User talk:Justin walsh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A sandbox Analysis of NPOV


Discuss the following statement by Jimbo Wales

Brief statement of the neutral point of view policy A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view.

Q1) What is a Point Of View? Q2) Is a neutral Point of View possible? Q3) What is synthesized knowledge?

To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. Refer. Categorical imperative

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view.

We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make. 1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. (I happen to believe this, by the way.) It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so.

If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.

What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.


Discuss Conceptual Schema http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html Immanual Kant Critique Of Pure Reason



Justin, please do not revert change the copyright notice on "Categorical imperative". The article will be eventually deleted, so that links to appear it will appear to be to a blank article, inviting people to create a new one. Blanking it out does not delete the article, only sysops may delete the article, and that is after it has been approved by "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion". --cprompt


To: myself From: Yourself re: EveryThingWikipedia

I have absolutely no idea what I am doing: I don't even know why I am writing to myself and what "Talk" is all about. The above entry "Justin, please ..." is more difficult to understand than all the philosophy I am trying to get my head around. I (sorry Myself for all the I's) guess If I have to be in a"prison" it might as well be "Wikipedia"; it's free, nay a DOMain ie FREEDOM which purports to be as good as Free beer. Well, Myself (if you are still listening), I started of, as I always do, believing I have absolutley nothing to add to what has been adequately said by many capable persons (most now dead) before. So, I click on "Categorical Imperative" (finding the Artical non existant, so I choose Kant (where I know it to be)or course) and believing that if it in Wikipedia then it is "Free". Hmmm bad choice! Categorical Imperative is Wrapped in a lot of Interesting "Kant Stoff", so Myself, I say to myself. "why not just pinch this Free bit and make it directly addressable, without changeing it (I'm sure it would have been far better to simply tag it), but like everthing else I don't know how to do it). Now the S..t hits the fan: I am accused of pinching someone elses work (so much for a FREE DOMain). Was I, Myself, stupid to assume that if permission was granted for the Article to be in Wike pedia in the first place, that then the Article could be simple be made more accessable?. Wikipedia is difficult but I guess it is all we have. It is just too bad that I have to become Wikipedia "politician, technician, lawyer, judge and jury, Nurd, Geek etc" just to be a critic rather than an Author(ity). Sorry Myself for being such a aging, winging, Australian arsole. Regards Yourself PS, Can you believe this? (at the bottom of this Talk Page too.

Please note that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!


Talk pages are for people to discuss articles, or leave messages for you, as I'm sure you realize. When you transfer content from another source, it must either be A) Released under the GNU Free Documentation License or B) Used with the express permission from the author, under the understanding that their material will then protected under the GNU Free Documentation License. We cannot just grab whatever we want from wherever. If you'd like to use that source, you must show on the Talk page that we have permission to use it. What exists at Categorical Imperative now will suffice; your text wasn't really encyclopedic with pronouns like "our" and "we". I'm sorry if I'm appearing as harsh, but we really have to go out of our way to avoid copyright violations, which could jeopardize the site. If you've received permission to use the text you had before on Wikipedia, (and the author understand that his text will then be "copyleft"), go ahead and merge it with the existing article, after mentioning it on the Talk page. Elaboration would definately be appreciated. --cprompt


To: Myself From:Yourself Re: the above A new flash of Lightening and the Categorical Imperative appears corrected, just like devine intervention. Thankyou User:Cprompt. Just when I thought "this is a nice quiet corner to sit and talk to Myself" the heavens open and the Protector Of Our FREEDOMain speaks. So Myself, this is not then such a private place. So I'll have to watch my "our's and we's". "Talk pages are for people to discuss articles, or leave messages for you, as I'm sure you realize." No, Myself, I'm still not sure what User:Cprompt is saying. Some devine cleric has in fact done what I tried to do with Categorical Imperitive, but I still don't know what I actually did wrong. so I guess that "THIS" is the article under discussion. Did I miss the point somewhere? I guess somewhere in the Kant article is a clue to the real (external) source. If I return to Kant then I should be able to see clearly that permission has already been given to do exactly what User:Cprompt has so gratiously done for me (with a mild reprimand), but alas, leaving me none the wiser. Well, Myself I am really beginning to enjoy this place it is far better than the sandbox and the devine Authority is still watching my every move. So I'll have to try harder. Sorry Myself I'll have to pop out for a bit and take a peek a Kant and try to work out for myself what User:Cprompt was talking about. Bye for now regards Yourself


Myself

Is talking to Myself against the rules?

Is my imagination playing tricks or did I really lose my last entry?

Is it lying somewhere on the cutting room floor?

It is really wiered being an exhibit; what makes Americans want to display their "Things"?

I looked up a great page: Noble Eightfold Path and find I need not be ashamed of being a hypocrite: I've reached "Right Speech".

I am resorting to Smalltalk to get some Idea of where all this Binary Relationship Modeling is going. I faintly remember SWOT analysis. It is a great military tool: not much use though, unless you have an enemy.

I just know the answer lies in Kants [Categorical Imperative]] but nobody seems to be seeing what I see.

There has got to be a good reason. As for the sandbox. I am not making too much progress.

Jimbo Wales looks so relaxed at the wheel of his yacht; hmmmmm?


Let me try cold hard technological truth ! visualnc.im created at June 19, 2002 6:34:01 pm Using VisualWorks Smalltalk version 7 Free Non Commercial

1 factorial 1

2 factorial 2

3 factorial 6

4 factorial 24

5 factorial 120

6 factorial 720

7 factorial 5040

8 factorial 40320

9 factorial 362880

10 factorial 3628800

11 factorial 39916800

12 factorial 479001600

13 factorial 6227020800

20 factorial 2432902008176640000 WOW!!

