} 08:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is 100% original thought, not copied from anywhere else. I tweak it from time to time; the latest version is at User talk:Guy Macon#Yes. We are biased.
- Regarding copying it, The things I write on Wikipedia are all released under a less restrictive license than Wikipedia uses. Here is my standard licensing notice (which will always be on my user page):
- Unless otherwise specified, everything I (Guy Macon) write on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the Internet is released under the Creative Commons CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license. See https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en and Creative Commons license#Zero for details. To the extent possible under law, I waive all copyright and related or neighboring rights to my work. You are free to use them for any purpose, including web pages, newsgroup posts, emails, and letters to the Los Angeles Times. I do NOT require you to give me credit. I would prefer that if somebody asks where you got it, you tell them, but that is up to you. You are even free to pretend you wrote it, just as everyone else is free to mock you when they find out what you did.
- Every product I design and every program I write (other than things I do for pay and transfer ownership to the buyer) are released under similar licenses, so that nobody is ever hindered from reusing my work because of copyright, patent, or trademark concerns. I believe that the world is a better place when everything is free to reuse, and I am willing to take a financial hit to make it so.
- I always find it amusing when someone simply cuts and pastes something I wrote (which I approve of and support) and then someone else, instead of asking where they got it, blasts them for not including attribution. Some people just can't wrap their minds around the concept that, just as some things are under a more restrictive license than CC BY-SA 3.0, some things are under a less restrictive license. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wow! That's seriously an impressive piece of eloquence. Good work, man. All the better that it has been created as an essay. And, seriously, nothing but respect for your copyright stance. That's excellent and selfless. Of course, I will absolutely provide attribution as it is simply credit where credit is due. I did happen to see the original thread that you posted this in (via the essay's creation edit summary). Yikes. In my humble opinion, people like you, who put up with and actively fight against the "POV-pushing of lunatic charlatans" are the lifeblood of the project. Keep up the good work. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of immortalizing your wonderful poem as a Wikipedia essay. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. Countless. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Awesome. Also now known as WP:GOODPOV or WP:GOODBIAS. Though, I do wonder if would be better tagged as an information page, or an explanatory supplement to policy, rather than a simple, toothless, expression of individual opinion. Best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- That would be fine with me, but I would rather someone else made it happen because I have a COI. For some odd reasons I usually agree with myself...
- Now in pt-wiki too: pt:Wikipédia:Sim. Nós somos tendenciosos. Thank you for inspiration!!! Ixocactus (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
SPLC
Are you seriously dismissing their work as biased? I read your comments on their talk page and I can come to no other conclusion. You're making this your last stand, taking on a historic civil rights organization? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:40AD:D720:F067:F1E7 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- They used to be a historic civil rights organization. They once were a wonderful organization that fought Klansmen and Nazis to protect the rights of minorities. Now they are a shrill, biased, denouncer of miscellaneous petty thoughtcrime. Worse than that, they are sloppy. They put people and organizations (and the occasional plastic sign) on their list of active hate groups without a shred of evidence that they belong there, and have lost several lawsuits for doing that. Please, read the following. Then research the claims made for yourself.
- Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals? Source: The New York Times
- Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups': Principled conservatives are lumped together with bigots. Source: Bloomberg
- The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance Source: Harper's Magazine
- The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam Source: John Stossel
- Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? Source: Politico
- The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility Source: The Washington Post
- Occupy the Southern Poverty Law Center Source: National Review
- SPLC targets conservatives, not just hate groups, critics say Source: The Associated Press
- A Demagogic Bully: The Southern Poverty Law Center demonizes respectable political opponents as “hate groups”—and keeps its coffers bulging. Source: City Journal
- ‘Essentially a Fraud’: The Southern Poverty Law Center has less to do with justice than with fundraising Source: National Review
- It’s time to show SPLC the door Source: The Washington Examiner
- The SPLC’s terrible year just got worse Source: The New York Post
- 7 Things You Need To Know About The Southern Poverty Law Center Source: The Daily Wire
- The Southern Poverty Law Center Strikes Again Source: Reason Magazine
- Hate, Inc.: The SPLC Is a Hyper-Partisan Scam Source: National Review
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Given for diligent clarification regarding pseudoscience and quackery. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 02:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation?
