User talk:BenKovitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
9 April 2014

Link salience[edit]

Well now I've revisited your long posts at MOSLINK, I realise I got the message completely wrong. I largely do agree with what you're saying. Tony (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I figured it was most likely a misunderstanding, due to my long-winded first attempt at explaining the idea. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_--_can_we_bring_this_to_closure.3F
The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. You seem to be one of the people that has a middle view, and I'm trying to turn a paragraph that states one end of the spectrum into something nearer the balance point. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2![edit]

San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited!
We Can Do It!.jpg
The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all!
EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) · Unsubscribe

San Francisco Wiknic 2012[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park LA Wiknic 2011 Group Photo.jpg
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

List of scientific constants named after people[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of scientific constants named after people#Notability. 786b6364 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikinic - last minute planning[edit]

The Wiknic is nearly upon us! We need to figure out who can bring different food items; please reply at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Evansville/Wiknic/2012#Food. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 22:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How much time will you have on Saturday? I need to get a few photos near Hovey Lake in Point Township, and after we're done I'm looking to get some photos down by Henderson, but if you're willing to go along I'll be happy to take you. Of course I'll not ask gas money for anything except the trip to Evansville and back. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I got a note today from Vmenkov, asking about carpooling also. This makes me more flexible, since I don't want to leave two people behind — I really need the photo out by Hovey Lake, but Henderson is becoming more and more droppable. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to keep piling on the questions; I got another note from Vmenkov, saying that he'd be willing to come to wherever you'd like to meet. What would be a convenient place for us to meet? Nyttend (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hoping this will be my last note and that I'll not need to pile on more questions. I'll be working at Liberian Collections on Friday, both morning and afternoon; if you'd like, I'll be able to log out of working to chat about Saturday's schedule for a bit. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, I'd love to accompany you on your photo shoot. I might even learn something. As for where to meet, I'm happy to come by CRCC. Or, it might be simplest to just pick up me and Vmenkov on your way to the picnic. I'll be at CRCC a little later this afternoon (next door to the Liberian collection), so we can talk in person. —Ben Kovitz (talk)

Check your email for details. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy: relevance of MEDRS guidelines[edit]

Hello, I felt these remarks were relevant. But I didn't want to stoke any flames. Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the most specific and relevant guidelines, MistyMorn. Hopefully that clarifies the matter better than my comment. And thanks for not stoking any flames! On Talk:Homeopathy, I've seen a lot of conversation of the form, "These (meta-)studies say such-and-such, and the article should address that," answered by "The rules say such-and-such, therefore you must back down" and taunting, over and over. I'm hoping that asking Alice1818 to explicitly address the relative weights to be given to different research might end the back-and-forth citing of rules and opposing research. Maybe it will even lead to new, good content for the article (though the article's coverage of homeopathy research already appears to me quite good). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, she "listened" to our posts about as much as she did to yours. Over the distance, trying to reason with her about evaluation of efficacy was extenuating (like... "how did I get to be here?"). I tried to remain reasonably civil and polite, but I'm glad she is indefinitely blocked and I really hope she doesn't come back. Attitudes like that are damaging to Wikipedia.

