| Revision as of 23:03, 18 August 2009 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Page protection← Previous edit |
Revision as of 23:04, 18 August 2009 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits archivingNext edit → |
| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
== Section on Hewitt's opinion about Misplaced Pages == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not comfortable with this section. Carl Hewitt has done much more important things than criticizing Misplaced Pages. Such a lengthy section about Hewitt's issues with Misplaced Pages puts too much emphasis on them and distracts from Hewitt's other work. Quite frankly, it looks like navelgazing. I thus drastically shortened the section and added some historical context, but I would be just as happy if the section were removed all together. -- ] (]) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I tend to agree with you that the section gives undue emphasis to an issue that is relatively unimportant compared to Hewitt's research contributions. --] <small>(])</small> 06:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, you actions look like more censorship by Misplaced Pages administrators. In his Knol article, Hewitt criticized the tabloid Observer article that you favorably referenced as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
:"A recent example of Misplaced Pages libel occurred when I became involved in an academic dispute with Robert Kowalski over a Computer Science research area called “Logic Programming.” Kowalski appealed to an Administrator of Misplaced Pages to intervene in the dispute (see the discussion in the appendix of ). Thus Kowalski was in effect promoting his own side of an academic dispute by participating in my censorship by Misplaced Pages. (See for a detailed discussion of the dispute.) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Misplaced Pages official) favored Kowalski’s side and using his Misplaced Pages power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Misplaced Pages) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled me. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in my field of research casting aspersions on me. While he was angry with me because of our academic dispute, Kowalski confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some things in anger about me. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends in his emails to me; see below.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''As part of its business model, Misplaced Pages engages in libel and vilification in an attempt to intimidate people into conforming to the censorship of its Administrators.'''" |
|
|
|
|
|
The material that you deleted from the article is as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hewitt has published an article on Google Knol that is highly critical of Misplaced Pages citing "corruption" of its administration. In the article, he characterized the business model of Misplaced Pages as "generating Web traffic (primarily from search engines) for articles of conventional wisdom and morality (as judged and enforced by a commune of mostly anonymous Administrators) to motivate (financial) contributions." He further claimed: |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Misplaced Pages does not allow proper vigorous academic discussion and debate because they are incompatible with its business model as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
::* In normal academic practice, the views of experts are solicited and discussed. '''On Misplaced Pages, academic experts who have tried to participate have been denigrated as "self-promoters", censored, and then banned.''' |
|
|
::* In normal academic practice, expertise is honored and respected. '''On Misplaced Pages, expertise has not been honored. Instead, the cult of the amateur has been promoted.''' |
|
|
::* In normal academic practice, open reasoned discussion and debate is the norm for addressing difficult issues. '''On Misplaced Pages, censorship is the norm.''' |
|
|
::* In normal academic practice, the qualifications and vested interests of participants are open for discussion. '''On Misplaced Pages, participants are allowed to remain anonymous. In fact, revealing the real name of an Administrator is a severe violation of Misplaced Pages policy."''' (emphases in original) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thus he claimed that normal academic practice is in conflict with the combined effect of the ], ], ] and policies as currently practiced by Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In his Knol article, Hewitt requested that this biography article be removed from Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
