Subversiv syslöjd rides again!

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:

"Diana" wrote

OK. Someone recently died. I entered her name and looked to see what was
said on various obituaries, including Wiki. I was flattered to see that a
picture I took of her in 1989 was being used but surprised to see that it
was attributed to an international organisation. Because of that many
other obits gave the same attribution, including the Times (London)
newspaper. I told them and they apologised and are sending me payment.

You told Wiki? Or the Times?

The Times was the last subject.
snip
I did alter it. I was surprised that there was no assessment of my
authority - this is a great weakness. I have the rights of the picture,
I still have the negative and contact prints.

Well, it works like this: the information was put up. You corrected it. If
you had given them erroneous information in YOUR turn, someone else would
have fixed it, until eventually the right information would 'stick.'
Sounds very sloppy, but it...well...works.

It didn't though, because it was changed back to the original error.

When I looked a few days later my name had been removed and the original
attribution inserted. I edited it again, I haven't looked since to see
what's happened, my point is that it's too easy to edit and it can be
done with authority or without, mischievously or otherwise. That is a
great weakness.

You need to look again...and let the editors know the problem.

It's my word against someone else's. That's communal responsibility :-)

They're not going to ask to see my evidence!

From looking at Wiki articles, I notice a place where they will mark
an article "unsupported" and remove it if the statements aren't supported
by published references. If you can send them the information that the
Times apologized and are paying you for the use of the photo, especially
if the Times published an apology (which they ought to have, though it
might be on page umpteen in tiny type); that would be published proof to
cite.

=Tamar

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Diana" wrote in message
news:Zgm7j.7383$3s1.5156@trnddc06...


OK. Someone recently died. I entered her name and looked to see what was
said on various obituaries, including Wiki. I was flattered to see that
a picture I took of her in 1989 was being used but surprised to see that
it was attributed to an international organisation. Because of that many
other obits gave the same attribution, including the Times (London)
newspaper. I told them and they apologised and are sending me payment.

You told Wiki? Or the Times?

The Times was the last subject.

misattribution is an ubiquitous sin; happens all the time to everybody.
...but how neat that you could find that obituary on wiki--I'll bet you
that the EB didn't have it!

Are you talking about EB on line?

Yep...of course, since I don't have a clue who died, I could be wrong.
Someone famous enough....
On the other hand, maybe not.

And if it was incorrect, you could have fixed it. That's the beauty of
the thing. We are all responsible for it.

I did alter it. I was surprised that there was no assessment of my
authority - this is a great weakness. I have the rights of the picture,
I still have the negative and contact prints.

Well, it works like this: the information was put up. You corrected it.
If you had given them erroneous information in YOUR turn, someone else
would have fixed it, until eventually the right information would
'stick.' Sounds very sloppy, but it...well...works.

It didn't though, because it was changed back to the original error.

So change it again.

which is why Wikipedia has such a high accuracy rating. Everybody is
responsible.

You suggesting that communal responsibility ensures accuracy?

Think about it.

Indeed, in terms of Wikipedia and open source coding, it does just that. ;-)
We aren't talking about elections, Mary.

When I looked a few days later my name had been removed and the original
attribution inserted. I edited it again, I haven't looked since to see
what's happened, my point is that it's too easy to edit and it can be
done with authority or without, mischievously or otherwise. That is a
great weakness.

You need to look again...and let the editors know the problem.

It's my word against someone else's. That's communal responsibility :-)

Not quite.

They're not going to ask to see my evidence!

Actually, they ARE. Wikipedia has a 'thing...' if an entry keeps getting
changed back and forth, the editors step in and freeze it---and request
confirmation and cites. It's not total anarchy over there, y'know.

You use a longbow?

Yes, but not often. After my breast cancer surgery I couldn't pull a
respectable poundage so I used a grandson's, which my husband had made
for him when he was about eight. As I regained strength I broke it and
more or less gave up.

I admit, I haven't held a bow in my hands for close onto forty years,
but there was a time when my father and I would hunt with a bow; my one
and only buck was taken with a hunting bow. Not a 'longbow' if you are
talking about what I think you are, but a pulley system type. We didn't
even try for rabbits. ;-)

We don't hunt with bows (hawks are far more efficient for rabbits :-)
We do - I used to do - target shooting, as did my husband. A grand
daughter came to live with us on Friday, I was pleased to see that she
loaded a nice bow and splendid tooled leather arrow bag in the car with
her other belongings. Our arrow bag is a simple linen one. We have bows
because we're involved in historical events - although 100%
non-combatant. Modern bows aren't allowed even if anyone wanted to use
one. Agincourt was won quite nicely thank you using the English longbow!

Oh, very cool...and yes, it was. At least one longbow sharpshooter
ensured that one!

