JoeWallack

JW:
I'm surprised Gibson hasn't jumped in here and claimed he was Spin.



Joseph the Counter-missionary

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

jon-eli

That's because spin is inimitable. It would be futile.

squiz

I don't really understand the fuss here. Check out these titles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethelred_the_Unready
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_bald
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Fat

All of these are disparaging titles, yet are the titles by which all of these kings are commonly known. I personally don't find Julian to be an apostate, but I have no problem with referring to him as such, as this is the term by which he is most widely known.

Strangely though, wikipedia is inconsistent. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_the_Lion_Heart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hardrada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Barbarossa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_bastard
These all redirect, for some reason.

I agree that it would be more consistent for them to redirect from Julian the Apostate to something more neutral, rather than the other way around. However they should not get rid of the "Julian the Apostate" link, nor of a reference to this name, as it is the name by which he is most commonly known in English today.

razlyubleno

The whole dispute is silly, since Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia; it only pretends to be. Read the entry about Maimonides in the Jewish Encyclopedia (jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=M), which lists him under his less common name, and which is far more scholarly than anything you'll find on Wikipedia, and then tell me that you really still care about Julian the Apostate vs. anything else. Note that the Maimonides article would be considered too long if it were on Wikipedia, since depth and substance is less important than ease-of-navigation.

Honestly, what a waste of breath.

Keith&Co.

I wonder if that's Troy Brooks? He used Pam Anderson as a sock puppet on the SAB for a while, claiming that the atheists all believe he really was the famous blonde...

spin

Scholarship has not generally used the term for a long time. (Look at the JSTOR figures I cite on the talk page.) You mightn't have problems with such names but they are unhelpful and only show the sentiments of the detractors. ("Ethelred the Unready" is simply a bad translation anyway. It sould be "Uncounseled".) One can always use a redirected link from "Julian the Apostate" to the real page and explain the nickname. Neutral names are better for history.


spin

spin

Some of the material on Wiki is very good. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater can have bad results.

Wiki has a system of redirection one name can point to an article of a different name. Type in JFK and you'll end up at John F. Kennedy.

The argument regarding most common name for Julian "the Apostate" is simply wrong. People who propose it are simply ignorant of the facts.

And you can take a long walk off a short pier.

What a silly attitude, saying "it's no good so I'll rubbish it", instead of improving the material where you can. Get off your rectal organ and be useful.


spin

razlyubleno

My point is that Wiki is systemically flawed. The flaws are cultural, and too far ingrained to be fixed. I don't think your analogy is appropriate.

I agree with you, spin. I have read the talk page.

I'm sure you didn't intend to characature my opinion only for the sake of insulting it. I edited on Wikipedia some years ago, profusely, and got into all the same arguments that still rage tirelessly today. Nothing has changed. I'm sorry that I can't muster the energy to fight for what I consider a lost cause. But the fire of my youth is long since behind me.

I admire your passion. I just don't share it.

razly

spin

It certainly depends on the matter you are dealing with. I go to Wiki quite often as a starter. I read it and decide how veracious the material appears to be and maybe look for bibliography.

So's mine. What does that change?

It's probably more like belligerence and of that it's good you don't share it.


spin

razlyubleno

Let me try harder to make sense.

When you read a Wikipedia article (admittedly this is not true of all of them), you'll notice that there's no real cohesion, that the articles feel very modular; each section does not support every other section, since it is likely written by a different person, with a different thesis in mind. Contrast this with professionally written articles, articles written by scholars, and the distinction is clear: The articles are unified theses that deliver information in a linear, incremental, pedagogically-sound manner. I don't think Wikipedia can ever achieve this, since there is that ever-present tug of war between conflicting interests, resulting in the dryness and disunity, no thanks to that exalted pillar of Wiki policy: NPOV.

That's my 2 cents of dribble.

It changes my answer to the question: Cigarette or Wiki?

Inspiring belligerence, to be sure

razly