Humanities desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 20[edit]

Long and short term U.S. Natural Rate of Unemployment derivations?[edit]

How are [1] and [2] derived? I'm also asking at WT:ECON and promise to cross-merge the best answers. EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I not plagiarize myself[edit]

I am working on a biography of the artist Sidney Gross (1921-1969) and as it has developed, versions appear on my websites LSDArt.com and LeonardDavenportFineArts.com with invitations to add to it. It is informally documented (i.e., quotes are identified as to source, Critic name, publication and year, but not currently as formal end or footnotes). I tried before to write an abbreviated version of the biography for Wikipedia, but it was rejected as plagiarized from my websites.

I don't know what to do, since almost anything I would write about the artist would be self-plagerism.

I have a similar problem with other artists of note, and a particular interest in women artists who get lost due to name changes. The WPA artists Helen West Heller and Marion Gilmore Hulse, for example. I think I have a lot, including time, to offer on many articles in other areas I do read, but, I'm embarrassed to say, find the process confusing and difficult.

For the record, if it matters, I am a retired English/Journalism/math teacher, union president, historical society president, political campaign manager, blah, blah.

I seem to log in, but I don't know what exactly my user name (lsdart with or without caps) is or my password.

LSDart (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Leonard Davenport[reply]

If agreeable, try adding a note on your site indicating that you release the content under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LSDart, your username is LSDart. I have put a "Welcome Box" on your user talk page, which has a number of useful links to get you started. If you set your email address when you made your account then you can get a password re-set emailed if you have difficulty in logging in again. I'm not so sure how to re-use your own content from other sites, but I am sure that it is possible! Hopefully another editor will be able to help you with that part of your query. DuncanHill (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as plagiarizing yourself. What would be improper would be to list your own web site as a reliable source for the Wikipedia article, or to copy text from someone else's web site (or other writing) illegally into Wikipedia. Obviously the person who assumed the text was plagiarized because it was copied from your web site simply didn't realize that you yourself were the one copying it. However, do note that you are likely to have legal rights over text you write and post on your web site, whereas you give up most rights to text you post to Wikipedia, even if it is the same text. (I'm not going into details because that would be legal advice, which we don't do here; but for example, you may have the right to not have someone else copy text from your web site and post it to Wikipedia.) Duncan's sugggestion about "releasing the content" means giving up some of those rights, the same as you would by posting the text to Wikipedia. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bringing up legal rights? Legal rights are relevant to copyright, not to plagiarism. Two completely different things (though they have overlapping instances). Copyright is about an artificial statutory property right, which can be bought and sold.

I brought it up because (1) Nricardo did above, but in a way where it might not be clear it was about legal rights; and (2) as Nil says below, "I strongly suspect copyright was the primary concern, not plagiarism." As you say, plagiarism and copyright violation are two different types of impropriety, though the same act may be both at once. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is about who gets credit, and it's not a legal question at all, at least in most cases. To avoid plagiarism, you don't have to get any sort of permission from the original author; you just have to give correct credit to your source. (You might still be guilty of copyright violation in that case, but not plagiarism.)

"Self-plagiarism" is a term that is sometimes heard. Of course you can't steal the credit from yourself, exactly; either way, you get the credit (or blame). But what you can do is keep repeating the same stuff. Is that a problem? Sometimes, maybe, if there's an expectation that what you're producing is new work. --Trovatore (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone missed it, our article on plagiarism actually has a subsection on self plagiarism with a resonable degree of info. BTW, in terms of the original question, both Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright violations are likely relevant although copyright tends to be of greater concern here for various reasons. I don't know what was specifically said to you, the OP. From what I can tell we never had an article on Sidney Gross (1921-1969) and Sidney Gross, maybe it was at WP:AFC. But I strongly suspect copyright was the primary concern with the material that appeared on the website, not plagiarism. Note also that beyond clarifying the copyright status of the material on your websites as being compatible with importation in to wikipedia (or alternatively proving you are the author), there could potentially still be concerns depending on how careful you were with your original writing to comply with our requirements (some people use extensive quotation but excessive quotation is unlikely to be accept on wikipedia, worse if you weren't always careful identify when you were simply quoting). But there are people much more used to dealing with this sort of stuff who could offer better advice, I suggest you follow the links you've been given. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rule Of Not Ruling Anything (Out?)[edit]

What is its origin? Is it just a play on words? Is it with or without 'out', that makes a lot of difference? Thanks for any comment. Omidinist (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Rule out" is an idiom, and here is the Wiktionary entry which should answer your question. The OED credits the first written usage to Mark Twain in 1869.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How about its usage in this context? I don't think 'out' has been left out. Omidinist (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There it is used as explained in wiktionary: to rule" (see the 1. or 5. entries under Verb). Rather probably it only rarely can be found followed by "nothing", but why, in the example which you're giving, this can perhaps be explained by the context. --Askedonty (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Or were you meaning in that sentence its first occurence of "rule"? In any event, you may also visit at WP:RD the Reference Desk:Language.[reply]