This deletion indeed looks like censorship. I quite agree that Hewitt has done more important things than criticize Misplaced Pages, but the section was short and fully referenced (one of the references was deleted and replaced with a {{fact}} tag for no apparent reason). Hewitt obviously thought this issue was important enough to write a lengthy article on the subject, and I agree with him on that point. There was no justification for deleting the section, and I intend to restore it. If you want to revert, please give a better justification than that above. ] (]) 14:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've now restored a much shorter version of the section. ] (]) 16:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think this deserves no more than a footnote that is if it belongs at all. He wrote one article about it how the project dealt with the situation. This is so minor I don't think it belongs in the article. This doesn't have anything to do with the work he is doing. I say it should be removed again per ]. Not sure if this falls into ] issues either. --]] 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: No, "Hewitt being banned from Misplaced Pages" and "Hewitt criticizing Misplaced Pages" are both very irrelevant events in his career and deserve no mention. I see at least 4 people agreeing with that and only you disagreeing. —'']'' 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Add me to the disagreement column. It may not be very relevant to his career in the grand scheme of things, but it's noteworthy given the rep of the[REDACTED] and Hewitt taken together. Bios are not just about careers. ] (]) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: ] (]) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Work on privacy-friendly client cloud computing == |
|
|
Ruud Koot removed the following material from the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hewitt's recent work has centered on foundations for privacy-friendly client ].<ref> on October 22, 2008.</ref> This approach to cloud computing focuses on clients that are "privacy-friendly" because of the following |
|
|
:* by default clients store information in the cloud that can only be unencrypted using the client's ]<ref>{{cite journal|author=Carl Hewitt|title=ORGs for Scalable, Robust, Privacy-Friendly Client Cloud Computing|journal=IEEE Internet Computing|url=http://orgsforclientcloudcomputing.carlhewitt.info/|volume=12|issue=5|date=September/October 2008}}</ref> |
|
|
:* ] of diverse sorts of information (calendar, email, contacts, documents, search results, presence information, etc.) is performed on the clients<ref>{{cite journal|author=Carl Hewitt|url=http://disruption.carlhewitt.info/|title=Perfect Disruption: The Paradigm Shift from Mental Agents to ORGs |journal=IEEE Internet Computing|date=January/February 2009}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
:This work has resulted in the following developments:<ref>{{cite web|author = Carl Hewitt |title= A historical perspective on developing foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing|url = http://perspective.carlhewitt.info}} ArXiv January 30, 2009</ref> |
|
|
:* strongly ] using Direct Logic<sup>TM</sup><ref name="Hewitt2008b">{{cite web | author=Hewitt, Carl| title=Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection | format= |url=http://commonsense.carlhewitt.info}} ArXiv. December 30, 2008.</ref>, to more safely reason about pervasively inconsistent information |
|
|
:* concurrent reasoning using ActorScript<sup>TM</sub><ref name="Hewitt2008b"/> for ] processors (e.g. ]) that cannot be implemented using ] since although strongly paraconsistent and Bayesian inference are used together locally, they are inadequate to accomplish the overall results of concurrent reasoning. (See ].) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist|2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Observer article on Hewitt and his response== |
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators have repeatedly deleted the section "Observer article on Hewitt and his response" from this article thereby adding to the evidence that Misplaced Pages is indeed corrupt.] (]) 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Please delete unflattering photo of Professor Hewitt == |
|
|
Please delete the unflattering photo of Professor Hewitt. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd be happy to replace it with another photo. If you send me a photo by email, together with a statement releasing it under an acceptable license (like CC-BY-SA, GFDL, public domain), I'll put it in the article. See http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~jitse/ for my email address. -- ] (]) 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Sorry, but what is so unflattering about this photograph? (]) The lighting and angle of the photograph and subject are much less than perfect, but I don't see how it is "unflattering"? —'']'' 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: It doesn't really show his face full on, so it's inappropriate for a bio. It looks like you snuck up on him from behind. If you're worried about libel, you shouldn't be using such a photo. ] (]) 02:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Professor Hewitt was critical of Misplaced Pages before it banned him as well as afterward. In fact, his criticism was one of the reasons for the ban. == |
|
|
Professor Hewitt was critical of Misplaced Pages before it banned him as well as afterward. In fact, his criticism was one of the reasons for the ban.--] (]) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is false. His multiple attempts to violate Misplaced Pages policies, inserting ''his'' POV in all subjections in which he was (even peripherally) involved, is the reason for his ban. He may have been critical of Misplaced Pages before his attempts to subvert it, but that also has nothing to do with the ban. — ] ] 08:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The article says that he was critical of Misplaced Pages ''subsequent'' to being banned. Also, it only seems fair to point out that according to , Arthur Rubin has engaged in numerous Misplaced Pages conflicts with Professor Hewitt and his students, e.g. ].--] (]) 09:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::They accused Arthur of using his administrator power of censorship to try to win an academic debate.--] (]) 09:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It looks like a Misplaced Pages version of the classic debate: anarchy vs. academic freedom |