Yes, the article did need some updating. I think the most important update was inclusion of Ernst 2010, which I have now seen to. Honestly, I don't see any reason to go into greater detail regarding individual studies, a step which I don't think would be in the spirit of WP:MEDRS. Clear explanation of the role of publication bias (and how it can be detected) seems to me more relevant. Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the updates, MistyMorn. I think a historical summary of the research is clearest, and I just looked at Ernst 2010; it does indeed look like an excellent secondary source. About details regarding individual studies, I'm thinking that most people find abstract discussions of bias unconvincing because they don't understand them. A concrete description of specifically what facts led people to their current assessment of a theory is often much more enlightening. It's the difference between hearing just a courtroom verdict + arguments that trials are usually fair vs. hearing the verdict + a summary of the evidence. Such an approach should satisfy the pro-homeopathy crowd, since their favorite studies would be described. And it should satisfy the anti-homeopathy crowd, since the basis for rejecting those studies' results would also be clearly explained—factually, neutrally, without taking a side in the controversy. I suppose the burden falls on me, though, to write something up in this manner and see if it does justice to current leading sources and is clearer. I'll need to become more familiar with the leading sources before I can attempt that myself (hence my lazy attempts to nudge other people into doing it).
Regarding Alice1818, indeed she kept re-raising old arguments. I think the way some other editors handled it was appalling, though. Humiliation is not the wiki way. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As regards evidence of efficacy, the Ernst 2010 review is useful as it's actually very useful as it's basically a very simple paper which conveniently summarizes the conclusions of all the "best evidence" Cochrane reviews (systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials which have to follow an extremely rigorous methodology, and eventually only extract evidence from really high quality trials). Beyond citing the conclusions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, I really wouldn't know how to explain further without invoking the concept of publication bias. Put simply, studies with negative results (ie providing no evidence of efficacy) are less likely to be published, which tends to give a false overall impression that a treatment has an effect. This well known problem of meta-analysis can be investigated using a statistical technique called a funnel plot. Another key issue regards discrepancies in results between randomized controlled trials that are methodologically sound and those that are poorly designed or conducted and are undersized. Such discrepancies can be studied using a technique called sensitivity analysis. Here, it turns out that it was the poor quality studies that tended to provide the positive results, providing apparent evidence of efficacy.

Not terribly complex to explain really, when one's got wikilinks to help... Maybe, a newspaper article by Ben Goldacre could indeed be a key source to sketch a layman's explanation. —MistyMorn (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adjusting that subtitle. I agree it's much better like that. As you'll have noticed, I've briefly outlined on the Talk page some ways in which I'd like to try to clarify the Evidence section. As you've seen, I've already made a start in the last couple of days. My medium-term aim would be to achieve a better structured discussion to address the key questions clearly, to allow lay readers to understand the reasons for the mainstream scientific consensus about efficacy (perhaps the most difficult part to explain because of the methodological issues). While I do try to combine terminological correctness with clarity, I'm not used to writing for a general readership. So, I find feedback on anything that isn't quite clear really useful. Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Ben. I saw your message and will reply soonish. Thanks, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree on the importance of clarifying the explanation in the lead. Readers need to be able to grasp the "why". However it's no easy task to make a plain English explanation of such matters which is genuinely encyclopedic rather than an oversimplification. 2c, —MistyMorn (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! - Wiki Loves Monuments - San Francisco Events[edit]

Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco

Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.

There are three events planned:

We look forward to seeing you there!

You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathematics[edit]

I made a small reply to you in the Talk:Mathematics page. Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bloomington meetup[edit]

Don't know if you heard, but the library school's Society of American Archivists student chapter is putting on a meetup on Saturday. There's not a ton of space at the venue (University Archives, fourth floor of Wells Library), so if you're interested, you should contact Brimarshall, the organiser. If you want to send Brimarshall an email directly instead of through the email service, let me know and I'll forward you the email that went put on the library school listserv. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, never mind: Brimarshall hasn't enabled Special:EmailUser. Just leave me a note if you're interested in seeing the listserv email. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this! Grad-school shuffle… I hope to attend the next one. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Rising for Ten Commandments[edit]

The article stated baldly that "Ashkenazim" rise while "Sephardim" don't. In my personal experience, the Spanish and Portuguese congregations in London do. I therefore toned down the claim so as not to imply that all Sephardim are the same. If you want a source on the details, the best bet would probably be Gaguine's Keter Shem Tob, which compares the different Sephardic traditions. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy[edit]

Ben, Regarding -Sentence added to 4th paragraph of lead. I was re-reading your original comment and noticed that somehow I missed the original meaning. I completely agree that the sentence re-added should be removed. Don't know how I missed that. Good work on the rewording we discussed. --Daffydavid (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look and letting me know! See you on the talk page… —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco[edit]

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco[edit]

October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited!
Ada Lovelace color.svg
Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer.

The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome!

