Re: [WikiEN-l] flagged revvvs
If you want flagged reca the instructions for starting the process are at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-June/043691.html On 12/31/08, Maxim wrote: > I think a better question at this point would be is how, from a technical > standpoint, implementing flagged revs or semi-protection on only biographies > will technically feasible. > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Charlotte Webb > wrote: > >> I'm still trying to figure out why semi-protection is more widely >> supported than flaggedrevs, especially after seeing the example given >> here: >> >> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22088 [warning: badsite] >> >> What would be a reasonable timetable for closing this discussion... >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey >> >> ...with the acknowledgment that there is at least majority support for >> flaggedrevs on BLP articles, and turn the bloody thing on already >> (preferably without any technical or social restrictions against using >> it on other pages as needed, and on all pages eventually). >> >> It's a few hours till 2009 here, and I'm about to go get shit-faced >> drunk. If anyone is reading this I'd like nothing better than to come >> back tomorrow morning afternoon and see that actual progress >> has been made. >> >> For this new year it's time to try something different. Please. >> >> —C.W. >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > > -- > ~Maxim > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] flagged revvvs
I think a better question at this point would be is how, from a technical standpoint, implementing flagged revs or semi-protection on only biographies will technically feasible. On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote: > I'm still trying to figure out why semi-protection is more widely > supported than flaggedrevs, especially after seeing the example given > here: > > http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22088 [warning: badsite] > > What would be a reasonable timetable for closing this discussion... > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey > > ...with the acknowledgment that there is at least majority support for > flaggedrevs on BLP articles, and turn the bloody thing on already > (preferably without any technical or social restrictions against using > it on other pages as needed, and on all pages eventually). > > It's a few hours till 2009 here, and I'm about to go get shit-faced > drunk. If anyone is reading this I'd like nothing better than to come > back tomorrow morning afternoon and see that actual progress > has been made. > > For this new year it's time to try something different. Please. > > —C.W. > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- ~Maxim ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] flagged revvvs
I'm still trying to figure out why semi-protection is more widely supported than flaggedrevs, especially after seeing the example given here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22088 [warning: badsite] What would be a reasonable timetable for closing this discussion... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey ...with the acknowledgment that there is at least majority support for flaggedrevs on BLP articles, and turn the bloody thing on already (preferably without any technical or social restrictions against using it on other pages as needed, and on all pages eventually). It's a few hours till 2009 here, and I'm about to go get shit-faced drunk. If anyone is reading this I'd like nothing better than to come back tomorrow morning afternoon and see that actual progress has been made. For this new year it's time to try something different. Please. —C.W. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
On 31/12/2008, David Gerard wrote: > 2008/12/31 Ian Woollard : >> That is A definition of right and wrong, you're saying that the >> wikipedia is more important than individuals. You're valuing the >> wikipedia more than them. That's your right. But it's also his right >> to value individuals above the wikipedia. > > False dichotomy. No, no. It's not a dichotomy at all, there's a continuum between how much people value rules/ordered societies and how much they're prepared to trample over a few rights or people's lives and how much it's essential not to trample on anyone. It's not about good or bad, it's just how different people look at things; it's about values. There's no provable right or wrong on this. > BLP only works insofar as it doesn't contradict NPOV. > > What part of valuing individuals do you consider requires violating NPOV? Well, off hand (and not necessarily a perfect example) the Star Wars kid's name. It may well be considered that not having his name in the article violates NPOV. I'm not saying that I think that or that I don't, but *purely* for the sake of argument let's say that it is obviously a violation not to have it and let's say in our hypothetical world that absolutely all sources have it. Then one point of view would then be that his name should be in the article, unless BLP then gets in the way, in which case you can reasonably argue that NPOV was violated because you value the impact it could have on the kid and that is more important to *them*. On the other hand some people will argue that NPOV should triumph, because all sources have it, and so it's NPOV to have it and the rule is intended to improve and give an orderly and well written wikipedia and so in the long run improve countless people's lives; perhaps even save their lives, and this is more important to *them* than the (possibly minor) inconvenience to the Star Wars kid of NPOV forcing something into the article. That's the general idea anyway-this guy probably puts it better than me (it seems to be about the same idea, although he explains it in political terms): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html > - d. -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