|
|
::::# Arthur Rubin maintains that without administrator control, Misplaced Pages will fall into anarchy. The tension is that since Arthur is an administrator, he is arguing for his own control. |
|
|
::::# Carl Hewitt and his students maintain that without academic freedom, Misplaced Pages's content will be determined by the political power of administrators. The tension is that Hewitt and his students are arguing for their newly published results that challenge the previous conventional wisdom. |
|
|
::::--] (]) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I shouldn't have to defend myself here — in fact, I don't have to. Carl violated the rules of Misplaced Pages. If he had violated similar rules of journals, '''unrelated to the validity of the results''', his papers would be rejected from those journals, and, eventually he would be banned from publication in those journals. It happens. Think of Misplaced Pages as a journal. — ] ] 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::It's a big mistake to think of Misplaced Pages as a scientific journal. Hewitt and his students have published numerous articles in scientific journals that have been censored from Misplaced Pages. For example, just in the last year, Hewitt has published the following among others: |
|
|
:::::::*{{cite journal|author=Carl Hewitt|title=ORGs for Scalable, Robust, Privacy-Friendly Client Cloud Computing|journal=IEEE Internet Computing|url=http://orgsforclientcloudcomputing.carlhewitt.info/|date=September/October 2008}} |
|
|
:::::::*{{cite journal| author=Carl Hewitt| title=Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection | format= |url=http://commonsense.carlhewitt.info|date=December 30, 2008|journal=ArXiv}} |
|
|
:::::::*{{cite journal|author = Carl Hewitt |title= A historical perspective on developing foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing|url = http://perspective.carlhewitt.info|date=January 30, 2009|journal=ArXiv}} |
|
|
:::::::*{{cite journal|author=Carl Hewitt|url=http://disruption.carlhewitt.info/|title=Perfect Disruption: The Paradigm Shift from Mental Agents to ORGs |journal=IEEE Internet Computing|date=January/February 2009}} |
|
|
::::::In some sense, everyone is just doing their job: |
|
|
::::::#As a Misplaced Pages administrator, Arthur Rubin censors material outside of conventional wisdom. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages would have lots of unconventional information defeating its business model. |
|
|
::::::#As academics, Hewitt and his students publish original research in scientific publications. They get no credit for reiterating conventional wisdom. |
|
|
::::::'''Conflict between Arthur Rubin and Hewitt and his students comes from the fact that conventional wisdom is a moving target. Once new results have been published, conventional wisdom begins to shift.'''--] (]) 03:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::The above analysis is good. However, there is more to the story. Another important publication was |
|
|
::::::: |
|
|
::::::because there was an academic dispute between Robert Kowalski and Carl Hewitt about Logic Programming. '''Rubin pushed his own Point of View by siding with Kowalski against Hewitt and enforced it by censorship on the ] article.'''--] (]) 13:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The Church enforced a ban against ] similar to the one that ] is enforcing against Hewitt.== |
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur Rubin deleted the following comment from this page: |
|
|
|
|
|
:The Church enforced a ban against ] similar to the one that ] is enforcing against Hewitt.--] (]) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:The original comment was interpolated between one of my comments and a reply, breaking threading. The response I would have given is: ''They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.'' Which category Carl falls in is yet to be determined. — ] ] 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Arthur Rubin deleted the following comment by a Misplaced Pages editor on the talk page of ]: |
|
|
::::"Arthur Rubin's ''modus operandi'' is to insult Professor Hewitt while pretending that he is not." |
|
|
:::] (]) 15:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Galileo did not think that censorship was a laughing matter. Perhaps you aspire to a role similar to that of Francesco Barberini?--] (]) 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As you should know if you claim to be a scientist, Galileo got in trouble for violating his agreement with the Church not to announce his results until he had convincing evidence. (His technology was not quite good enough to get convincing evidence.) Violating an agreement is no laughing matter. |
|
|
:::Actually, the same applies here. Misplaced Pages provides that people should not edit articles about themselves unless they can do so objectively, although it's only a guideline. There was an ArbComm ruling that Carl and his students ''so'' violated the guideline that they were prohibited from ''adding'' '''any''' information about Carl or his papers to any article unless sourced to a reliable source in the field. I, among others, am enforcing that ArbComm ruling. |
