EvoWiki/Discussions/Archive2004-2006

'''This is an archive of old discussions. If you wish to bring up an issue again, please do so at EvoWiki/Discussions, referencing the old discussion if relevant.'''

Search
Couldnt find the bugs page. Steinsky, do you have any idea whats going on with the search function? Is it a problem everyone is having, or just we lucky few? -- GFA 05:51, 6 Jan 2004 (GMT)
 * I had this fixed the other day :/ I'll talk to jamie (acting server admin) and see if he knows what's doing it -- 81.98.87.238 18:57, 6 Jan 2004 (GMT)
 * OK, it's fixed again, but it's quite possible that it'll do it again. The version of mysqld we're using has a bug that keeps messing up the table headers, it will be fixed shortly when neil (server owner) gets back so we can upgrade to the latest version of mysql -- Steinsky 16:39, 9 Jan 2004 (GMT)
 * Two quick things about the search Steinsky. 1) Is there a way to get it to search the entire database? 2) There is a repeat statement on the top of the page with the search results (it gives the "searching the EvoWiki" sentence twice). -- GFA 10:19, 8 Mar 2004 (GMT)
 * Because the search table was broken for a while it doesn't have all the articles in it. The articles will be added to the search table when people edit them, so the problem will fix itself as people edit the articles -- Steinsky 12:53, 8 Mar 2004 (GMT)

I cannot get the Search to work at all. I get- A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "". MySQL returned error "1016: Can't open file: 'searchindex.MYI' (errno: 145) (localhost)". Retrieved from "http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Special:Search" (Steve Holloway)

Backups
How are we on backups? The brief crash recently maketh me a bit nervous... -- oplo
 * Don't worry, the server's alright, but mysql does have a bug which is worrying me at the moment. Once again one of the table headers (recentchanges) is broken.  This won't effect what's already in the database, but it will stop this edit showing up in recent changes, it stops the recent changes page working and it stope me making a backup!  I'll have this fixed and then take a backup.  After that I give up, and stop fixing the tables until after mysql is upgraded - so the site may stop working altogether for a few days.  Anyway, basically, everything will be alright in the end ;) -- Steinsky 12:31, 13 Jan 2004 (GMT)

Image upload
Is fixed! -- Steinsky 10:53, 15 Jan 2004 (GMT)
 * [Special:Upload] seems to be down today, although I haven't used it in awhile -- oplo


 * It's been down for awhile. I've just been uploading things to my FTP, creating a page, and linking to the images. -- GFA 23:16, 27 Jan 2004 (GMT)


 * Will be fixed in a sec when I edit the configs... -- Steinsky 14:36, 28 Jan 2004 (GMT)

Images are still absent from the Image list ; I don't want to re-upload mine unless I can be confident that they will stay there and be referenced. -- Lpetrich 16:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've put this on my todo list, and I should get time to look at it tommorow. Joe D (t) 19:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Email
I finally bothered to add evowiki.org to qmail, and have set up the following aliases: So you can now have email sent to those accounts if you want. If you want any more, or the destination address changed just ask! -- Steinsky 14:30, 28 Jan 2004 (GMT)
 * jgk & vindexurvogel => your hotmail account
 * gfa => your aol account
 * lpetrich => to your panix.com account
 * oplopanax & nic => your yahoo account

Special pages
Could someone fix the typo on the Special Pages header page? Special:Specialpages. There is a link titled "Recently changes" that has been BUGGING me. That page is (understandably) not generally editable, or I'd do it myself. -- User:Nepenthe
 * It's on my to do list. I have 10,000 things to do this week though. -- Steinsky 14:00, 19 Feb 2004 (GMT)

Terms of use
Steinsky, I am writing a general biology textbook on the site Wikibooks.org and am wondering if we could have your permission to freely copy any material that you have on your site here for use on mine. (Like Wikipedia, Wikibooks uses the GNU FDL as its license.) --Karl Wick


 * Hello Karl. While im obviously not Steinsky, our terms of use require permission from the respective authors from which you would be drawing, insofar as your use neglects any of the three conditions. Im sure, however, that the authors, myself among them, would be happy to help. -- GFA 04:42, 3 Mar 2004 (GMT)


