I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
and encountered the following situation:
In the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of ... _William_I
there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
to Charlemagne, in the said article's chapter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of ... harlemagne
The lineage is based on idea that king Theudebald of
the Franks had son Grimwald of Aquitaine, whose
daughter were Itta, mother of Begga, through whose son
Pippin of Herstal the Carolingian main line descends.
Some editor had, fairly properly IMO, added there a
note "critical medieval genealogists regard this
genealogical link historically unattested and
practically untrustworthy".
Motivation seemingly was: "The Merovingian descent
through Charlemagne - there exist no proven lineage
from Merovingians to Carolingians, only proposed
hypotheses"
Not too long afterwards, a notorious editor, whose
name is known to be Charles von Hamm (possibly some
have encountered that person in some royalty
discussion fora) edited the mentioned cautionary note
totally away.
I am puzzled how any responsible person would oppose
the cautionary note. IIRC, everyone who knows at least
something about royal genealogies, knows that no
lineage from Merovingians towards the present day is
proven, not even close.
Seemingly it is important to some individuals to keep
ongoing a belief (delusion) in such hypothetized
lineages.
This sort of recurring maintenance of an unproven
descent is a setback to medieval genealogy.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ
Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity
On Jan 6, 10:49 am, Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, it's worse than that. The administrator handling Howe's
page, who allows Howe to cite his own webpage but will not permit any
other webpages to be cited, has now blacklisted my site as 'spam'.
Accordingly editors may cite it on Wikipedia to rebut Howe's claims.
The basis for this ruling is that, by examining Howe's claims and
finding them to be false, I am biased against Howe, thus offending
Wikipedia's doctrine of impartiality.
The administrator also cited Wikipedia's doctrine of solidarity - ie
an obligation to stick up for a poster who is criticised.
We used to call this "shooting the messenger".
It is interesting to see that some of the editors have defended the
site, but have been criticised for doing so by the administrator on
the basis of their 'anonymity' (ie he thinks they are me); funnily
enough, the administrator himself is anonymous.
I've never posted to Wikipedia in my life, and this farce certainly
won't encourage me or anyone else with expertise to join the project.
It is hardly surprising that Wikipedia suffers from a lack of
credibility!
MA-R
In article
42dd709f-2efa-4bdb-83a0-0b98e8e38...@j2 ... groups.com>,
"pj.evans" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <[email protected]> wrote:
I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
and encountered the following situation:
In the articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descentof Elizabeth II from
William I
there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
to Charlemagne, in the said article's
chapterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descentof Elizabeth II from William
I#T...
The lineage is based on idea that king Theudebald of
the Franks had son Grimwald of Aquitaine, whose
daughter were Itta, mother of Begga, through whose son
Pippin of Herstal the Carolingian main line descends.
Some editor had, fairly properly IMO, added there a
note "critical medieval genealogists regard this
genealogical link historically unattested and
practically untrustworthy".
Motivation seemingly was: "The Merovingian descent
through Charlemagne - there exist no proven lineage
from Merovingians to Carolingians, only proposed
hypotheses"
Not too long afterwards, a notorious editor, whose
name is known to be Charles von Hamm (possibly some
have encountered that person in some royalty
discussion fora) edited the mentioned cautionary note
totally away.
I am puzzled how any responsible person would oppose
the cautionary note. IIRC, everyone who knows at least
something about royal genealogies, knows that no
lineage from Merovingians towards the present day is
proven, not even close.
Seemingly it is important to some individuals to keep
ongoing a belief (delusion) in such hypothetized
lineages.
This sort of recurring maintenance of an unproven
descent is a setback to medieval genealogy.
Wikipedia's rules are arcane, and generally function so that those
with the least knowledge have the most authority, unfortunately. (This
has come up in other fields. Wikipedia generally can't recognize that
administrative and editorial functions should not be combined in the
same people, and that number of edits is not a good measure of
knowledge.)
I'm sure Wikipedia will now be cited as support for the viability of the
"Order of the Merovingian Dynasty," discussed here a month or so ago.
One telling Wikipedia case I've seen recently is the Wikipedia article
devoted to the pretender to the title 'King of Man', David Howe (on this
claim, see rec.heraldry, and Michael Andrews-Reading's website --
http://unrealroyal.com
). Howe or his supporters have spent countless hours defending, through
aggressive Wikipedia editing, his patently absurd claim (the issues are
more legal than genealogical: Howe last year learned what an 'heir
general' was, and that he was not one).