|
|
:::As you also should know, if you are at all sane, Misplaced Pages is not ''important'' in science. If Carl is a scientist, he shouldn't bother trying to publicize himself here. If he is on the fringe of computer science or an advocate rather than a scientist, then he may be "right" to attempt to edit Misplaced Pages, but we don't actually have any evidence of that. It would be something interesting to put in his article, if it could be verified from reliable sources. — ] ] 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::'''De facto, Misplaced Pages is important in science because scientists refer to it all the time.'''] (]) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It looks like the above editors were focusing on the censorship issue. And you are firmly in favor of censoring Galileo! Even the Church has now given this up and apologized.] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::There's no real censorship issue here, for a number of reasons. Most of them are obvious, such as that Carl and his students are only forbidden from posting '''here''' on Misplaced Pages, a notoriously unreliable source. Even so, if someone who is not his student posts information about him, it should probably be considered. However, because of the vandalism committed by him and said students, and the ArbCom ruling, it would have to be someone who is '''demonstrably''' not one of his students. This means, I'm afraid, no IP addresses, such as (the probably only one person) posting here. — ] ] 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::According to the Misplaced Pages Wiki: '''Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor'''] (]) 01:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::And you believe it? After claiming ''this'' article is absurd? — ] ] 07:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Request to NOINDEX this article== |
|
|
I have requested that the Wikimedia Foundation NOINDEX this article in accordance with a proposal by Lise Broer at . --Carl Hewitt <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Misplaced Pages instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt== |
|
|
The article refers to the following incident described in : |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hewiitt became involved in an academic dispute with ] over a Computer Science research area called “].” Kowalski appealed to an Administrator of Misplaced Pages to intervene in the dispute. Thus Kowalski was in effect promoting his own side of an academic dispute by participating in Hewitt's censorship by Misplaced Pages. (See “Middle History of Logic Programming” for a detailed discussion of the dispute.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Misplaced Pages official) favored Kowalski’s side and using his Misplaced Pages power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Misplaced Pages) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled Hewitt. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in Hewitt's field of research casting aspersions on him. While Kowalski was upset with Hewitt because of their academic dispute, he: confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some harsh things about Hewitt. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends to Hewitt; see ) |
|
|
|
|
|
:When Matthews applied to be reappointed as an Arbitrator, Sarah McEwan (AKA SlimVirgin) raised the issue that “you discussed this story with the Misplaced Pages Public Relations committee prior to publication , and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an member to do." |
|
|
|
|
|
:*Carl Hewitt '''' ArXiv 0904.3036. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::With Carl submitting libelous reports about Misplaced Pages on his web site, he and his students are in no position to make comments about improper and/or illegal actions allegedly committed by an Arbitrartor. As it stands, I don't see anything wrong with what Matthews did, as described above, except for an implied, but unspecified "use of Misplaced Pages power". (Besides, Matthews is '''not''' "a very high level Misplaced Pages official". An arbitrator is a key position, but not an "official".) — ] ] 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Matthews was appointed to his official position as Arbitrator by ], "God-King" of Misplaced Pages and member of its Board of Trustees. Also, it is important to note that Arthur Rubin has previously repeatedly insulted Professor Hewitt on the Misplaced Pages Website.] (]) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::This criticism may appear hypertechnical, an Arbitrator is not an "official", but the position of Arbitrator ''may be'' an "official position". However, since Carl is attempting to redefine "censorship" as meaning "removal of his material" (assuming it to be technically correct, without noting it may be inappropriate), it's important to note what words mean. |
|
|