You must RSVP here - see you there!
SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland[edit]

Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic[edit]

Hi! It's that time of year again-- this year's Wiknic will be held in Bloomington. We're still in the initial planning stages. Hope to see you in June! Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 21:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Maize vs Corn[edit]

Hello BenKovitz, I see you opened the talk page up on the Maize page to arguments from both sides. I'm not sure if anything has been done about it, but it seems that the Corn side has many more and better arguments. Since you seemed to be in charge, could you take another look at it? Shicoco (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Shicoco. I'll check it out. BTW, I'm not in charge, I just set aside one section to summarize old arguments about the name of the page, so people wouldn't have to repeat them or say "go look in the archives; this has all been discussed before". This is Wikipedia—no one's in charge here! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I just sorted through all the new arguments. I agree with you that the "pre-19th century usage" argument was irrelevant. It should not be listed among the leading arguments. It still seems to me that most of the pro-corn arguments have been solidly refuted by the objections. The one argument that hasn't—that maize is less well-known than corn—seems quite a bit weaker to me than the only real pro-maize argument, which is that it's the unambiguous, formal, vernacular word for the plant that has the same meaning in all regional varieties of English, and is common in international usage, while corn has a peculiarly complex ambiguity that varies by locality. This view has achieved a pretty strong consensus among editors who work on Maize. If you have something new to add, don't let that stop you, of course. BTW, contrary to what I said above, I guess I am in charge of the Summary of arguments section. At least, I started it, and I seem to have volunteered to curate it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Well now, in fact maize does not have the same meaning in all regional varieties. In American English, exclusive of certain specialized publications, maize means specifically "Indian corn"; that is, the hard-shelled decorative variety with brightly colored kernels. --Trovatore (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, who knows, this might the be the fact that sways the consensus. The OED says that maize in North American usage means corn in the ordinary sense, my American Heritage dictionary says that maize means corn in the ordinary sense, and Merriam Webster makes maize a synonym for Indian corn, where the first sense given is ordinary American corn and the third sense is the decorative variety. Well, my American Heritage dictionary is from 1976, so maybe that no longer counts. What source are you getting your version from? If you have a credible, conflicting source, it might be worth starting yet another discussion about this at Talk:Maize. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013[edit]

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions[edit]

  • Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
    • Nearest BART: 19th Street
    • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
    • Street parking abounds
EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're invited...[edit]

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

  • Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
  • Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Ben,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott talk 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I've never been a heavy editor, but I just checked, and I see that indeed I've been trickling in about 18 edits a month since 2003. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Soylent[edit]

I think the sentence "Soylent has not been scientifically tested and is potentially dangerous" is an unnecessarily harsh statement, which is only an opinion expressed by the news article writer, not necessarily a medical experts opinion. I think people are confusing the use of this as a dietary supplement with its use as a sole food, which of course he is promoting, but which is really the only way it can be harmful, and since its not medically tested, no doctor on earth would recommend it as a sole food, just like no doctor would recommend flax oil as a sole food. other than that, not sure what else.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A pleasure meeting you[edit]

A great chance encounter at an unlikely place. Good luck with your dissertation! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a pleasure meeting you, too! I'm browsing about Chaco culture and the Harry S "No Consensus" Truman National Historic Site right now. BTW, I met User:Awadewit in the Kroger's parking lot in the same way, except she was the one wearing a Wikipedia jacket and I was the one who asked if she edited Wikipedia. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks[edit]

Just letting you know I've reverted your addition to this policy. I recommend seeking consensus first. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I just responded at WT:No personal attacks#Belittling competence. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
With the exception of an obvious punctuation or spelling mistake or the like, I never edit Wikipedia policy without discussion and consensus. Wikipedia editors/admins/etc rely on these documents as stable works of reference which guide our actions. New editors use them to learn how Wikipedia works. These documents are so critical, that no change should ever be taken lightly or made unilaterally. Thanks. Regards. Taroaldo 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know your concerns, Taroaldo. I thought I was filling in an obvious omission, reflecting common understanding among skilled editors per WP:PGCHANGE, but clearly I was wrong and got reverted. I hope the discussion leads to better-targeted wording than I was able to write on my own. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rockshelters[edit]

Can't remember if it were to you or to Rob whom I was mentioning this today, so leaving the same message for both of you. Rockhouse Cliffs Rockshelters is the rockshelter site in question; as you can see from File:Rockhouse Hollow shelter with human for scale, interior.jpg, its ceiling is several times the height of a person, and it's quite the impressive sight when you come around the corner and observe it for the first time. Thanks for participating in the meetup! Nyttend (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Encyclopedia[edit]

This may sounds wrong to you, and please see the talk to find what section of the source supports this, ... but please restore the info.

