Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:P.S. Judicata: I don't think linking to a publicly posted book review really requires permission for any reason (legal, ethical, politeness), except in some kind of extreme circumstance. Notification is probably nice. The real issue is about copying book reviews in their entirety.

Generally, I agree, but if someone has said they don't want his or her review linked, that fact should be considered. I also mentioned this because I think (although I haven't bothered to look back) kirkmc offered that he was open to his reviews being linked on SL, and I think that's a good idea.

judicata wrote:

hyperpape wrote:P.S. Judicata: I don't think linking to a publicly posted book review really requires permission for any reason (legal, ethical, politeness), except in some kind of extreme circumstance. Notification is probably nice. The real issue is about copying book reviews in their entirety.

Generally, I agree, but if someone has said they don't want his or her review linked, that fact should be considered. I also mentioned this because I think (although I haven't bothered to look back) kirkmc offered that he was open to his reviews being linked on SL, and I think that's a good idea.

I don't think you need permission to link to something. That's just the way the internet works. I don't think people need to be notified for links either.

I am tired that a thread on book reviews, yes, book reviews (not linking Kirk, but cross-posting for those who are interested and only those) gets hijacked like this for issuing rulings what SL has to do or to be in future. I would prefer it to be closed soon.

--

In the meantime we can as well correct some misconceptions:

John Fairbairn wrote:SL needs a firmer structure, which must include signed contributions.
...
The new structure should also have a rapidly diminishing amount of discussion. That's what L19 is for.

1) SL has signed contributions. Just put your signature in front of your contribution (this is standard practice for years), in case of book reviews they are not edited out or altered. And for what it matters, the strongest advocates for signed contributions are usually the same people who don't even bother to log in to make a contribution, in the rigid environment they prefer, this would not even work.

2) Master-editing is necessary in many a place. SL looks at times messy, exactly because often it isn't done (yet). But master-editing is the epitome of interference in previous writing (whether signed or unsigned). I don't get how anybody can complain at the same time about pages being messy and interference in signed contributions.

Imagine a JF-style library of expert writers only contributing strictly with signatures and no master editing done to hot topics, e.g. rules, would JF like this library? I doubt so.

3) Knowledge is a problem, yes. Offering an environment for learning, keeping material of different levels and improving on it and not mixing everything up is quite a task. But when Kirk is sure some content is wrong, but insecure because he doesn't feel strong enough to comment, then... huh? What was the argument? He basically does not like SL.

4) Respect the volunteers!

HermanHiddema wrote:If you make a page like, say: "Robert Jasiek / Mathematical Term Force", that will be picked up by a title search for "force".

SL search is too weak for that.

Search is only one way to find things. Much more importantly, links from related topic pages are a powerful way. Such don't give good access to UserName/ThisTopic pages though. In fact, I have overlooked such pages for many years because they are so hard to find.

Can you pinpoint which version still contained a good definition, and which edits destroyed it? Haengma seems to be a notoriously difficult concept to describe easily, and since the first version is from 2001, many changes may have been in response to new books or new information as it became available. Certainly this concept does not as yet seem to be widely understood in the western go scene.

I do not know version number but the page has links to RGG threads Haengma / The Fourth and / The Fifth. Nowadays, a page could be yet better because Western understanding on haengma is better, compare my definition "local to global relation and development of all stones".

Can we take the discussion of SL here?

As to Tapir's original idea of cross posting or putting a link on the pertinent SL book review page to the reviews here on L19, I've done that with mine, and if there is general agreement to Kirk's following statement, we could do so with all of the L19 reviews.

kirkmc wrote:I don't think you need permission to link to something. That's just the way the internet works. I don't think people need to be notified for links either.

1) SL has signed contributions. Just put your signature in front of your contribution (this is standard practice for years),

tapir, this is drivel. Read what Bill said above. An item may start with a signature, but the copy can be edited, moved and mixed up with other contributions and so ends up being far from what the contributor intended. Further, many signatures are mere anonymous handles. If we want to trust what is said we need to know who said it.

