User talk:Ockham

Welcome!

---

Hi Ockham, welcome to MyWikiBiz. We're happy that you've taken the steps to become a member of our site. MyWikiBiz is a directory where any person, any company, any product, or any thing can author their own legacy. We seek to provide the space for 265 million entities. Our registered editors like you have generated over 60,000 pages so far -- help keep that number growing with an article about yourself, your business, your industry, your favorite product, hobby, or organization. Since 2008, MyWikiBiz.com has served up over 1 million page views. Get started authoring your legacy today!

Helpful tips

Here are some tips on how to create a Directory listing and take advantage of the semantic web features we have in place:

• You may write as an opinionated advocate in the Directory -- neutral view is not required. You can sell products, promote videos, upload documents, even host your own Google AdSense ads. This auto-fill form will guide you through creating a very basic directory listing right now.
• Because MyWikiBiz supports Semantic Web technology, search engine results are highly optimized. Internal searches can also be performed that wouldn't be possible on Google, MySpace, or Wikipedia.

A few favorite pages that might help acquaint a new user with the possibilities are found among the Demonstration links, or in these articles written by independent reviewers.

E-mail updates

If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form. <embed>

<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true">

Enter your email address:

<input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/>

<input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" />

Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a>

</form>

</embed>

Share this page!

<sharethis />

Lovin' what you're doing

It is very exciting to see someone taking the bull by the horns, as you're doing, and laying the groundwork for what could be a great semantic sub-encyclopedia. You've already created an integer attribute, too! Phew! - MyWikiBiz 07:49, 28 January 2008 (PST)

Gack! Some excellent advice found here. I'm too junior a SemWeb noobie to remember things like this -- I just see the strategic beauty of doing things semantically. - MyWikiBiz 08:55, 28 January 2008 (PST)

Since when?

Igor Alexander has never been suggested to have been responsible for setting up www.wikipediareview.com. You must have gotten confused of that. Igor doesn't claim that, I don't claim that, Selina doesn't claim that, nobody claims that. Igor Alexander set up the ProBoards site. A group of 6 founding members set up the domain name. This included Igor, but it wasn't his idea. Lir, Blissyu2, Qwerty, Igor Alexander, Selina and Blissyu2 are your 6 founding members, who set up the new domain name. I haven't seen anywhere that anyone has disputed that. Is it being disputed? Perhaps Somey is suggesting that he went back in time to do it? Gosh darn it, these pesky time machines! Blissyu2 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)

So fix it then, as it is in MWB mainspace. Ockham 04:05, 13 October 2008 (PDT)

Revolting suggestions

See here for my suggestions. -- MyWikiBiz 06:08, 14 October 2008 (PDT)

Google cache

I hope that you'll see my note. -- MyWikiBiz 10:28, 26 November 2008 (PST)

Kenneth Freeman

I am new here (though I've been here once before as User:bluevictim, I wanted to create an account under my real name), so I have just created an article, Kenneth Freeman. Is this how articles are done here, properly? What should be improved?

Jonas Rand 15:33, 1 January 2009 (PST)

Jonas, I've made a note to you on your Talk page. I'll look for your response. I am not big into managing headaches on a repeated basis here. That's not a threat or anything... just giving you my perspective. -- MyWikiBiz 16:51, 1 January 2009 (PST)

Thank you, once again

Ockham, thank you again for all the good, quality work that you're doing here under the subject of medieval philosophy. It certainly lends an air of respect to our site. -- MyWikiBiz 11:57, 4 January 2009 (PST)

My pleasure. I am keeping up the account on Wikipedia see here for example but the article here is going to be better, of course. Is there any benefit in linking the Wikipedia articles here? Ockham 12:01, 4 January 2009 (PST)

I believe that if you create here a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article, that has the net effect among search engines (Google, Yahoo, etc.) to "enhance" the reputation and PageRank of the Wikipedia article. If you create a hyperlink from Wikipedia to the article here on MyWikiBiz, it will not have a net effect among the search engines, because back in early 2007, Wikipedia selfishly put "nofollow" on most of their external link functions, on orders from Jimmy Wales. I immediately pointed out that the exceptional few links that remained impervious to "nofollow" happened to be to Jimmy's Wikia.com profit project. For that, I was again blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Even with Wikipedia's "nofollow" effrontery, it is still helpful to link FROM there TO here, but only if you're actually doing so to assist Wikipedia users to find more helpful, authoritative information, and you are not doing it to boost your own ego or profit margins. Don't worry, others who hold power on Wikipedia will decide for you what your motives are. If you disagree with their decision, you may be blocked for daring to hold such an opinion.