::::And Carl defamed me, whether or not I insulted him. (I think I primarily insulted his students posting from IP addresses.) The primary reason I haven't sued is that none of my colleagues, including academic colleagues, would believe him even if they were aware of the allegations. — ] ] 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Arthur Rubin is threatening a lawsuit. Is this allowed on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 23:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::No, actually, I'm stating that Carl defamed me, but I'm '''not''' planning a lawsuit, because nobody I know would believe him. I fail to see how any rational person could read my statement above as my threatening a lawsuit. — ] ] 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Arthur, as an impartial observer of this ugly conversation, I must confess, I am getting a little annoyed with your overly offensive and utterly one-sided views on Carl. You seem to absolve yourself from all wrong-doing, and bash Carl at any turn. I do not know exactly why he was banned from Wiki, but I do understand one thing: “he who goes to the judge alone, come back happy!” Why don't you let him have his day in court? If need be I will takes up matters with Jimbo himself. Since this page is about Carl, as a living person, the rules of ] should be applied, and every effort must be made to uphold his just reputation by avoiding ]ous comments, and not defame him. You say you are not planning a lawsuit, because ''“nobody I know would believe him.”'' I may be considered as one who believes him, and therefore according to your logic, now that you know who I am, you would then decide to sue him?! Please tone down your rhetoric and let him have his say. Enough is enough :( -- ] (]) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Arthur has made similar remarks at ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: (ec) I would prefer that the ArbCom restrictions be enforced, which might involve excising articles about topics he's involved in. For that matter, I would have preferred that he edit Misplaced Pages properly; experts ''should'' comment when there are clear mistakes in articles. Regardless, it's clear that some of his published statements about Misplaced Pages editors, including myself, are defamatory (and I pointed out one clear example above not about me). He claims, in published material, that statements made on Misplaced Pages are defamatory. Fine. Let's keep '''all''' of these comments out of Misplaced Pages, including this talk page, except insofar as they discuss improvements to articles. I don't see a proposed change to an article here. If ''you'' do, could you describe it? |
|
|
:::::::::I also don't see why Carl and/or his students should be allowed to violate ] and/or ] in regard active editors. There have been a number of examples, although not necessarily in this thread. |
|
|
:::::::::As an aside, in this article, we have comments on Carl's ban, by Carl and by a third party source, but not the primary source. As there is a dispute between secondary sources, the primary source should also be included. |
|
|
:::::::::(See, I can provide proposals for improving the article.) — ] ] 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur, |
|
|
Why do you think that Hewitt has libeled you? Also, what's all this stuff about 1st, 2nd and 3rd parties? I can't figure out who has done what to whom!] (]) 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've said what the libel against me is before: The summary of the false defamatory statements that I can remember are |
|
|
:#He asserts that I removed his content because I don't like him (no comment) or do not believe that he knows what he's talking about. (The additional assertion that I don't know his field, although quite possibly false, falls into the category of opinion, because asynchronous computation theory is a field that ''I'' recognize as a part of fields in which I am expert, he does not recognize asynchronous computation theory as part of computation theory.) |
|
|
:#: In spite of the fact that I do not believe his notation is standard, his "theorems" accurate, nor his theories helpful, my reason for removing most of his additions is that '''he''' is the only source. His assertion that computation cannot be (determined — the word of choice keeps changing) by logic ''may'' be the consensus among his peers, but it's not the consensus among mine, so references which are clearly '''other''' than his papers are needed. |
|
|
:I can't seem to find any other examples in the papers currently on knol or on Hewitt's site, but it's a moving target. Your assertion in one of the papers that I'm supporting "conventional wisdom", and Hewitt has gone beyond that, is probably not true, but is not exactly defamatory. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I'm ''supposed'' to report on what is reported in ], and I do not have enough evidence that Hewitt is reliable per se. |
|
|
:As for "1st, 2nd, and 3rd parties", we have the third party statement that Hewitt is banned from editing "his" articles on Misplaced Pages<ref>{{cite book|first1=Phoebe|last1=Ayers|first2=Charles|last2=Matthews|first3=Ben|last3=Yates|title=How Misplaced Pages Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It|chapter=The Misplaced Pages Model Debated|url=http://howwikipediaworks.com/ch02s03.html|publisher=No Starch Press|year=2008|isbn=159327176X}}</ref>, and Hewitt's related statement that the Misplaced Pages model is flawed, but not the "official" statement of the ban (from a Misplaced Pages diff). As the third party statement differs from Hewitt's (and from the "official" statement), the "official" statement should also be included for context. |
|
|