Wikipedia's governing dictum of 'neutrality' means, in practice, equal
time for opposing views, even if one view is self-evidently rational and
the other is simply a vigorously-defended fringe theory.
Actually, it's worse than that. The administrator handling Howe's
page, who allows Howe to cite his own webpage but will not permit any
other webpages to be cited, has now blacklisted my site as 'spam'.
Accordingly editors may cite it on Wikipedia to rebut Howe's claims.
The basis for this ruling is that, by examining Howe's claims and
finding them to be false, I am biased against Howe, thus offending
Wikipedia's doctrine of impartiality.
The administrator also cited Wikipedia's doctrine of solidarity - ie
an obligation to stick up for a poster who is criticised.
We used to call this "shooting the messenger".
It is interesting to see that some of the editors have defended the
site, but have been criticised for doing so by the administrator on
the basis of their 'anonymity' (ie he thinks they are me); funnily
enough, the administrator himself is anonymous.
I've never posted to Wikipedia in my life, and this farce certainly
won't encourage me or anyone else with expertise to join the project.
It is hardly surprising that Wikipedia suffers from a lack of
credibility!
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity
On Jan 6, 3:25 pm, [email protected] wrote:
Recte: "may *not* cite it..."
And one of the editors who suggeted this decision was unreasonable is
now also being investigated by the administrators concerned in
relation to any other 'spam' sites he may have tried to enveigle into
Wikipedia. So much for "good faith"!
On Jan 6, 10:49 am, Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
In article
42dd709f-2efa-4bdb-83a0-0b98e8e38...@j2 ... groups.com>,
"pj.evans" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <[email protected]> wrote:
I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
and encountered the following situation:
In the articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DescentofElizabeth II from
William I
there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
to Charlemagne, in the said article's
chapterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DescentofElizabeth II from William
I#T...
The lineage is based on idea that king Theudebald of
the Franks had son Grimwald of Aquitaine, whose
daughter were Itta, mother of Begga, through whose son
Pippin of Herstal the Carolingian main line descends.
Some editor had, fairly properly IMO, added there a
note "critical medieval genealogists regard this
genealogical link historically unattested and
practically untrustworthy".
Motivation seemingly was: "The Merovingian descent
through Charlemagne - there exist no proven lineage
from Merovingians to Carolingians, only proposed
hypotheses"
Not too long afterwards, a notorious editor, whose
name is known to be Charles von Hamm (possibly some
have encountered that person in some royalty
discussion fora) edited the mentioned cautionary note
totally away.
I am puzzled how any responsible person would oppose
the cautionary note. IIRC, everyone who knows at least
something about royal genealogies, knows that no
lineage from Merovingians towards the present day is
proven, not even close.
Seemingly it is important to some individuals to keep
ongoing a belief (delusion) in such hypothetized
lineages.
This sort of recurring maintenance of an unproven
descent is a setback to medieval genealogy.
Wikipedia's rules are arcane, and generally function so that those
with the least knowledge have the most authority, unfortunately. (This
has come up in other fields. Wikipedia generally can't recognize that
administrative and editorial functions should not be combined in the
same people, and that number of edits is not a good measure of
knowledge.)
I'm sure Wikipedia will now be cited as support for the viability of the
"Order of the Merovingian Dynasty," discussed here a month or so ago.
One telling Wikipedia case I've seen recently is the Wikipedia article
devoted to the pretender to the title 'King of Man', David Howe (on this
claim, see rec.heraldry, and Michael Andrews-Reading's website --
http://unrealroyal.com
). Howe or his supporters have spent countless hours defending, through
aggressive Wikipedia editing, his patently absurd claim (the issues are
more legal than genealogical: Howe last year learned what an 'heir
general' was, and that he was not one).
Wikipedia's governing dictum of 'neutrality' means, in practice, equal
time for opposing views, even if one view is self-evidently rational and
the other is simply a vigorously-defended fringe theory.
Actually, it's worse than that. The administrator handling Howe's
page, who allows Howe to cite his own webpage but will not permit any
other webpages to be cited, has now blacklisted my site as 'spam'.
Accordingly editors may cite it on Wikipedia to rebut Howe's claims.
Recte: "may *not* cite it..."
And one of the editors who suggeted this decision was unreasonable is
now also being investigated by the administrators concerned in
relation to any other 'spam' sites he may have tried to enveigle into
Wikipedia. So much for "good faith"!