As a note, MyWikiBiz has about 40 links to it from Wikipedia article and talk space. From these links, we garner about 4 or 5 "hits" per day. Nothing to break a sweat over. -- MyWikiBiz 18:45, 4 January 2009 (PST)

Oh well. On a positive note this search brings in Siger at #3 on Google, above the The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. Ulrich of Strasbourg comes #3 also. It is also interesting to compare the Wikipedia version of 'On Interpretation' with the MWB version. Notice the MWB is complete, the Wikipedia is not. This is not because anything was deleted from the Wikipedia version, but because the author of that article was banned for a period from Wikipedia and completed the article on MWB instead.

Which is rather unfair because when you Google a phrase from both versions it comes 3rd after Wikipedia and a scraper, and to add insult to injury, it comes the omitted portion of "in order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 2 already displayed!". Yet if you Google a phrase only in the MWB it is #1 of 1, naturally. Ockham 09:42, 6 January 2009 (PST)

I replied

I replied to your Google issues, on my Talk page. Just thought I'd leave you a note here, while you're beavering away on the site. Feel free to erase this. -- MyWikiBiz 10:11, 25 January 2009 (PST)

Transcription wiki hacks

I'd like to ask you some questions about your manuscript transcription wiki hacks. I'd looked at modifying MediaWiki for that purpose about 4 years ago, but had very little luck. Please drop me a line via the wiki email address.

Benwbrum 13:06, 18 April 2009 (PDT) [1] [2]

Hi I replied with a test email. Ockham 07:49, 19 April 2009 (PDT)

The Wikipedia Point of View

Hi my name is Peter and I am from Australia. I’ve been reading the article “The Wikipedia Point of View/Peter Damian Evidence” and the “The Wikipedia Point of View “ with great interest. I originally came to Wikipedia to do a little bit of editing. But found myself writing in an area of Wikipedia that seems to be in a constant edit war. Wikipedia is becoming a domain for an ever-growing number of wiki-bullies. The idea of an encyclopedia proper just cannot be achieved this way and it’s probably past the point where any reform can help it. Here in Australia Universities, colleges and other tertiary education facilities have banned the use of Wikipedia as a research tool.

My particular experience with Wikipedia is that it is being used as a promotional tool for political agendas. This then brings up all sorts of moral issues, which I think should be important. I would like to add a chapter to the article The Wikipedia Point of View concerning this. I would like to present my writings to you if I may. I think I need a realty check. I feel like I’ve been banging my head against a wall with this for a while now, on my own, and it’s only now that I’m presenting my concerns outside of Wikipedia. Thanks Peter Z. 17:54, 22 September 2009 (PDT)

Thanks, and by all means post something here on my talk page. I will then post it on WPOV with attribution, if you are content with this. Ockham 00:02, 29 September 2009 (PDT)

The Balkans

Moved to User talk:Ockham/Wikipedia & Political Agendas

Actually (though the above is useful) do you have links to the articles that are problematic? I looked at the article on Tito and there are clear problems there. Is there anything else? Thanks Ockham 01:56, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Hi! So, Wiki links that are problematic concerning the article. Hmmm, I like that. I'll get back to you on that one. Thanks for the tip. Peter Z. 02:49, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

No, other articles in Wikipedia - or is it just the Tito one? Let's start with which specific Wikipedia articles you have a problem with :-) Ockham 02:51, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Ok! The Tito one, for now, as an example.Peter Z. 02:54, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Can you see if you are allowed to edit User talk:Ockham/test page? Ockham 03:00, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