: Some of his references to Misplaced Pages are to a completely different article or diff than the one indicated in the title. I'm willing to help him with that, if he's interested. Diffs from 2002 to 2009 are unlikely to be helpful; he should use either the immediate diff (old=prev?) or the static copy. — ] ] 01:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It seems strange that Misplaced Pages should be stuck with Arthur Rubin's idiosyncratic opinions that ''Hewitt's theorems are inaccurate and his theories unhelpful'' in the face of numerous publications in the scientific literature to the contrary whereas Rubin has published nothing. Isn't this contrary to some Misplaced Pages principles?] (]) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::His primary theorem (at least, according to him) in regard the Actor model is clearly unimportatnt; any computation is a time-abstraction of a timed computation. Anyone who believe that logic exists, whether or not it can model computation, should be able to see that that is either a tautology or a definition, and none of the references in the article mentioning that theorem have any text to the contrary. — ] ] 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You seem to be referring to ] that greatly simplified the construction of denotational semantics of the ] resulting in the ]. And it's not that logic cannot model computation, it just can't in general implement concurrent computation. The Computational Representation Theorem has important corollaries, e.g. the impossibility of ]s.] (]) 18:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Actually, it was a form of the Concurrency Representation Theorem in another article; the article you pointed to now explains that it's non-trivial in the presence of an infinite number of actions. It's clearly trivial if the number of actions is bounded, and probably trivial of the number of actions is finite. And I shouldn't have said it without rechecking whether it had been fixed. — ] ] 19:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I checked the statement of the Concurrency Representation Theorem in the original publication <ref>Carl Hewitt What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social COIN@AAMAS. 2006.</ref>. And it's the same as the ]. The only change was that the name of the theorem was upgraded to better reflect its applicability. As far as I can tell, your concerns about ''the number of actions being bounded or finite'' has never been any part of the published literature on the Actor model.] (]) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::You seem to be doing the best you can to convince me that there's no "there" there. All I can say is that the Misplaced Pages article made the theorem appear trivial, but the current Misplaced Pages article ] makes it non-trivial, because of the references to ω-complete models. — ] ] 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Arthur, You might consider withdrawing from the field to preserve the few shreds of reputation that you have left. Obviously, you are dealing with experts in an area where you lack expertise.] (]) 20:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Look, ''how'' can "Every computation is a time-abstraction of a timed computation path" be other than a definition or a parallel construction to the ], except in the context of an unbounded number of steps in the paths. — ] ] 21:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::I think that you meant to say that "Every computation is a time-abstraction of a timed computation." In the Actor model, a computation can have an infinite number of activation paths each one of which has an infinite number of steps.] (]) 21:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::According to , the ] has as its consequence a modern version of ] as follows: |
|
|
::::::::::::'''Enumeration Theorem:''' If the primitive Actors of a closed Actor System are effective, then its possible outputs are recursively enumerable. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Arthur, I can't find any place that Hewitt says that you removed his content because you don't like him. What he did mostly in is quote people who have said some rather harsh things about you. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Fundamentally, there seem to be two intertwined stories: |
|
|
::#A Misplaced Pages editing dispute between Hewitt and a couple of physicists escalated to Misplaced Pages attacking Hewitt in the newspaper and Hewitt publishing . |
|
|
::#A Misplaced Pages encounter between Kowalski and Hewitt about an academic dispute that escalated into a newspaper story that quoted Kowalski, articles in professional newsletters by Kowalski and a supporter, and Hewitt's scientific article . |
|
|
|
|
|
::No one seems pleased about how this turned out.] (]) 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think he quoted himself, or someone we (Misplaced Pages) believe to acting on his behalf, talking about me. However, that's not really important. What seems important is that we get the correct information in the article. — ] ] 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===BLP=== |
|
|