I think you may misunderstand. I don't see Wikipedia, written properly, to be at odds with an individual. Our articles should be neutral in tone and composed of only facts already published in sources available to the public. Provided we do that properly, and stick to those requirements, we're fine on any BLP you've got. No individual has a right to suppress informtion because (s)he simply dislikes it. Sometimes, the truth hurts. But in the end a lie, whether of omission or commission, is worse. I have no problem enforcing our content policies strictly and immediately to BLPs. No one wants another issue like Siegenthaler. But the Siegenthaler incident was due to false, unverifiable information. What we're talking now is suppressing true, publicly verifiable information. That's different, and that's unacceptable. -Original Message- From: "Ian Woollard" Subj: Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:49 pm Size: 1K To: "English Wikipedia" On 31/12/2008, toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: > NPOV is not just a rule. It's what allows us to have a project at all. It is > not "right" to violate NPOV because reality hurts someone's feelings. > Reality frequently is painful. It's neither possible nor our job to change > that. > It's our job to make a neutral, factual, verifiable reference work. Not > to > impose our notions of right and wrong. That is A definition of right and wrong, you're saying that the wikipedia is more important than individuals. You're valuing the wikipedia more than them. That's your right. But it's also his right to value individuals above the wikipedia. > -Original Message- > > From: Ken Arromdee > Subj: Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons > Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:13 pm > Size: 509 bytes > To: English Wikipedia > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: >> I've even been told, by someone who should know better, that BLP is >> more important than NPOV, and saw not a bit of outrage. > > NPOV is a rule. BLP is about doing what's right. > > Some people elevate rules over doing what's right. I'm not one of them. -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Be Healthy
Each one of you. Have a healthy New Year. Carpe diem, Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
In a message dated 12/31/2008 3:48:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, ian.wooll...@gmail.com writes: But it's also his right to value individuals above the wikipedia.>> --- His right however does not translate into any requirement for change in this project. Everybody has a choice to do what they want, and be where they are. The right of some to present reality with all its warts versus the right of others to hide those warts is a conflict which has existed since pre-history. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
In a message dated 12/31/2008 3:12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, arrom...@rahul.net writes: NPOV is a rule. BLP is about doing what's right. Some people elevate rules over doing what's right. >> --- NPOV is a core policy. BLP is not at that level. NPOV allows carries clout over BLP. Perhaps someone wants to create a new project like _http://www.moralipedia.com_ (http://www.moralipedia.com) "Where we only write bright happy thoughts!" Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
In a message dated 12/31/2008 7:53:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, crustyb...@gmail.com writes: If I'm right, Phil is complaining that NOR contradicts NPOV because someone won't necessarily be able to defend themselves in their article because what they say (eg through a letter) will be OR, and therefore the article won't have NPOV?>> --- No. What Phil is stating is that NOR contradicts NPOV because of a line which states that primary sources may only be used for descriptive clauses (not interpretive ones). Therefore, since what an author writes is a primary source, they cannot defend themselves from perceived false interpretations of others, which are secondary sources. My counters included an attack on whether an op-ed is really secondary. And also an attack on whether a self-review is really primary. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
2008/12/31 Ian Woollard : > That is A definition of right and wrong, you're saying that the > wikipedia is more important than individuals. You're valuing the > wikipedia more than them. That's your right. But it's also his right > to value individuals above the wikipedia. False dichotomy. BLP only works insofar as it doesn't contradict NPOV. What part of valuing individuals do you consider requires violating NPOV? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
On 31/12/2008, toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: > NPOV is not just a rule. It's what allows us to have a project at all. It is > not "right" to violate NPOV because reality hurts someone's feelings. > Reality frequently is painful. It's neither possible nor our job to change > that. > It's our job to make a neutral, factual, verifiable reference work. Not > to > impose our notions of right and wrong. That is A definition of right and wrong, you're saying that the wikipedia is more important than individuals. You're valuing the wikipedia more than them. That's your right. But it's also his right to value individuals above the wikipedia. > -Original Message- > > From: Ken Arromdee > Subj: Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons > Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:13 pm > Size: 509 bytes > To: English Wikipedia > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: >> I've even been told, by someone who should know better, that BLP is >> more important than NPOV, and saw not a bit of outrage. > > NPOV is a rule. BLP is about doing what's right. > > Some people elevate rules over doing what's right. I'm not one of them. -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
2008/12/31 Ken Arromdee : > NPOV is a rule. BLP is about doing what's right. > Some people elevate rules over doing what's right. I'm not one of them. NPOV is more than a rule - it's the fundamental defining characteristic of what Wikipedia is. If you really think NPOV is optional, Wikipedia is not the project for you. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
