What exactly makes Linuxconf the second most popular Wikipedia article
after Michael Jackson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages
# Michael Jackson (33,092 hits last hour)
# Linuxconf (12,512 hits last hour)
...
--
Dan
http://dandascalescu.com
___
In reply to Wjhonson, here's an example of a captured reporter who
subsequently had the chance to explain how careless coverage endangered his
life.
In late 2001 Canadian journalist Ken Hechtman was in Afghanistan when the
United States invaded, and was arrested as a suspected spy. Here's the
sit
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Three more points:
>
> 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
> Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
> officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers.
> Publ
Three more points:
1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers.
Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would hav
I'd just like to clarify one point. The NYT article does make it seem as if
the entire reason that the actions were done were because Jimmy asked or
requested it. This is not the case and I know this first-hand, of course
being one of those administrators involved. I did what I did because I fel
Four thoughts:
1) Geni's question about Pajhwok Afghan News is valid. But also Al Jazeera,*
Adnkronos, Little Green Footballs, *The Jawa Report* and *Dan Cleary,
Political Insomniac*, also apparently qualify as "unreliable sources." Or
"temporarily unreliable sources," if that's the preffered term
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
> The balance we're using is working for our public reputation among
> readers, the media, media critics and internet critics, policymakers.
> In this particular case, the controversy seems limited to our own
> internal review.
That's not t
Mr. Martinez wasn't kidnapped at the time, was he? I mean, there was nobody
actually holding him prisoner, was there?
I don't think many westerners realise how endemic kidnapping for profit is
in this region of the world; it's commonplace and a longstanding pattern of
behaviour that goes back cent
2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee :
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote:
>> I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through
>> office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this,
>> it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the
2009/6/29 Andrew Turvey :
> "Thomas Dalton" wrote:
>
>>
>> Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The
>> community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're
>> not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
>
> Office actions are taken over conte
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote:
> While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
> the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
I already posted this, but...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1
___
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote:
> I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through
> office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this,
> it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest
> of us who no doubt wou
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wrote:
>
> George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a
> causative effect.
I don't believe that our (Jimmy et al's private) actions here "caused"
anything. The combined effect of all of the media together embargoing
this is unclear. Wha
"Thomas Dalton" wrote:
>
> Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The
> community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're
> not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
Office actions are taken over content all the time.
A.
- "Michael Peel" wrote:
> I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first
> heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life
> approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within
> Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can unders
> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>>> 2009/6/29 Nathan :
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the
people" -
that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control
and
responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
David Goodman wrote:
> would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
> who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
>
> preventing harm is the argument of all censors
>
That may be the case; but saying that acting to prevent harm makes one a
censor is
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>> 2009/6/29 Nathan :
>>> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the
>>> people" -
>>> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
>>> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>>>
>>> In 99.99% of
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM, wrote:
>
> George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a
> causative effect.
> But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics
> debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others
> media outle
> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people"
> -
> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>
> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can
George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a causative
effect.
But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics debate
has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others media
outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of pro
On 29 Jun 2009, at 22:40, George Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wrote:
>> So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving
>> on, is to
>> make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship,
>> so it can
>> go around the world in the opposite
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wrote:
> So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to
> make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can
> go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for twice as
> long.
>
> Smart thinking.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef
> Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's *live with this story, and I guess that's
> what's messing with me.
>
Eugh! *Life.
-Stevertigo
Email needs to be wiki. If only wiki wer
I might have an interesting side note here. Sorry if this is a bit out of
context.
I have a source in a certain "other government agency," who knows about a
certain unnamed individual in Pakistan whom *we are going to bomb straight
into wherever terrorists go when they get bombed.
Through my sour
> 2009/6/29 Nathan :
>> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the
>> people" -
>> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
>> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>>
>> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well
Explain first how you know that the kidnappers don't already know who they've
captured when they've captured them.? Every person carries identity papers and
as a side-note, I would expect they would have targeted a person *just because*
they were famous for some reason.
Do you understand w
2009/6/29 Nathan :
> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" -
> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>
> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the o
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wrote:
>
> But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than
> they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the
> logic is.
>
>
>
>
Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the
24 hour ne
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" -
that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see
just fr
But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they
already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is.
-Original Message-
From: Sam Blacketer
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:15 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News a
Is there some apparent claim that the kidnappers didn't know who they had
kidnapped?
That we were telling them who the person was?? I'm fairly sure that kidnappers
first priority would be "Let's kidnap someone who means something, not just
some joker who nobody cares about."
Or some claim tha
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer :
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker wrote:
>
>> While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
>> the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
>
>
> There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Brito
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker wrote:
> While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
> the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a
consultant and four security
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Matt Jacobs wrote:
> It really doesn't matter what policy administrators used to keep it quiet,
> or even if they abused the rules. The information had a very real
> probability of affecting whether a man lived or died, so that takes obvious
> precedence over internal rules on
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's
kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur
in the area.