It was won by better archers and better bows - and waterproofed strings.
Huzzah!

Mary

"Richard Eney" wrote in message
...

From looking at Wiki articles, I notice a place where they will mark
an article "unsupported" and remove it if the statements aren't supported
by published references. If you can send them the information that the
Times apologized and are paying you for the use of the photo, especially
if the Times published an apology (which they ought to have, though it
might be on page umpteen in tiny type); that would be published proof to
cite.

I've no idea if there was an apology, we don't get newspapers. We were
staying with some people who knew our interests and showed me the obit. I
knew immediately it was my picture :-) It was on the urging of others that I
contacted the Times.

To be honest I wasn't really bothered, it was only after I discovered that
lots of other magazines were using it and giving the wrong attribution -
including one of my publisher's - that I became irritated!

A lot of fuss about nothing really - but it does illustrate the weakness of
Wik.

Mary

"Diana" wrote in message
news:9IA7j.24017$0O1.16803@trnddc05...


Are you talking about EB on line?

Yep...of course, since I don't have a clue who died, I could be wrong.
Someone famous enough....
On the other hand, maybe not.

Very famous and important in a small area - it was almost a full page
though.

And if it was incorrect, you could have fixed it. That's the beauty of
the thing. We are all responsible for it.

I did alter it. I was surprised that there was no assessment of my
authority - this is a great weakness. I have the rights of the picture,
I still have the negative and contact prints.

Well, it works like this: the information was put up. You corrected it.
If you had given them erroneous information in YOUR turn, someone else
would have fixed it, until eventually the right information would
'stick.' Sounds very sloppy, but it...well...works.

It didn't though, because it was changed back to the original error.

So change it again.

Until seventy times seven? Can't be bothered :-)

....

They're not going to ask to see my evidence!

Actually, they ARE. Wikipedia has a 'thing...' if an entry keeps getting
changed back and forth, the editors step in and freeze it---and request
confirmation and cites. It's not total anarchy over there, y'know.

That's how it seems ...

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Richard Eney" wrote in message
...

From looking at Wiki articles, I notice a place where they will mark
an article "unsupported" and remove it if the statements aren't supported
by published references. If you can send them the information that the
Times apologized and are paying you for the use of the photo, especially
if the Times published an apology (which they ought to have, though it
might be on page umpteen in tiny type); that would be published proof to
cite.

I've no idea if there was an apology, we don't get newspapers. We were
staying with some people who knew our interests and showed me the obit. I
knew immediately it was my picture :-) It was on the urging of others that
I contacted the Times.

To be honest I wasn't really bothered, it was only after I discovered that
lots of other magazines were using it and giving the wrong attribution -
including one of my publisher's - that I became irritated!

A lot of fuss about nothing really - but it does illustrate the weakness
of Wik.

If you will give it a chance...and do what Richard suggest, you'll also see
the strength of Wiki. I don't blame you a bit for getting PO'd about the
misattributions. But here's the thing; if it were EB, you COULDN'T fix it.
With Wiki, you can.

"Diana" wrote in message
news:BQA7j.24019$0O1.21462@trnddc05...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Richard Eney" wrote in message
...

From looking at Wiki articles, I notice a place where they will mark
an article "unsupported" and remove it if the statements aren't
supported
by published references. If you can send them the information that the
Times apologized and are paying you for the use of the photo, especially
if the Times published an apology (which they ought to have, though it
might be on page umpteen in tiny type); that would be published proof to
cite.

I've no idea if there was an apology, we don't get newspapers. We were
staying with some people who knew our interests and showed me the obit. I
knew immediately it was my picture :-) It was on the urging of others
that I contacted the Times.

To be honest I wasn't really bothered, it was only after I discovered
that lots of other magazines were using it and giving the wrong
attribution - including one of my publisher's - that I became irritated!

A lot of fuss about nothing really - but it does illustrate the weakness
of Wik.

If you will give it a chance...and do what Richard suggest, you'll also
see the strength of Wiki. I don't blame you a bit for getting PO'd about
the misattributions. But here's the thing; if it were EB, you COULDN'T fix
it. With Wiki, you can.

I don't consult such general sources for information. When I want to know
something I rely on my own experience or consult peer reveiwed research.
It's the only reliable way.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Diana" wrote in message
news:BQA7j.24019$0O1.21462@trnddc05...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Richard Eney" wrote in message
...

From looking at Wiki articles, I notice a place where they will mark
an article "unsupported" and remove it if the statements aren't
supported
by published references. If you can send them the information that the
Times apologized and are paying you for the use of the photo,
especially
if the Times published an apology (which they ought to have, though it
might be on page umpteen in tiny type); that would be published proof
to
cite.