And for what it matters, the strongest advocates for signed contributions are usually the same people who don't even bother to log in to make a contribution

If this refers to Bill, it's patent nonsense. If it refers to me, you are obviously unaware of contributions by me through other people using my material.

Respect the volunteers.

If you can't respect the people who have been around for a lot longer than you and have done a lot more, you have a problem.

Knowledge is a problem.

No, knowledge is the problem. Not just knowledge of go, but of who contributors are, what the best structure is, and so on. SL should not be a kindergarten where kiddies slap playdoh everywhere, piddle on the floor and have a tantrum when other kiddies won't share toys. It should be a repository of knowledge. A library. (Clue: title of site - Sensei's Library).

Nice to see your claws out a bit on this one John. Very pertinent points as usual

RobertJasiek wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:If you make a page like, say: "Robert Jasiek / Mathematical Term Force", that will be picked up by a title search for "force".

SL search is too weak for that.

Search is only one way to find things. Much more importantly, links from related topic pages are a powerful way. Such don't give good access to UserName/ThisTopic pages though. In fact, I have overlooked such pages for many years because they are so hard to find.

Huh? SL search is pretty powerful, in fact.

Try these. Put into the search box in the top right the word "Chess" or "Theory" or "Iwamoto" and click search.

How quickly did you find my page on comparing Chess and Go, Dieter's page on Go Theory, Bill's page on his game with Iwamoto?

John is saying that we need signed contributions so that we can assess the credibility of editors. I'm not sure it will help that much. There are two ways it could matter: giving more information to readers, and giving more information to editors.

Readers: How many readers of SL will take the time to familiarize themselves with contributors? After all, that's a lot of work, and the kind of thing that you'll only passively acquire if you spend several years checking in on SL. User pages help a bit, but less than you'd think, and mainly with the very rare mid-high dans on SL. If someone is 1 dan, they're not strong enough to really comment on that many situations based on their own go judgment, and their 5kyu readers won't know when they are able. A 1 dan might do his homework, check in with public sources, databases, etc. and produce reliable content. But you won't know that from a user page--you'll have to see their other contributions.

Probably a lot of people on this particular discussions will have that knowledge because we've been around for a few years. But I don't know if we're representative of SL readers in general. Maybe SL is only read by the sort of people who are disposed to stick around and edit, but I rather doubt that.

Editors: There's a bit more here--an editor can use the reputation of contributors to help restructure articles, and most editors will have the kind of detailed knowledge of who's who. But by the same token, editors should know that even without signed contributions, you can see who posted a given piece of information from the page history.

tapir wrote:I am tired that a thread on book reviews, yes, book reviews (not linking Kirk, but cross-posting for those who are interested and only those) gets hijacked like this for issuing rulings what SL has to do or to be in future. I would prefer it to be closed soon.

--

In the meantime we can as well correct some misconceptions:....

CONTRAPRODUCTIVE.

I think it's pretty clear that the discussion of SL's merits is on topic. Moreover, if we moved the thread, we run the serious risk that John will think we're being twee and that he'll then depart L19 in disgust.

Summary:
Tapir: Why not post reviews on SL?
Many people: I have issues with SL, which is why I don't post book reviews.
Tapir/daal: Let's not discuss general concerns about SL here.

+1 for hyperpape above.

+1 for John above.

Here's the thing. I've pointed out the breadth vs depth issue - the fact that everyone on SL knows something about go, and many probably think they know more than they do. Compared to WP, where people know about certain things, and focus on those things, on SL, people - those who take the time to write and edit - may be tempted to fiddle with too many pages.

The only way that SL could be truly effective - perhaps not for all articles, but for many of them that deal with concepts, techniques, etc. - is if there were articles signed, edited and managed by reputable, trusted people. In other words, John would write an article about, say, the new fuseki, and, while others would be able to edit it, he would be the one deciding which edits get retained.