NPOV is not just a rule. It's what allows us to have a project at all. It is not "right" to violate NPOV because reality hurts someone's feelings. Reality frequently is painful. It's neither possible nor our job to change that. It's our job to make a neutral, factual, verifiable reference work. Not to impose our notions of right and wrong. Polarizing the issue into "those who agree with me are right and all others are wrongdoers" is unhelpful. -Original Message- From: Ken Arromdee Subj: Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:13 pm Size: 509 bytes To: English Wikipedia On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: > I've even been told, by someone who should know better, that BLP is > more important than NPOV, and saw not a bit of outrage. NPOV is a rule. BLP is about doing what's right. Some people elevate rules over doing what's right. I'm not one of them. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: > I've even been told, by someone who should know better, that BLP is > more important than NPOV, and saw not a bit of outrage. NPOV is a rule. BLP is about doing what's right. Some people elevate rules over doing what's right. I'm not one of them. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, CrustyBush wrote: > If I'm right, Phil is complaining that NOR contradicts NPOV because someone > won't necessarily be able to defend themselves in their article because what > they say (eg through a letter) will be OR, and therefore the article won't > have NPOV? It has to do with a specific phrase that was inserted in NOR: Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. The phrase that's the problem is "without specialist knowledge". The problem is that there are topics where it pretty much takes specialist knowledge to summarize them at all. This leads to the scenario where B publishes a criticism of A, and A replies. The criticism published by B isn't a primary source, and may be summarized. The reply by A is a primary source, and may not be summarized. > And then there's the discussion about whether the subject of an article can > request the permanent deletion of that article? But then of course we'll > have the scenario where only generally positive articles remain. Can't we > just have it so that they insist that Wikipedia correct factual errors about > themselves? People can be hurt by things which are factually accurate, especially if they're the #1 hit on Google for that person (as we are). > And what's all this about spoiler warnings? Has there been a recent policy > change? Where does one find out about these things? It's not recent. I pointed out that one of the abuses that was possible here (taking advantage of the fact that without consensus we go with the status quo) also happened when spoiler warnings were taken out. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
-Original Message- From: Falcorian Subj: Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:53 am Size: 450 bytes To: "English Wikipedia" On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Scientia Potentia est < bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In the end, BLP is not one of our five pillars. The fact that we are an > encyclopedia is. > > bibliomaniac15 > That pretty much says it all. --Falcorian ___ I'll put another "yes and hell yes" on that. Having reasonable BLP standards is great, but we passed "reasonable" many miles back. About time to bring it back to "Nothing unsourced or poorly sourced, no hatchet jobs, no pseudo-biographies that only cover the person'ss role in one event." We've gotten to the point of literal censorship on BLPs, where we're withholding relevant and well-sourced information like names, not because they can't be well-sourced (they can), but because of panic over "privacy." I've even been told, by someone who should know better, that BLP is more important than NPOV, and saw not a bit of outrage. BLP is a necessary beast, but it's well past time to get it back on the leash, and make sure that leash stays short. If it's gotten to the point we're worried about it over neutrality, that just hammers home the need for real and immediate reform. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
> On 29/12/2008, Brian wrote: >> So why are you wasting the ISPs time and the police's time when the best of >> the passive technology routes have not been explored? Using machine learning >> *you pit the vandals against themselves. *Every time they perform a >> particular kind of vandalism, it can never be performed again because the >> bot will recognize it. on 12/31/08 1:15 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: > > There's an infinite number of ways to vandalise the wikipedia, and, in > practice, not all forms of vandalism can be detected by any known > design of bot, or humans with complete reliability for that matter. > > I know something of machine learning myself, although I am not an > expert. In principle it can learn anything, in practice, there are > many problems and if you have *any* other way to do something, you're > normally better off. > > Vandalism/spam is a difficult enough problem that *any* method should > be investigated and if it is found to be effective, applied, not > simply technological ones. But we need to stick to proportionality- we > should never use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. > > Jarlaxle is only 19; as I understand it the human brain does not fully > mature until maybe 25. Unless he's actually mentally ill (which is by > no means inconceivable) he is likely to stop of his own accord at some > point. You are treading on dangerous and uncertain ground here, Ian: the difference between mental health and emotional health. I am not suggesting that the guy be dragged off in chains to somewhere. But a strong, in-person message - both to him AND his parents - from an authority spelling out the consequences if he does not stop could go a long way towards resolving this. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion
There should also be an automatically expiring {{NOINDEX}} as well;
that would fix the google problem.