According to [7] and [8] a lawsuit has been filed against the WMF, but the actual court documents listed on those pages are behind a paywall.
This page[9] allows you to download some of the documents as PDFs[10][11][12] but others are listed as "Buy on Pacer". Does anyone know where we can access those paywalled court documents?
Here is the Wikipedia username listed in the lawsuit: Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Related:
- ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive163#Abd blocked
- ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive188#Abd
- ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive211#Abd - Community sanction proposal
- ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217#Reinstatement of topic ban
- ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Abd
- Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2
- Arbcom: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2
Related: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation?
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
[13]GMGtalk 18:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)- The hubs (attorney at a multinational with lots of resources) took a look. He can't get to the Pacer docs directly, but he says they're likely just procedural -- which judge the case has been assigned to, etc. -- and that the relevant docs are likely the ones already downloadable. --valereee (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Court dockets are in his birth name. If Jimbo doesn't protest I think it can be discussed there in a general context because I think there is likely to be lots and lots of lawsuits going forward as American courts, imo, in general, are becoming less and less competent, thus, less predictable in terms of what suits they will or will not entertain, therefore (not talking about this specific case) creating a lottery mentality among potential plaintiffs.
- So, for example, I definitely think WMF should have a "no settlements" policy and that type of thing might be discussable there, maybe. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Science ref desk
It occurs to me that your entry here[14] fails your own concept of requiring a citation. Yet your response has the ring of truth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note to any talk page watchers: the above is in reference to a proposal that I made to run a limited-time experiment in which one of the Wikipedia reference desks would require all answers to contain links to Wikipedia articles or to external sources. The proposal was shot down by the ongoing consensus among those who are currently providing refdesk answers that no restrictions of any kind on their behavior will ever be acceptable. (To his credit Baseball Bugs appears to be open to some sort of limited-time experiment but clearly wants it to be a good proposal and has legitimate objections to the proposals posted so far.)
- Bugs asks a very good question. I considered (and am still thinking about) unilaterally trying this or one of the other proposals, possibly with attempts to get others to voluntarily accept the same restrictions. The main reason I haven't is a lack of specific nut-and-bolt rules, which I think should come from a discussion.
- Until I do decide to unilaterally restrict myself I will continue working under the same rules everyone else is working under. Does anyone want to argue that if I and I alone started using citations on every answer that it would have a positive effect? Does anyone want to make a commitment to join me in such an experiment for, say, three months? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- What you could do is try to provide a reference for any response to a question, and get a sense of how difficult or easy that can be. Then you'd be coming from a position of strength on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
COI clarifying
Hi GM. I have several questions, which I'll number for easier reference:
- 1a. If indeed you started this RfC because of me,[15] then why on earth would you not accept[16] that its result applies to me (as a specific case of the general finding)?
- 1b. IOW, what's the point of a general finding that "professional field ≠> COI" if you're then gonna say "but maybe not for that guy/field"? (Especially when that guy/field was the foremost example in your RfC!)
- 2. Why are you repeating the same arguments at ANI[17] that you used at COI/N in the RfC (lack of efficacy and plausibility,[18][19] and negative impact on income[20][21])? (It's not like the closing admins didn't weigh these arguments.)
- 3. For that matter, why ask about my putative COI at ANI (which is for urgent problems) instead of at the usual COI/N? Combined with #2, this could be taken as forum-shopping.
- 4. Finally, regarding the fact that I said it was "impossible" for an acupuncturist to have a COI for acupuncture: apart from simply having a CAM profession -- which is what the RfC was about -- how else could I (or anyone) have a COI for an entire field (acupuncture, psychology, whatever)?
I retract the "impossible" if there's a satisfactory answer to #4, and if that answer may apply to me, then that's for COI/N. Otherwise, this.
Anyway, I hope you engage here -- my questions, albeit critical, are in good faith -- and that we can get clear on what each other are really saying/trying to say. Generally a good idea before escalating to noticeboards. Thank you and happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 11:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC); added 1b 12:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC); revise end 15:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Has this been tried?
- Create hoax article Octagonal water
- Write that it has been proven superior to Hexagonal water
- Pass the popcorn Leviv ich 17:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- As tempting as it might be to create such a hoax article, we have a rule against it: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Nothing would stop you from doing it on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit though. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- A given topic requires valid sourcing. Such as with Cubic water. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)