 * I've added my own reply to this at Wikibooks:User_talk:Karl_Wick, which is along the same lines as GFA's. -- Steinsky 13:50, 3 Mar 2004 (GMT)

Editing pages
Why are you able to edit every page? Why not prevent some people from editing the pages that you want untouched? -- Anon.
 * Because there are very few pages we want untouched (and those can't be edited by anybody), the rest we want people to edit. -- Steinsky 18:37, 9 Mar 2004 (GMT)

Lost edits
There's a bug in the current mysql database software which caused this week's problems. The repair tool has deleted the changes since 5 May and I have no idea why. The bug has been reported to the software producers, and I'll be taking db backups every couple of days until it's fixed -- Steinsky 22:28, 12 May 2004 (BST)


 * I noticed this. All my most recent edits are gone, including those to the urvogel primer, the avian order pages, the Aves page, and who knows what else.  Shall I redo them, Steinsky, or can we salvage the work that was done? -- JGK, 11:22pm EDT 5/12/04


 * We can't find a way of recovering the lost edits :( It doesn't help that we have no idea why it happened! -- Steinsky 01:54, 14 May 2004 (BST)


 * This seriously blows. The Aves page is going to have to fixed, the urvogel primer, the Turniciformes page redone, the Pelecaniformes page re-edited, and the Phoenicopteriformes page redone (fortunately I had only just started).  Annoying.  --  JGK 10:42pm EDT 5/13/04

Blogs
Blogs are in, and a great medium for site and content distribution and promotion. Can't we generate feeds from EvoWiki? I think it will increase the readership and participation.

Here are some example RSS feeds that I think would be interesting:
 * A "new pages added" feed
 * A "recent changes" feed (superset of previous)
 * A "feed based on customised search term" - a bit ambitious perhaps!

Comments? Jmojo 09:21, 14 Jun 2004 (GMT).


 * I assume you're talking about RSS (which isn't synonymous with "blog"). We already have HTML versions of "new pages" and "recent changes", I can't imediately see RSS feeds being more useful.  As for an actuall blog documenting the new pages and significant recent changes, this site is a wiki, it can do anything.  All you need is a new page, e.g. Blog and update it every now and then. -- Steinsky 01:41, 15 Jun 2004 (BST)
 * PS, I didn't code the site and I don't have time to work out how they structured the database and hack in an RSS generator. If you really think it would add something to the site you should talk to the people at MediaWiki.org who maintain the software.

Schism
I'm still wondering why you created evowiki separate from wikipedia, which already has some rather good evolution content - to my mind, this server only to disrupt the [ [ ] ] continuity within the wiki world, and duplicates effort (I'm moaning because I worked on the population genetics stuff on wikipedia for a while). -- 129.215.190.128 23:33, 23 Jul 2004 (BST)


 * Your license would also seem to be a problem - why not use the GFDL?-- 129.215.190.39 21:21, 24 Jul 2004 (BST)


 * The EvoWiki is quite different from Wikipedia and has a lot of content that wouldn't be suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not do what the EvoWiki does. -- Steinsky 13:45, 28 Jul 2004 (BST)


 * So does Wikipedia also subscribe to the views of this wiki? I did not realize that, will look more closely at the content.  Thanks!
 * Wikipedia suscribes to no views. Wikipedia is [NPOV] .  -- DuctapeDaredevil

Reaching out
I had an interesting online experience recently where a antievolutionist site called TheScian.com (a site with a science blog and science wiki run by community effort) a hoax based on a blog post. I am seeking to understand what can and should be done. I hope this wiki community would provide valuable suggestions and inputs. Please see http://www.thescian.com/wiki/index.php/Answers_to_antievolutionists .- Selva 15:37, 3 Oct 2004 (BST)

Changing the purpose/layout etc of the main page
I think the EvoWiki is now big enough for me to make this proposal for a big change to the main page. I think the directory should be moved off the main page to Directory, and the main page turned into a general site front page, with Directory and Community Portal as sub-front pages which elaborate on the different sections of the front page. The new front page would emphasise EvoWiki's use as something more than just an encyclopedia/reference site to encourage more comment, essays and intelligent debate, and perhaps have an alternative directory / "wiki bus tour" that people can use simply to browse the site and educate themselves, rather than a bland index for looking up a specific topic.