Ri
would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
preventing harm is the argument of all censors
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arrom
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
> > of applying policy
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>>>
>>> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>
>> An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total
>> war situation.
>> --
>> geni
>>
>
> It's not a big war, but we certainly are "at war" with th
> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>>
>> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed.
>>
>> Fred
>
> An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total
> war situation.
> --
> geni
>
It's not a big war, but we certainly are "at war" with the kidnappers.
Fred
___
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>
> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed.
>
> Fred
An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total
war situation.
--
geni
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscri
2009/6/29 Sage Ross :
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, wrote:
>> Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
>> life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
>> the first place?
>>
>
> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western
> In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
>> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
>> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip o
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, wrote:
>
> So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other
> information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report
> it, if
> they had a reliable source from which to do so.
No. In fact, the New York Times contacted a w
2009/6/29
> In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> > notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> > kidnappers (either his value as a ne
So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to
make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can
go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for twice as
long.
Smart thinking. Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it
In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes:
> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his sy
2009/6/29
> Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
> life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
> the first place?
>
> Will
>
>
> It would raise the price of his release. It would encourage deeper digging
into his background, wh
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, wrote:
> Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
> life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
> the first place?
>
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
notice of the k
Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
the first place?
Will
**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=e
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:03:33 +0100
> From: Sam Blacketer
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
> To: English Wikipedia
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni wrote:
>
> > 2009/6/29 Gwern
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
> When someone's life is at stake, Ignore all rules actually kicks in.
The government of Iran has made it fairly clear that further protests
carry the risks of further deaths. It's also fairly clear that the
protests in part at least are aimed at gaining western media cover
> 2009/6/29 geni :
>
>> Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.
>
>
> There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing
> so.
>
>
> - d.
>
Yes, but now we should definitely take another look. Most likely it's a
reasonably good source, just not in the Western
> Sam Blacketer wrote:
>> This case is more about basic common sense...
>
> Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case)
> The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other
> major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain
> fact out of the media
Sam Blacketer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni wrote:
>
>
>> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
>>
>>> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
>>> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
>>> really hard time with it if it had.”
What Wikimedia events or activities would you like to see take place
in the UK?
We're currently trying to pull together ideas for "initiatives" that
Wikimedia UK can support, at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives/Proposals
There have been lots of ideas posted at:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/
geni wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
>
>> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
>> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
>> really hard time with it if it had.”"
>> ...
>>
>
> The question is though is is
> http://en.wikipedia
Sam Blacketer wrote:
> This case is more about basic common sense...
Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case)
The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other
major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain
fact out of the media for N month
2009/6/29 geni :
> Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.
There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing so.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list
Thank you, Thomas!
--muhamamad
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Muhammad Abdul-Mageed {محمد عبدالمجيد} :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am writing up an academic paper on Wikipedia and need to include some
> > statistics in the background section about the encyclopedia. W
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer :
> This case is more about basic common sense.
I'm not interested in the collection of prejudices you acquired by the
age of 18. They are a poor substitute for logic, evidence and reason.
> If someone's life may be
> endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
> > “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
> > we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
> > really hard time with it if it had.”"
> > ...
>
> The question is though i
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
> really hard time with it if it had.”"
> ...
The question is though is is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuin
'Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html
"A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on
Wikipedia’s page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times
the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convol
2009/6/29 David Gerard :
> 2009/6/29 geni :
>> 2009/6/29 David Gerard :
>
>>> I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when
>>> several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK
>>> PHOTOS just give credit and licence.
>
>> Only if you consider CC-BY-SA
2009/6/29 geni :
> 2009/6/29 David Gerard :
>> I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when
>> several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK
>> PHOTOS just give credit and licence.
> Only if you consider CC-BY-SA to be weak copyleft.
Do let us
2009/6/29 David Gerard :
> 2009/6/28 Andrew Turvey :
>
>> Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should
>> complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights?
>
>
> I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when
> several peo
You might want to ask in the technical forum. Hopefully someone can
point you that way, or answer your question here.
Carcharoth
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:24 PM, akhil1988 wrote:
>
> Hi All!
>
> Here's a newbie to this forum.
>
> I am looking for some references to help me use Wikipedia XML dump
Hi All!
Here's a newbie to this forum.
I am looking for some references to help me use Wikipedia XML dump.
Here's what I have to do with the XML dump:
I will set up a server on which people can browse Wikipedia articles and
also a processed version of the corresponding Wikipedia article. By
pr
2009/6/28 Andrew Turvey :
> Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should
> complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights?
I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when
several people ask them. Eventually they will g
70 matches
Mail list logo