In that context, I interpret it to mean that there is a rule out there somewhere that says you should not rule anything. Always be in opposition to the existing power - not be the power. A quick google of the phrase gives very few hits. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it should say "you" in "you should not". This no-rule is attributed to a minority current inside a minority current. They probably would mean "we". --Askedonty (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. Any follow-up would be appreciated. I still wonder where that 'rule' has come from. Omidinist (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The passage discusses "counterpower" and utopian social movements. What springs to mind is anarchism, where the only "rule" is that no one has dominion over anyone else... the only rule is to not rule, in other words. OttawaAC (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In brainstorming, the only rule is to not rule, i.e., the only rule is to not make a (premature) ruling/ decision (e.g. premature criticism of ideas). That is, the only rule is to not rule out any idea or perspective, no matter how odd/ bizarre/ unusual/ weird/ radical/ revolutionary/ unconventional/ strange the idea might first appear. IjonTichy (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

We are doing an ABC book on Australia and we need an X word.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.184.3 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia? 131.251.254.110 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that finding words that starts with an X is always problematic, as most of the few words that do start with X make a Z sound. So, this is why you might want to use a word with an X somewhere else in it, where it at least still makes an X sound.

I suggest you use the word "eXcons", as convict ships were an important part of Australia's past. Assuming this is a children's book, you might want to emphasize that they had made mistakes and were given a chance to reform, and avoid listing their actual crimes, like prostitution (so an not to make the book X-rated). StuRat (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's this bloke, if you do your list by surnames. DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, even better, X. DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about xerophyte or xeriscaping?

Like SemanticMantis (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that AFAIK the word 'excon' isn't used much in Australian English, I'm not sure that's a good choice. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, they can still mention that the convicts were eXiled (as an alternative to eXecution). StuRat (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for an initial X, another option is Xenica, the common name for a genus of butterfly endemic to Australia. If you want a word in which x has its characteristic sound, maybe spinifex, a type of grass found in Australia, or perhaps the Spinifexbird, which feeds on an unrelated type of grass also called spinifex. Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Xanthorrhoea.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the most recent works of rock and bark paintings depicting the outsides and insides of animals and humans, so-called X ray art, can be found in Australia (e.g. Ubirr rock art , or this saltwater fish) ... Xavier Rudd ... ("Xanadu" :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four for the price of one: Castlemaine XXXX.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And five more: The stereotypical blond surfer could be described as xanthochroid. Despite our supposed xenophobia, we are rightly famed for our xenodochy. Many of our citizens are xenoepists. Our native flora is xerophilous, but most introduced species are xerophobous. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For another genre of rock art: INXS. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global net worth[edit]

What is the global net worth of the entire human population? I have previously considered posting this question here, but now I am prompted by a report of a lawsuit for two undecillion dollars (US$2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

Man suing almost everyone for all the money on Earth—New York Post (May 16, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I bet we can get him to settle out of court for a mere 200 decillion. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I can't get the link now because I'm at work, but there is a recent XKCD What-if about this lawsuit. I don't recall if it covered total net worth specifically, but it is definitely worth checking out. Katie R (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's that link. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. Apparently, the author did not provide reliable sources for his or her figures. Anyway, someone might wish to mention the lawsuit in the article "Au Bon Pain".

—Wavelength (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or probably not. The lawsuit seems to be the sort of random crap that doesn't seem to have any real significance to Au Bon Pain and so not the sort of stuff you'd expect to read in a comprehensive encyclopaedic article about the subject (which we unfortunately don't have). Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled Money supply, which has various ways in which "all the money in the world" can be calculated. The CIA factbook has figures here for the "M2" money supply for every country in the world, though the figures are based on different estimates from different years, and I'm having a hard time with the fact that there's only $3,000,000 in all of Suriname, but taking the table at face value and adding up everything, (done quickly by pasting the table into Excel and using the sum() function) we get the global M2 money supply to be $95,680,593,065,000 or about 95 trillion dollars. Two undecillion would be roughly the number of individual atoms in all the money of the world, if it were all printed in one dollar bills. In other words, just silliness. --Jayron32 01:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More: This transcript of an excellent episode of This American Life from 2008 titled "The Giant Pool of Money" explains the global money supply in pretty easy to understand terms (and also uses its growth to explain the macroeconomic pressures that led to the financial crisis of that time) and arrived at a global money supply of about $70 trillion dollars; in 2008. Given the way the world economy has been growing, that the seems in the ballpark of the 2013 numbers I estimated above. --Jayron32 02:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. The world population (of humans) is a little more than seven billion (7,000,000,000), so ninety-five trillion dollars ($95,000,000,000,000) amounts to about $13,500 per capita (per human).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global net worth is somewhere in the low millions of dollars, perhaps $3-4M. The value of the your life is routinely measured at such an amount, and there is no personal and metaphysical difference between your life and the value of the world you experience during your life. Other metrics may differ. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]