Obviously, this would require a level of attentiveness that I'm sure most people won't be able to provide. You would need to monitor the pages you're responsible for, regularly, and be prepared to make changes when needed, but also to get into discussions (aka arguments) when people disagree.

People say that SL is a wiki and WP is not. I don't want to get into that discussion, but WP works, whereas SL doesn't. On WP, it's true that the basic tenet is to source information, and, for the most part, good WP pages have many references. As I've said, I work on a number of WP pages for subjects I know enough about and have enough books about to be able to provide information and references. SL can't always depend on references, because there aren't enough books. However, higher up in this thread, there was a comment on the page about haengma; what is to prevent people from citing books or articles? Even if they're not in English, at least citations and quotes would be presented. While this may not work for everything, a lot of pages about techniques could be sourced with quotes and diagrams from books and magazines. But that's a lot of work, and I get the feeling that one of the attitudes behind SL is "Let's not do too much work."

John is saying that we need signed contributions so that we can assess the credibility of editors. I'm not sure it will help that much.

(a) I didn't limit my remark to editors, and I mostly mean contributors anyway.

(b) I think you are underestimating the effect of a signature. The very fact that a person is prepared to sign something with his name (I do mean a name - not a non-name like hyperpape) tells us that he is willing to take responsibility and to accept a possible effect on his reputation. I respect that a lot.

Once a name is known, you don't always have to know too much about the owner's background. For example, seeing a name that you have only seen in a tournament table might tell you a lot about go strength. You are more likely to heed the owner's opinion on a tesuji if he keeps appearing at gthe top of the table. An obviously foreign name may alert you to the possibility that that person's opinions on the nuance of an English word may need circumspection. Even as simple a thing as a name being around a long time may be useful - at least that person hasn't yet been run off by the go community. Names that are known from books or programming projects or from jobs within national organisations also tell us a lot.

But actual names also provide a means to find out more. If I want to put stock in what a certain hyperpape says I'm at a dead end. If he reveals his real name is Wurzel Gummidge I have some prospect of finding out more.

There is also the point that to a large degree go is a closed community. There is some osmosis at the boundaries but most people have been around a while and would recognise an awful lot of names. I can't believe that a highly technical repository like SL has many casual eavesdroppers. Its readers may not be L19 readers but I'm sure the vast majority are committed go players who would recognise at least a decent proportion of names, and who would then know where to go to find out more if they really wanted to.

In reality, just having the name and the responsibility-taking it implies is enough for most of us. After all, most of us go to a doctor we don't know and we don't demand tests or proof of previous work. We trust the MD after his name and the medical and government system behind it. Occasionally that's a mistake but mostly it works. That sort of trust is certainly good enough for an informal game like go. What we have at present are too many graffiti artists known only by their tags. I don't respect that.

kirkmc wrote:But that's a lot of work, and I get the feeling that one of the attitudes behind SL is "Let's not do too much work."

No, and a bit brash when you yourself are not a contributor. But a realistic thought is that there are not so many contributors, most of whom cannot commit to monitoring pages. If they can, they can't commit to monitoring enough pages. Moreover, we should be wary of anything that raises the bar to entry, since there are not enough contributors.

Now, various types of reorganization might involve more work, but theoretically bring in new contributors. That's appealing, but it's also a gamble.

HermanHiddema wrote:SL search is pretty powerful, in fact.

I have made my experience: Google search on SL is much better than SL search.

In particular, SL search does not even put pages with the correct page title in front of the list.

Try these. Put into the search box in the top right the word "Chess" or "Theory" or "Iwamoto" and click search.

How quickly did you find my page on comparing Chess and Go, Dieter's page on Go Theory, Bill's page on his game with Iwamoto?

It is less difficult to find something if the right keywords in the right spelling are already given.