We can start work on it at Main Page/New.

Any comments / suggestions? -- Steinsky 19:43, 8 Oct 2004 (BST)

Creationist arguments
Some of the material on the creationist arguments pages are in volation of copyright and unless these get rewritten (e.g. as an extended article as was the original intention) they will be deleted. It would be appreciated if any pages which are evowiki originals could be marked as such so that they don't get deleted. Joe D (t) 17:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleted shortly? How short is that? This has been a lot of work, and it will be a lot of work separating. Also, didn't Mark Isaak give his OK then? So he retracted it? -- tk 09:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Mark Isaak didn't give his OK to me, I assumed that the person who imported the articles had permission. I know Mark was aware the articles were here, but as the originals are now being published as a book only TalkOrigins.org has permission to mirror them, so I will have to begin deleting them next week, but I think it might be possible to turn them into short articles as we go along. Joe D  (t) 19:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I see. That person was me, and I thought it was OK since the list of claims was already there. So it was a misunderstanding - being new to wiki then, I didn't think that you intended them written from scratch.
 * The pattern of the claims has been like this:


 * Claim
 * Source
 * Responses
 * Footnotes
 * Fallacies contained in this claim
 * External Links
 * See For Yourself
 * References
 * Further Reading
 * Related claims
 * Acknowledgments


 * Since you rewrote the Mims article, keeping the References section, I propose, based on that precedence, this pattern:


 * (Claim, Responses, Fallacies turned into an article)
 * Source
 * External Links
 * References
 * Further Reading
 * Related claims
 * Category


 * The next problem is: I'd like to keep some of that lot of work. Could we at first just remove the Claim, Responses, and Acknowledgements sections and insert an Add responses, instead of deleting the whole article? I will do that if it's ok. Since we have about 580 claims, it will take about 5 hours of intensive work. That's two evenings.


 * Also, there are some claims that were added independently and don't appear at Mark Isaak's site. I stupidly inserted the "This article is part of the creationist arguments collection" template there.


 * Then there are some responses that come from EvoWiki people. Those should be kept, but at first we can just delete the responses, as written above. -- tk 09:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think Mark was expecting us to remove all the articles by Sunday, but I agreed to start sorting through them after seven days, so working through removing the responses or rewriting them over a few days should be fine, and I'll try to so some more myself before sunday. Joe D (t) 12:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Many of the responses to creationist claims are inaccurate (and AiG have themselves a list of invalid arguments). I don't feel a need to list the flawed responses found (and not all responses were invalid (nor found)), I'm suggesting reading creationist material for insight in current creationist claims to more efficiently argue against them. Also, try to understand not merely the claim itself but the theology and reasoning behind the claim. As a creationist, I welcome the debate, but when the arguments against my scientific views are flawed, it merely makes me lose respect for those that hold contrary scientific views. -- Ad G, 9 Sept 2006 (EET)
 * Feel free to edit these "flawed responses" you're so concerned about. Most of items from AiG's list of invalid arguments are noted as such.  Please note any that aren't.  Why do you think people haven't read the creationist materials?  Have you read the materials here?  One big problem with your contribution here is that it doesn't show any indication at all that you've read what is actually here, nor have any understanding of it, yet you're asking people here to do what you have not.  And to end it all, you talk about respect... -- RonZ 17:33, 9 September 2006 (BST)
 * Um, exactly WHAT sort of theology makes claims that the mammoths were killed by giant fragments of a magic ice dome, or claims that organisms belong to "kinds" or "baramins" without defining what a "kind" or a "baramin" really is?-- Mr A. 20:52, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Policy: Civility
A lot of articles, especially creationist biographies, are taking the form of personal attacks on the subject. While a lot of the time I suspect these may be correct, but EvoWiki isn't about preaching to the converted (though I don't suppose any of us would call it "preaching" at all). EvoWiki is about explaining the science and philosophy, and explaining where and how Creationism fails, and I don't think personal attacks on Creationism helps in this task. I know people get fed up of going over the same claims again and again, and get angry with dishonest Creationists, but remember that EvoWiki is supposed to be here so that we can go over the claims just once, when writing the page, and from then on just direct people here, so we want to answer the questions of Creationists and undecideds, not make them think we resort to attacking the person.