On 31/12/2008, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> First you must be familiar with the {{uc}}.
> This tag tells a tagger/deleter... STOP I'm working here !
>
> If, for each new article, we simply automatically tag it {{uc}} with
> today's
> date, then no new article should get tagged for deletion simply because
> it's
> new and under developed.
>
> IF a new article is merely spam, or vandalism of course, you can delete it
> even with a uc tag.
>
> Some editors, like myself, do not develop articles all-at-once and plop
> them
> in, rather we develop them in-project with a bit and piece here and there
> and given several hours, you have a full article, or at least a useful
> stub.
> So new article patrollers just see one sentence, and then five minutes
> later
> two more sentences, and then 15 minutes later another paragraph they
> are
> likely to want to tag it as too stubby right away. The uc tag stops that.
>
> But new editors won't know, first day, about this tag . So making it
> automatic would solve that issue.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
On 29/12/2008, Brian wrote: > So why are you wasting the ISPs time and the police's time when the best of > the passive technology routes have not been explored? Using machine learning > *you pit the vandals against themselves. *Every time they perform a > particular kind of vandalism, it can never be performed again because the > bot will recognize it. There's an infinite number of ways to vandalise the wikipedia, and, in practice, not all forms of vandalism can be detected by any known design of bot, or humans with complete reliability for that matter. I know something of machine learning myself, although I am not an expert. In principle it can learn anything, in practice, there are many problems and if you have *any* other way to do something, you're normally better off. Vandalism/spam is a difficult enough problem that *any* method should be investigated and if it is found to be effective, applied, not simply technological ones. But we need to stick to proportionality- we should never use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Jarlaxle is only 19; as I understand it the human brain does not fully mature until maybe 25. Unless he's actually mentally ill (which is by no means inconceivable) he is likely to stop of his own accord at some point. -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Charlotte Webb
wrote:
> On 12/30/08, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
>> Secondly there is the issue of google indexing our new pages very
>> quickly. I have heard estimates that new articles are out on google
>> anywhere from 1 hour to 5 hours. We do need to make sure attacks and
>> spam are removed before google indexs them.
>
> If this is truly the root of all urgency we should turn on flaggedrevs.
>
> In the beginning we would want Google to index only an article's last
> stable version (if one exists).
>
> After a certain grace period (to keep known-good content from
> vanishing), we can begin instructing Google to stop indexing articles
> which have no flagged rev and to de-index existing unflagged revs.
>
> While I think this would be the best strategy to avoid the scenarios
> you describe, I don't think it has anything to do with the shelf-life
> of articles tagged for speedy deletion.
>
> Some users like to nuke every {{third-world-topic-stub}} from
> geostationary orbit because it is like a video game to them. Faster
> pussycat, kill, kill, and let no mayfly die of natural causes.
>
> Perhaps some of this energy can be channeled toward other tasks.
Depends. If those efforts are channelled towards difficult stuff, it
could make things worse. The trick is to find something else ongoing,
backlogged, interesting and simple and rewarding and useful (that last
one might be difficult), and directing the efforts towards that.
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion
Sorry I meant to finish that thought. > Perhaps some of this energy can be channeled toward other tasks. Might sic them loose on copyright backlogs or something else where the benefit of the doubt is not the benefit of the project. —C.W. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion
On 12/30/08, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
> Secondly there is the issue of google indexing our new pages very
> quickly. I have heard estimates that new articles are out on google
> anywhere from 1 hour to 5 hours. We do need to make sure attacks and
> spam are removed before google indexs them.
If this is truly the root of all urgency we should turn on flaggedrevs.
In the beginning we would want Google to index only an article's last
stable version (if one exists).