No, I'm not allowed to edit the article. I went through all the Wiki protocol on the talk page & presented my arguments to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard & Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, they told me go and edit somewhere else. Peter Z. 03:13, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Yes Peter Z. 03:31, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

OK I have moved the page (see above). We can edit it there and then move it to the main space when complete. Ockham 03:47, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

You are 'Sir Floyd', correct? And the other one is 'Direktor'. It looks to me as though there is an issue here (forgive me, I generally avoid political articles as they are so inherently difficult to make NPOV. I agree with you, using standard reference sources as a benchmark is the only way to achieve neutrality. Ockham 03:51, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Thanks! "Sir Floyd is not a bad guy once you get to know him." I'm lucky they didn't block me. They launched a huge attack against me once they saw that I wanted to change their Broz article. Director is their leader. I was suspicious from day one, but as you say "political articles are so inherently difficult to make NPOV" and I agree. I've been to Croatia many times, so I have a personal experience from that region. They seem to want to make Wikipedia to read like the propaganda of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. My main worry is the power of Wikipedia to inform. Peter Z. 05:39, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Ockham are you on line?Peter Z. 07:57, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Yes, if you click on 'User contributions' you can see where I am working. I have added some more material to the article.Ockham 07:59, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Thanks for responding. My partner has gone to bed, so please forgive me for my written English. I'm a bit dyslexic and a bi-lingual one at that, this was actually used against me at Wikipedia. Firstly thank you for putting your time into this. I lived in Croatia for ten years (long story) 78 to 88, so I know the place like the back of my hand. Can I please make some comments. By the way your bloody good at this!.Peter Z. 08:15, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Go ahead I put it there so we can both work on it.Ockham 08:28, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Thanks! We might have to put old Draza Mihailović on the bottom of the article (in terms of importance), because he switched sides during WW2 (but he still aided Allied Pilots), if that's Ok. Peter Z. 08:40, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

I am just collecting material for the moment. Mihailović seems to have been guilty of something, but it is by no means as clear cut as the Wikipedia article suggests. Sources are everything. I might split this into several articles. Ockham 08:50, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Cult of Personality is Wiki (Tito's) article's greatest weakness. His "Cult of Personality" is well documented (and it is quite disconcerting). You have to understand that there is a lot of feel good info written on him, until the collapse of Yugoslavia. He played a major role in Cold War propaganda, but it sadly turned out to be political spin. I'm going to add a few more references then I'm off to bed. At the moment I'm drinking a nice Aussie red wine. Cheers & Thank You! Peter Z. 09:26, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Mmm my favourite. Might have some myself tonight in London. Ockham 09:31, 3 October 2009 (PDT)

Hi Ockham, are you on line? Thanks for the message and your work, it's looking great. Peter Z. 07:57, 4 October 2009 (PDT)

I'm here (for a bit). As I said, follow my contributions to see if I am on line. Thanks for a great lead. Ockham 07:58, 4 October 2009 (PDT)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, what a waste of time. Just logged off Wikipedia. I must have hit a raw nerve with the "Sources Interlink Attack". Ok I'll follow up, & get back to you. Are you still in London? I love London. Cheers Peter Z. 08:17, 4 October 2009 (PDT)

Hi Ockham, I'll be posting my thoughts on my talk page, so when you've got some spare time, check it out. Regards Peter Z. 20:28, 5 October 2009 (PDT)

I've been away, I'll check your page out tomorrow. Ockham 11:53, 8 October 2009 (PDT)

Check out the Youth Indoctrination stuff, it is very funny. It reminds me of Hitler's Youth. Peter Z. 21:59, 9 October 2009 (PDT)

Check out "Wiki Balkan Dramas" & "Wiki's Encyclopedic Editors Style of Communication" Peter Z. 20:37, 12 October 2009 (PDT)

Wiki Editors Publishing Wiki Articles (In a Book)

G-Day Ockham! Do you know anything about Wiki Editors publishing Wiki articles (in a book) and making money from it. Peter Z. 02:47, 8 October 2009 (PDT)