Now try 200 factorial !

I think I may be mad but I don't think I'm stupid.

It seems to me that if Wikipedia does not apply some determinism and allow discussion on it then it will simply either implode or explode.

But User:Jimbo Wales will surely argue that, that is exactly what he has set up. So why do I still feel so UNfree in his DOMain of Discourse?

I have lifted from Karl Marx, No I am not a Marxist, to emphasize my point:

"In general, Marx's thought has been influenced by two often contradictory elements: determinism and activism." .

I searched Philosophy and then Pragmatism

"Pragmatism is perhaps the only peculiarly American school of philosophy."

and now do believe why Wikipedia is, on the one hand good but exceedingly irritating, on the other.

Apart from corresponding with Myself [(the "Am" that "Is" "out there"), harking back the "Rene Descartes" "Cogito Ergo Sum" I think therefore I am], I don't really know which way to look.

Is Wikipedia merely a tool for the "inquisitive" or the Inquisitioner??

Methinks not all is what is seems.

I guess that I will just keep muddling on then until I find the door or fall into the pit.

If I were not so old and tired, blind and incompetent, I would consider creating a GNU version of Wikipedia myself.

Nupedia appears to be even more (pragmaticaly) conservative than Wikipedia.

“Not Free as in Free Dom, Free speech or even Free Beer”, but Free as in Thought.

According to Baruch Spinoza

" Known as both the "Greatest Christian" and the "Greatest Atheist", Spinoza writes that Human behaviour is fully determined, freedom being our capacity to know we are determined. So freedom is not the possibility to say "no" to what happens to us but the possibility to say "yes" and fully understand why things should necessarly happen that way. "


Yourself

PS: some kind person will guide me to a quiet place I hope, where I can be less disruptive.


Justin, this is your personal talk page. Most people use their personal talk page to receive messages from other people. The "Discuss This Page" link at the bottom of all articles will take you to the talk page for that article. Each article's talk page is for comments, questions, and debates about the article. It is used to resolve edit wars, where two people continually change the contents of articles. Most people customize their User page with information about themselves, or their interests. Your user page pretty much has no restrictions: put whatever you want on it. I am not sure if I understand what you have written in your last two edits here, but if you have any questions, feel free to put them here, or on my talk page. You can also ask questions at the Wikipedia:Village Pump. Don't hestitate to ask! --cprompt


Well Myself,

It seems that if nobody else can hear me, then "Cprompt" certainly can. and is taking a kindly interest in me.

Unfortunately "Cprompt" cannot understand me simply because like the Dos Shell it only know a few rules which it handles very well.

I am speaking in an Object Oriented tongue.

Yes I am talking to another person; (M)yself as distinct from (m)yself. Actually somehow there is probably no link to the NOPV Article and so "Cprompt is the only person able to hear me it seems. Cprompt is really very polite.

In a way I am fortunate because I would not have lasted long for the following reason: non-negotiable it seems.

Quote-------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's worth adding that this is one of the rules that Jimmy Wales and many others on Wikipedia have said--contrary to what Cunctator and mirwin imply above--is non-negotiable, and really is a rule. So I'm not sure why there's a list of proponents and opponents here. --Larry Sanger Unquote------------------------------------------------------------------------

In simpler terms Spinoza was saying that

"FreeDom is the recognition of necessity".

In other words it you know the rules of the Domain you are in then the more Free you will be. The word Dom actually means church or sanctuary.

The rules that Mr Jimmy Wales declares are: according to his disciple Larry Sanger Not Negotiable.

That just about says it all.

Wikipedia falls then into the category of a Proto-religion not an Encyclopedia.

My maxim is to show respect for all the various ideologies (Instances of Ideas).

All organisms have some sort of embedded doctrine, like DNA, which determines what it can possible be.

However when the Doctrine becomes Dogma then there is nowhere else for that organism to go.

Of course Jimmy Wales, like Bill Gates, knows this all too well and like Gates, his “success” is assured.

I am grateful to Cprompt for his/her patience.

If Wikipedia is anything at all, it is very interesting and a great source of Facts. But of Knowledge?

I reserve my Judgement.

If Cprompt is listening then he/she may delete this page in the interest of more space.

Bye Myself and good luck

Yourself

PS Thanks Cprompt


Hi Justin! I just wanted to comment on this page. I see your point about the talk page and admire your writings here. But, most users use their talk page as a discussion place for others (like me) to leave notes to you - something like a public e-mail box. They write on their own talk page just to reply. I've left my own talk page blank and others have written on it. I've written on my user page, which is where people expect us to write about ourselves and our opinions. I would hate to see this point of view towards the Wikipedian culture removed; however, others would like to see it on your user page.

This is Jimbo Wales's website. He has decided that we ought not to copyright the Wikipedia in the traditional sense; instead, we use a free documentation license that allows for public editing as here. That means than anything copyrighted in the traditional way can't go here. He has also decided on some features of the software, such as the User and User talk pages. If we were editors and authors of a print encyclopedia, we'd need somebody to arbitrate final decisions. Jimbo Wales is that person here. He's responsible for guiding the encyclopedia in general. We're free to do almost anything to articles within that general goal. Mr. Wales only steps in occasionally to help put the project back on the right path.

The Wikipedia website, as you may have seen, is what they call a Wiki. That means anyone can wander here and post anything. For legal reasons, Mr. Wales has made a few restrictions on what we can do here. There are many other Wikis. The original Wiki is still on the Internet. If you don't like the way Mr. Wales has set up this project, why not take a look at some other similar sites?

Regards, Geoffrey

Justin, have you ever met User:Fwappler? -- Zoe