I've no idea if there was an apology, we don't get newspapers. We were
staying with some people who knew our interests and showed me the obit.
I knew immediately it was my picture :-) It was on the urging of others
that I contacted the Times.

To be honest I wasn't really bothered, it was only after I discovered
that lots of other magazines were using it and giving the wrong
attribution - including one of my publisher's - that I became irritated!

A lot of fuss about nothing really - but it does illustrate the weakness
of Wik.

If you will give it a chance...and do what Richard suggest, you'll also
see the strength of Wiki. I don't blame you a bit for getting PO'd about
the misattributions. But here's the thing; if it were EB, you COULDN'T
fix it. With Wiki, you can.

I don't consult such general sources for information. When I want to know
something I rely on my own experience or consult peer reveiwed research.
It's the only reliable way.

I did mention, didn't I, that I don't allow my students to CITE Wikipedia,
right? It is as accurate as EB, and far more extensive...and a very good
place to *begin* one's research. Most articles have links TO peer reviewed
sources. Even those that do not have additional search terms to use. I"m
going to qoute Wales, the creater of Wiki, on this (remember, this is a
QUOTE, not my words!)

"For God's sake, you are college students. Don't cite an encyclopedia!"

Now me, I'm a high school teacher, but the principle still works, minus the
profanity. One of the first things I do with my students is give them a
week of lessons on research, internet and library. How and when to use
Wikipedia (and other encyclopedias, online or not) takes up three days of
that week. It's why I defend it as strongly as I have. It's a great resource
for research, but it is more like a card catalogue than a final citable
source. ;-)

We friends now?

Diana

....by the way, to get this thing back on topic for the group, does anybody
have a really GOOD pattern for gloves out there?

"Diana" wrote in message
news:x3T7j.16758$k22.15995@trnddc02...


....

I did mention, didn't I, that I don't allow my students to CITE Wikipedia,
right? It is as accurate as EB, and far more extensive...and a very good
place to *begin* one's research. Most articles have links TO peer reviewed
sources. Even those that do not have additional search terms to use. I"m
going to qoute Wales, the creater of Wiki, on this (remember, this is a
QUOTE, not my words!)

"For God's sake, you are college students. Don't cite an encyclopedia!"

Now me, I'm a high school teacher, but the principle still works, minus
the profanity. One of the first things I do with my students is give them
a week of lessons on research, internet and library. How and when to use
Wikipedia (and other encyclopedias, online or not) takes up three days of
that week. It's why I defend it as strongly as I have. It's a great
resource for research, but it is more like a card catalogue than a final
citable source. ;-)

We friends now?

Hey - were we ever not?


Diana

...by the way, to get this thing back on topic for the group, does anybody
have a really GOOD pattern for gloves out there?

I could do with some for a grand daughter who's just come to live with us.
She walks to college and it's been bitterly cold and freezing this week.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Diana" wrote in message
news:x3T7j.16758$k22.15995@trnddc02...


...

I did mention, didn't I, that I don't allow my students to CITE
Wikipedia, right? It is as accurate as EB, and far more extensive...and a
very good place to *begin* one's research. Most articles have links TO
peer reviewed sources. Even those that do not have additional search
terms to use. I"m going to qoute Wales, the creater of Wiki, on this
(remember, this is a QUOTE, not my words!)

"For God's sake, you are college students. Don't cite an encyclopedia!"

Now me, I'm a high school teacher, but the principle still works, minus
the profanity. One of the first things I do with my students is give
them a week of lessons on research, internet and library. How and when to
use Wikipedia (and other encyclopedias, online or not) takes up three
days of that week. It's why I defend it as strongly as I have. It's a
great resource for research, but it is more like a card catalogue than a
final citable source. ;-)

We friends now?

Hey - were we ever not?


Diana

...by the way, to get this thing back on topic for the group, does
anybody have a really GOOD pattern for gloves out there?

I could do with some for a grand daughter who's just come to live with us.
She walks to college and it's been bitterly cold and freezing this week.

Mary

....and my daughter has Reynauds. Her gloves have to fit well but absolutely
not be too tight, be of wool or other natural fiber (synthetic yarn gloves
can actually be colder than bare fingers!) and she needs lots of 'em. I need
a pattern that will work with yarn of all sizes.

"Diana" wrote in
news:C3X7j.10846$rB1.541@trnddc03:

...and my daughter has Reynauds. Her gloves have to fit
well but absolutely not be too tight, be of wool or other
natural fiber (synthetic yarn gloves can actually be colder
than bare fingers!) and she needs lots of 'em. I need a
pattern that will work with yarn of all sizes.

the Knitter's Handy Book of Patterns by Ann Budd has a glove
pattern, any size, any yarn,any gauge. i use it all the time
for my open finger gloves
lee