Sorry, no Ockham 11:53, 8 October 2009 (PDT)

I brought this book of the Internet called History of Dalmatia [3]. It turned out to be 95% Wiki (maps & all). I though that Wiki was a non-profit organization. Without my knowledge I was surprised to see myself listed as a source author (& they got my statement wrong). Peter Z. 19:38, 9 October 2009 (PDT)

User:MyWikiBiz‎ has got information on the History of Dalmatia book [4]. Peter Z. 20:45, 12 October 2009 (PDT)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

"Tito was the commander of the Partisans and there are far too many examples of mass murders & mass arrests [5] [6][7] for it to be ignored (& there are many more). Any good encyclopedic article should make reference to them. It would be like Stalin without his rule of terror being documented. This just dosen't make sense in the modern world. What we have here is a clear avoidance of these issues (in the article), thus making it biased. Direktor stated "they have absolutely nothing to do with Josip Broz Tito". Well then,what did Tito do? Did he let these horrible events just happen? Did he have a moral conscience (the war did end)? Was he incompetent? Was he the great leader that the Yugoslav Communist state propaganda machine portrayed him to be? Even the Wiki article states this. I have shown here credible references and sources to prove my argument, please take them into account."

Taken from Summary of Josip Broz Tito Article-21 October 2009 [8].

Hi Ockham. Hmmm! I 'm finding the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard approach to these issues to be be quite odd. It's taken on a darker tone. They (the Admin) have not responded at all. No encyclopedia should remain quite on these matters (this is media material). This just dosen't make any sense. Cheers Peter Z. 18:18, 21 October 2009 (PDT)

It's the editor called DIREKTOR who is the problem, isn't it?Ockham 01:20, 24 October 2009 (PDT)

Yes, he is part of the problem, but what's happening with Admin. Am I missing something here? I've meet some realy nice editors and some bad ones, but in the end somebody (or somebodies) has to make the main call. Are there any similarities with your situation? Peter Z. 05:28, 24 October 2009 (PDT)

Do you mean by 'admin' the administration in general? Or a particular admin? Administrators generally can't make content judgments, only on behaviour, which is the main problem with Wikipedia Ockham 06:00, 24 October 2009 (PDT)

Ok, thats interesting. How about when editor approaches "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, with his/hers concerns and there is no responds (except my mate). Even though the issues are very serious. I have seen this with many others.Peter Z. 06:24, 24 October 2009 (PDT)

This is exactly as expected. Ockham 06:29, 24 October 2009 (PDT)

Your're saying that's expected, because the editors are just not qualified or maybe they just playing boys club games (or both).Peter Z. 06:59, 24 October 2009 (PDT)

G-Day! It's taken on a darker tone. What I am referring to is the ethical and moral issues involved in creating a feel good article about a man who allowed mass arrests/torture & mass murders (100 000 plus). Granted during the cold war he was portrayed as a hero (that was such a long time ago), however this is not the whole truth. Then we have editors surporting the article & finaly an admin who just don't get involved ??? What is going on at Wiki? Not very encyclopedic that's for sure. What if there was a feel good article on Stalin or Hitler? So do you think our article is nearly finish? On a lighter note, these days I am going for the preservative free wine. Cheers Peter Z. 01:55, 25 October 2009 (PDT)

Gday! I had too much ordinary wine last night. I think the article has some way to go, in terms of more fact checking, more context and a bit more of a thread, particularly an active comparison to Wikipedia. E.g "Here are the facts as recognised by mainstream historians, here is how Wikipedia presents it, and here is why". Actually Wikipedia does a reasonably good job where there are enough experts to represent the mainstream view. In this case, there is one guy or two who completely control that set of articles. The administration never do anything because their job is to control behaviour. Also most administrators have hardly any education, I don't know if you realise that. PS sorry I haven't been able to help more - if you look at my contributions you see I am loading my old website onto MWB after Googlepages deleted all of it. Ockham 02:30, 25 October 2009 (PDT)