I therefore suggest a new policy of removing attacks on Creationist integrity where they are not supported by a list of claims and evidence that they have ignored the responses to them. Joe D (t) 14:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of such an attack? Memenen 17:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify whether this is regarding personal attacks or attacks on integrity? Creationists themselves make integrity an issue by claiming the moral high ground, so pointing out their hypocracy isn't invalid argumentation. I would support a policy on civility, but not one that included "integrity" without being more certain of the definition. I'd allow, "Kent Hovind claims to be a doctor, but only bought a degree from an unaccredited degree mill", but not "Kent Hovind is an idiot", which, while true, isn't appropriate for EvoWiki. -- Suttkus 15:34, 5 May 2006 (BST)


 * Update: I've proposed some text related to this topic under EvoWiki talk:Policies.


 * -- Suttkus 13:51, 10 July 2006 (BST)


 * I would also like a clarification. If a certain person has been shown to have zero accredited degrees, has reported many false archaeological findings to attract tourists, has been sued by a US ambassador, has created false quotations from real archaeologists, and other things would it be against the policy to point such things out? I agree that someone shouldn't be attacked for merely having contrary views or because they have mistakenly used quotations out of context; however, I think information about someone's integrity is vital when it concerns proven fraud. -- Jesse 09:52, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Vote
Sign on same line with three tildes, discussions of the policy go above.

Yay: Joe D (t)

Yay: tk (t)

Nay:

Logo license
Hi,

I would like to use the EvoWiki logo in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Is it, or could you place it under a free license (if possible, a commercial one)?

-- Tgr/huWP ( 152.66.212.151 23:15, 14 Jul 2005 (BST))
 * I, the creator, hereby license it under the cc-by-sa license. Joe D (t) 20:14, 15 Jul 2005 (BST)

Abbreviations
Currently abreviations are rather common. For example, many articles use YEC instead of young earth creationist. People not involved in the neocreationism debate probably do not know them. Even if they are introduced in the article, like young earth creationist (YEC), the usage of abbreviations increases the difficulty to read the article for them. It took me while to get used to those abreviations myself.

In order to increase the accessibility of this wiki, I suggest to use long versions instead of abreviations. There are excpetions to this rule, if the abreviation is not descriptive or the abreviation is widely known, the abreviation can be used. For example DNA is a widely known abreviation and its long version deoxyribonucleic acid is nondescriptive for the lay person. Markus Schmaus 12:29, 3 March 2006 (GMT)


 * I'd recommend introducing the abbreviations in each article. If "YEC" is being used in an article, write "young earth creationist (YEC)" the first time you use it.  It's standard English style.


 * -- Suttkus 14:03, 18 May 2006 (BST)


 * I agree -- Jesse 09:06, 9 July 2006 (BST)

An open letter to the ICR
A few of us from scienceforums.net have banded together to create an open letter to the Institute for Creation Research, concerning one of their anti-evolution videos and its misrepresentations of science. The current draft is available here, and I'd be happy if a few of you would come and contribute as well.

Thanks! Cap'n Refsmmat 04:03, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Whither EvoWiki.org?
What happened to the simplified web address of this site? I thought for weeks that this website was down because I could no longer access it through http://www.evowiki.org/. -- Suttkus 15:26, 5 May 2006 (BST)


 * Update: www.evowiki.org now appears to be in the hands of another site. -- Suttkus 16:27, 7 May 2006 (BST)
 * Um... What site?-- Mr A. 22:10, 7 May 2006 (BST)


 * I'm sorry, but this morning I tried the link and I got one of those "homesteader" sites that swoop up addresses. It's not there now.  Either I made a mistake or... well, that seems the best explanation. -- Suttkus 01:35, 8 May 2006 (BST)


 * Update: I now believe that what happened was that I typed "evowiki.com" instead of ".org". The ".com" version is in the hands of an apparent homesteader. -- Suttkus 14:03, 18 May 2006 (BST)