I'm not sure what the dispute here is exactly, but BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles, and some of the comments above violate it. Arthur, I feel you shouldn't be editing this page or this article, as you seem to have become personally involved. That goes for anyone else who has been intensely involved in it. The situation has already led to one inappropriate newspaper story. We should leave the editing of the article to uninvolved editors. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 00:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've removed the criticism of Misplaced Pages section, because it was sourced to a book Charles Matthews was involved in, and the only other reliable source that I'm aware of is an Observer article Charles was also involved in. In addition, Charles was involved in the ArbCom case against Hewitt. This is a prime example of circular sourcing, which is not allowed per WP:V. Please note that I've removed that section as an administrator enforcing BLP, and I intend to continue taking admin action regarding this article if it's required, though I very much hope it won't be. This focus on Hewitt has gone on for far too long, and has reflected badly on everyone, including the project, so please let's tone it right down. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've emailed Ruud Koot and Arthur Rubin to ask them to fill me in on the background to this dispute. I've done this by email because there are BLP issues. Anyone else who can help explain what's going on here, please email me at slimvirgin at gmail dot com. I'd like to understand the dispute so I can work out how best to bring an end to it once and for all. Many thanks, <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I have reverted your removal of this section because you were not specific enough about what aspects of ] are violated by its existence. The sources, as far as I can see, were valid, and I don't agree that the involvement of someone involved in the ArbCom case constitutes circular sourcing. Deleting the section is not "toning down" anything; it is likely to be perceived as censorship, and only likely to inflame the situation further. --] (]) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::There was circular sourcing. However, at first, it was hidden from the public. Charles Matthews (the Misplaced Pages arbiter involved in the ArbCom case) was the unnamed source in the Observer article that libeled Hewitt. Also Matthews put the author of the article in touch with Kowalski.<ref> Google Knol.</ref>] (]) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I have removed the section again. The sources are not suitable for such contentious material. Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source, and the Charles Matthews book cannot be used because his involvement in the ArbCom case makes his writing a decidedly non-neutral source. SV has removed the section as a BLP enforcement action, so you should be very careful about having a consensus to include the material before replacing it. ] (]) 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Only the first (book) source is ''potentially'' biased or unsuitable, and that one '''can''' be sourced to the actual ArbCom ruling. Carl's comments about Misplaced Pages means the section ''may be'' relevant, and the actual ArbCom ruling is a reliable source for the initial statement. There is reasonable contraversy about whether the second paragraph is justified by the source, but there is absolutely no question that the source is reliable. |
|
|
:::::I do not see a credible claim of a BLP violation, but I won't revert, as my neutrality has been questioned. — ] ] 07:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::The story is quite amazing (see ). It’s analogous to the collision between ]. I wonder if Misplaced Pages will ever make a quasi-apology (like the Catholic Church eventually did for Galileo).] (]) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I always thought Carl had delusions of granduer, comparing himself to the Catholic Church. He certainly has more standing in the academic world than Misplaced Pages. 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Can these silly references to Galileo please stop now? Comparisons of oneself to Galileo are popular among crackpots. If Carl Hewitt made such a comparison himself that would earn him 35 points on John Baez's crackpot index. ("A -5 point starting credit" plus "40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo") Now I realise that the IP is just someone else trying to support Hewitt, but this is ''not'' a good way to go about it. This is a way to hurt his reputation. ] ] 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist|2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Page protection== |
|
|
I've semi-protected this page because of the recent edits, in accordance with the ArbCom ruling: "Given the scale of apparent evasions of the ruling during 2007, by the use of large numbers of IP numbers from the West Coast of the USA, semi-protection of affected articles may be applied for periods of up to one month, and to their Talk pages in cases of overbearing comments." |
|
|
|
|
|
Would the person or persons posting as anons please just stop? There's been enough disruption over the last couple of years to last a lifetime. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Would any of the regular editors here strongly object if I were to archive this entire page? Then the article and talk page could start afresh, with hopefully no more talk about who has been attacking whom. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I take it the silence means no objection, so I'm going to archive now. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
