Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Objectivism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A question to start off with...

The thing that struck me the strongest about the project page were a couple of phrases:

  ...that disputes between Objectivists can be resolved amicably...

...and...

  ...will foster communication among Objectivist Wikipedians...

Maybe I don't yet grasp the whole Wiki concept yet, but shouldn't the discussion also include the opinions and work of non-objectivists, anti-objectivists and people-who-just-don't-care-one-way-or-the-about-objectivism-but-might-still-have-something-to-contribute...ists.

Perhaps I'm reading the whole thing wrong but this has the feel of someone trying to exclude all those who's opinions might differ from the party line.

Would someone like to clarify?

MDMullins

I wrote the "Scope" section which you've quoted here. Those statements refer to the context which led me to consider starting this project. There was no deliberate effort to exclude non-Objectivists or make them feel unwelcome (though my guess is most of those interested in this type of project would be Objectivsts or at least sympathetic to the philosophy). If the other participants feel that the current wording is unnecessarily exclusive, feel free to edit the paragraph. As an aside, I'd like to apologise to the other participants for my own lack of contributions so far. Shortly after launching the wikiproject I became much busier in my offline life than I had previously been. I will try to be more active from now on.--Matthew Humphreys 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My contributions are focused on the Ayn Rand Wiki article in Portuguese. I am back with intellectual ammunition for you gringos --a link supporting my claim that Mencken and Sumner influenced Rand, not Freidrich (whom Mencken translated). The non-vandalizable link is: http://hankphillips.com/freedom.htm There are too many looter vandals crawling through the English Wikipedia article to make it worth my while to keep re-editing, but I would appreciate some help including Mencken and Sumner under influencers, and restoring the thumbnail statement of what she taught: She believed:

• That man must choose his values and actions by reason;
• That the individual has a right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self; and
• That no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force, or impose ideas on others by physical force.

Without that summing-up the article is too easily reconverted into a smear sheet. I would like to see a Rand Wicki article on a server the looters cannot get into, to serve as a touchstone for editing efforts. Until then, I will be posting stuff at my own website in hopes it may prove useful to some of my compeers. I will ignore the starting question in hopes that my actions count more than declarations of faith. translator 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-interest

I'd like to see the virtues of selfishness and/or rational self-interest sections/pages expanded. I've very keen on the concept/s but don't have enough background about it to feel confident to add more about it myself. The Wiki pages on Ayn Rand and objectivism seem to excessively critical of the philosophy of Rand's works, which think should be treated more bookishly. I suppose communistic philosophy is just as poorly treated, considering mainstream ideologies. 66.57.225.77 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

As noted above, the phrasing of the project's scope is not in compliance with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Please rephrase it so as to be inclusive of proponents and critics of the philosophy.--Eloquence* 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Crazynas ^t 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Randian charaters split

I think it time to finally re-split the articles on the main protagonists of Rand's novels. To have them is clearly justified, given the massive amount written about them in both Objectivist and non-Objectivist circles (and also given how many articles, say, Battle Royale has on its characters). However, to prevent a repeat of the cull that eradicated them before, and destroyed the coverage of both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, I think two requirements really have to be met:

1. The articles should have references, which are hitherto lacking from the article Characters in Atlas Shrugged.
2. A hard and fast list of the characters that deserve articles should be drawn up first.

There's nothing that can really be said for the first one; that just requires work. However, the second point is easily remediable. Currently, there are articles on Dagny Taggart and John Galt (which I split from the list of characters just now) from Atlas Shrugged, and Gail Wynand (for whatever reason, his article wasn't deleted before) from the Fountainhead. I suggest that the following characters have articles:

Atlas Shrugged - Dagny Taggart, John Galt, Hank Rearden, Francisco d'Anconia, James Taggart

The Fountainhead - Howard Roark, Peter Keating, Ellsworth Toohey, Dominique Francon, Gail Wynand

We the Living - Kira Argounova

Any suggestions? Do you disagree with this list? Does Ragnar Danneskjöld deserve an article or Gail Wynand not? Do you disagree with the split overall? Bastin 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stub type put up for deletion

Hi everyone, just FYI, I had created a stub {{Objectivism-stub}} for stubs related to Objectivism. It has been put up for deletion here. Madhava 1947 (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notifications

• 28 September 2007 - expires 3 October

DIM Hypothesis (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• Fountainhead Essay Contest (via WP:PROD on 19 August 2007) Deleted
• Objectivist politics at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist politics (29 August 2007 – 5 September 2007) Deleted
• Objectivist theory of value (via WP:PROD on 22 August 2007) Kept
• Objectivist theory of value at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value (23 August 2007 – 8 September 2007) No consensus→Kept

inactive

Is this project inactive? it would be a victory for the anti reason supporters if it is. Can anyone working on the project tell me its status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbiter099 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

“Classical liberalism”

More eyes needed at “Classical liberalism”. —SlamDiego_←T 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Traffic analysis

I've been using the Wikipedia page view counter at stats.grok.se to develop an analysis of the viewing traffic for pages related to this project. I haven't completely finished, but I wanted to post some initial findings to possibly stir discussion. Here are the project's top 10 most viewed articles:

Rank – Name – Avg Views – Approx. %

1. Ayn Rand – 152,482 – 25.6%
2. Atlas Shrugged – 102,613 – 17.3%
3. Objectivism (Ayn Rand) – 63,867 – 10.7%
4. The Fountainhead – 54,307 – 9.1%
5. Alan Greenspan – 43,567 – 7.3%
6. John Galt – 32,691 – 5.5%
7. Question (comics) – 25,236 – 4.2%
8. Anthem (novella) – 12,925 – 2.2%
9. Murray Rothbard – 11,027 – 1.9%
10. List of Atlas Shrugged characters – 6,959 – 1.2%

Notes:

The math-savvy may have already noticed a key finding: 85% of the traffic comes from the top 10 articles, and 70% comes from just the top 5. So in terms of improving readers' experience, we can gain a great deal from focusing on a small number of articles. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated and completed analysis is now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Traffic analysis. See also further discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk#Traffic analysis. --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Objectivism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Objectivism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Ayn Rand

harej 02:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, OK? Also it's not wikipedia's role to say whether Rand is "eminent". TallNapoleon (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Murray Rothbard article

QUESTION: Which should go first in the lede characterization of Rothbard, "political theorist" or "economist?" RfC here SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article

Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Pre-FAC peer review for Night of January 16th

Night of January 16th was promoted to good article status a few months ago, and I would like to take it to featured article status. It would be the first FA for WikiProject Objectivism. In preparation, I've opened a peer review request for feedback. Last time I requested peer review, I got zero replies, so I'm hoping a little advertisement this time will draw some feedback. Please review the article and then go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Night of January 16th/archive2 to give your thoughts. Thanks in advance. --RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Libertarianism and Objectivism listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Libertarianism and Objectivism to be moved to Libertarianism and objectivism. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Popular pages

Since the project is being reactivated, I would like to set up to have a "popular pages" report generated for the project. This is a bot service that any WikiProject can sign up for. It would be similar to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Popular pages, but with fewer entries since this is a much smaller project. If there are no objections, I can set it up this week. --RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)