Talk:Encyclopedia#Info_removed.2C_please_restore.3B_General_encyclopedias

--J. D. Redding 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to my query on Paid Editing[edit]

Thank you for your insightful responses to my question regarding paid editing. I hope you would not mind if I quoted you in my sure-to-be-published-nationwide-first-year-English-class paper. ; ) If you do mind, let me know on my talk page. Thanks Pugsly8000 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to quote. BTW, if you're super-new here, these pages might provide some further insight into the shared values on Wikipedia: WP:V(relating to knowledge being accessible and verifiable by anyone, not just experts); WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR (relating to respect for scholarly expertise); WP:BRD, WP:BOLD, WP:CONS, WP:AGF (relating to unilateral action and cooperation); WP:NOT (what belongs on Wikipedia and what doesn't). There are plenty more shared values, of course, many of which are not documented anywhere, but these are probably most relevant to opinions about paid editing. One of those is surely "the right to disagree about anything", including all the shared values I just listed. Good luck getting your school paper published! :) Are you a grad student in English? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying it your way too![edit]

Hi, I would just like to take to your attention that I will be doing an experiment on the Chemophobia one (it's still early on and it seems to be the weakest pick) but I am really not interested in arguing and spreading conflict with people over things I don't care about at all. I would just like a nice policy so it is easy to follow for everyone in the future so please do give me your thoughts on it as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chemophobia#Whole_article_stinks). Is invoking NPOV, Advocacy and Notability a good procedure here? I really have no idea how to work with all these terms in Wikipedia...it has grown into quite the bureaucratic colossus with an internal language that is difficult for outsiders to grasp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.34.174 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the Chemophobia article and I think you've got a point. I'll post to the talk page right now. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ben, thanks I guess but although I do not like the article for all its intents and purposes I do not think that its main fault is neologism although it may be easier to prove. It sure is an example of probable neologism but neologism itself doesn't hurt anyone. Neologism itself if done properly is a natural way to create new words. It could only be neologism if the term isn't recognised as an affliction in past records and of that I am not sure. But this is not the issue. Had they constructed their word as for example misochemy to describe hatred and dislike for chemical addatives then it would also have to pass the same test for neologism but it wouldn't really be a problem for the prefix would attached to the correct word. Can you understand my perspective and why this is so important? Neologism may not be very encyclopedic, the subterfuge of our language is worrisome on a whole other level. They are trying to create guilt by association and are in fact hurting those with real phobias too. Considering the articles scope it would be better to name it something like "Anti-addatives movement" or "Natural Food Movement". Their guilt by association is so extreme that the whole thing falls flat on its face. I haven't anyone who is afraid, dislikes or even just doesn't care about any and all (artificial or not) chemicals (There are for example people with phobias for chlorine). So it is clear that is being used as a blanket term and I'd like to delete it/rename it and all other examples and future examples on the basis of a broad and easily understandable policy or set of policies and I need everyones help with making a good proposal. Do you think that it is possible to formulate such guidelines or proposal(s)?46.59.34.174 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm no longer sure I understand. Are you saying that chemophobia is a bad neologism because it misuses the -phobia suffix, and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't use the word? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is really bad (compared to the Homophobia one that just uses incorrect terminology) and sorry if I was unclear. It is bad because it uses incorrect terminology (chemophobia instead of misochemy or chemomisia...I'm a bit tired, wrote wrong term before), it is bad because its scope goes beyond any reasonable scope, it is bad because it is neologism no matter what you name it and it is bad because it is clearly subjective. But if the facts are true and there are those who oppose chemical addatives in some general sense then the article, despite its bias should stay, just be compltely rewritten. My small criticism to you was that it isn't the neologism which is the worst part of the article because neologism per definition is something real described with a non yet accepted term. This is possibly not real and written for purposes to deceive. If the article was described as for example the "Anti-Addative Movement" and limited in its scope then it should stay but then there should also be room and will be room for the other side to express themselves without feeling insulted by the terminology. But I am no expert, I have no biology degree and I am not pro- or for- this subject at all. Heck I probably know something more about all the other subjects than this. What got me about this one is that I got into it through the article on Bees (after watching a small film about them on the Guardian Newspaper) and someone had slipped it in there in a really nasty way. That got me going and here we are. (Here is my Bee edit and what we risk if we accept this type of behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beekeeping&diff=prev&oldid=583400698 : the creation of ad hoc termninology supported with ad hoc articles on wikipedia) 46.59.34.174 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, now I think I understand: you're saying that it's not Wikipedia's place to use a term that doesn't have legitimate acceptance, especially in order to advocate a controversial opinion. Policy strongly supports you on that. Specifically regarding chemophobia, though, the Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for it, and it cites usage going back to 1962. So, it does appear that chemophobia is an accepted term. However, it looks to me like it's a term of derision, not a serious topic with facts about it. Certainly you were right to remove chemophobic movement from Beekeeping; that wording was sarcastic, and violated WP:NPOV. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. It doesn't have an entry in my version of the dictionary but it is not the main common one but those for students of the english language. Still I assume that their definition is similiar to the one I described for Homophobia and not as it is in the article, right? And yup, that's pretty much what I am saying. But legitimate for me here is the issue I am discussing. What is legitimate? I would not like it to be sources in articles, news entries or announcement. Perhaps not even scientific articles should do it. Only scientific or common dictionaries and I don't see why we can't form a policy about this. Heck even when there is a rare difference between two accepted dictionaries then let's argue about which dictionary is better to use, not bombard each other with opinions on what is biased and what is not. I am sure that at least some of the payed lobbyist scientists working for American Health Bla Bla believe in at least some part of their work. Who is really to say that they are worse. Which is also why I say that if their facts check out then parts of the article could stay. But the terms should change...ah well seems not to many are eager to make such a small but significant disturbance :P 46.59.34.174 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Off-Topic: You may wonder; what is this fellow up to? Why does he go all bonkers over some small counter-edit in some beekeeping-article against which nobody has complained. Well you see I learned (well O.K. I knew a little about it before too) from that Guardian film that bees are very important and that they are dying in ever growing numbers to the point where wild bees are almost impossible to find in some places in Britain today. So a bunch of these good beekeepers organised a demonstration at parliament and they said it may be a new pesticide doing this. Pesticide is big money and bees are crucial to our survival. I won't have it that honest small-business farmers who are concerned about their bees get -phobia attached to them not because I care about them so much nor do they care about what is attached to them but because it could lead to the ridicule of the whole bee-death-issue. And I don't know why but it just stuck with me and now that I have done some research about this I see this type of thing being used on many places in Wikipedia and elsewhere and I am concerned about it because it is so subtle, because it is so minor yet impacts the very foundations of an idea or cause. 46.59.34.174 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you: that kind of subtle ridicule is dishonest and has no place on Wikipedia. If you'd like to look at existing policy to see ways to improve it, one good place in addition to the ones I mentioned on Village Pump is WP:TERRORIST. Good luck stamping out that kind of rhetoric! Since Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, policy violations will keep on happening no matter what the policy says, of course. Cleaning it up requires eternal vigilance. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Ye...I'll need it :) I probably should've made an account long ago and I even think I have but I've forgoten about it. Would've had some more credibility than being just an IP as some editors dislike IPs as we are called. But I once explained my reason for not making or using an account here and that's because I think that we are all anonymous here and our credibility should only go so far as our message can take us. But I think I may be wrong about this now that I think about it. 46.59.34.174 (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Amazing story about the rise of Wikipedia[edit]

Ben, I read in one breath your amazing story about the Wikipedia emergence... and it touched me deeply. I think every editor on Wikipedia should read it to understand the deep meaning of Wikipedia. Also, I have seen remarkable thoughts in your essay about salience, especially "There is more to writing an encyclopedia than collecting facts from verifiable sources..." I only wonder why there are no other contributors in this interesting and so important for Wikipedia topic (looking at the history, I see you started it almost five years ago)... strange... Thank you for all that wisdom... I was just willing to accept it... --Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 22:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon[edit]

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!
Csaky madonna.jpg
Hi BenKovitz! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco.

Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!

SarahStierch (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ten Commandments[edit]

Hey there? What do you mean with "not readable"?
Is there something I could improve on that?
Greetings, Wuschelkopf (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wuschelkopf. I'll reply over at Talk:Ten Commandments in case someone else interested in that page comes up with a better idea. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley[edit]

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!
We Can Edit.jpg
The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!

The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library.

You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)