After a certain grace period (to keep known-good content from
vanishing), we can begin instructing Google to stop indexing articles
which have no flagged rev and to de-index existing unflagged revs.
While I think this would be the best strategy to avoid the scenarios
you describe, I don't think it has anything to do with the shelf-life
of articles tagged for speedy deletion.
Some users like to nuke every {{third-world-topic-stub}} from
geostationary orbit because it is like a video game to them. Faster
pussycat, kill, kill, and let no mayfly die of natural causes.
Perhaps some of this energy can be channeled toward other tasks.
—C.W.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
On 12/29/08, Andrew Gray wrote: > In many ways, the most effective solution would be a hard-and-bright > line like the DNB uses - no-one who is alive, end of story, and we > could deal with living people as tangential notes in their work. But > it certainly wouldn't be popular! How many sentences can be written about the late Tommy Burks without including the non-late Byron (Low Tax) Looper as a more-than-tangential note? Truth be told I think "notability" arguments would favor a merge in the opposite direction. > I remember talk of ja.wp having a more hardline definition of > notability, roughly defined as "is a public figure", thus neatly > eliding anyone who isn't Pretty Damn Famous - any idea if they still > hold to that and if so how it works out? The Japanese definition of "notability" seems to be a rough translation of ours (and I don't mean "super karate monkey death car"-rough either): http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:特筆性 —C.W. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
Potthast, Stein, Gerling. (2008). Automatic Vandalism Detection in Wikipedia. http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/publications/downloads/papers/stein_2008c.pdf Abstract. We present results of a new approach to detect destructive article revi- sions, so-called vandalism, in Wikipedia. Vandalism detection is a one-class clas- sification problem, where vandalism edits are the target to be identified among all revisions. Interestingly, vandalism detection has not been addressed in the In- formation Retrieval literature by now. In this paper we discuss the characteristics of vandalism as humans recognize it and develop features to render vandalism detection as a machine learning task. We compiled a large number of vandalism edits in a corpus, which allows for the comparison of existing and new detection approaches. Using logistic regression we achieve 83% precision at 77% recall with our model.* Compared to the rule-based methods that are currently applied* *in Wikipedia, our approach increases the F -Measure performance by 49% while* *being faster at the same time.* Open the PDF, scan to page 667. This bot outperforms MartinBot, T-850 Robotic Assistant, WerdnaAntiVandalBot, Xenophon, ClueBot, CounterVandalismBot, PkgBot, MiszaBot, and AntiVandalBot. It outperforms the best of those (AntiVandalBot) by a very wide margin. So why are you wasting the ISPs time and the police's time when the best of the passive technology routes have not been explored? Using machine learning *you pit the vandals against themselves. *Every time they perform a particular kind of vandalism, it can never be performed again because the bot will recognize it. Cheers, On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Brian wrote: > By the way, I ask those questions having read the bots user page. It is > apparently quite effective, indicating to me that this user causes minimal > disruption. > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Brian wrote: > >> What percentage of his page moves were not picked up automatically by a >> bot? >> >> What percentage of this users vandalism is not picked up by a bot? >> >> Why is the ISP responsible for what he dumps into Wikipedia, rather than >> Wikipedia, as it allows itself to be a dumping ground? The Viacom/Youtube >> lawsuit demonstrates that this is a legal grey area, thus, I see little >> ground on which to punish the entire ip range of the ISP. >> >> Why are machine learning bots that are trained on previous vandalism in >> order to detect new vandalism not being used? They have been developed. Why >> is the Foundation not funding their further development? >> >> I believe the direction of this thread has been all wrong. >> >> Peace, >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Soxred93 wrote: >> >>> The problem with that is that many articles we have would not be >>> found in any dictionary. >>> >>> X! >>> >>> On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM [Dec 29, 2008 ], Ian Woollard wrote: >>> >>> > On 29/12/2008, Joe Szilagyi wrote: >>> >> Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock >>> >> out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically >>> >> point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of >>> >> JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse >>> >> page. >>> > >>> > It probably wouldn't work because of proxies and people that would >>> > emulate/help him. >>> > >>> > Still, ideas that would affect less people rather than more like that >>> > are almost certainly IMO the way to go; for example restricting the >>> > range of characters and checking that the move title consists of words >>> > in a dictionary before permitting non admins or users with a small >>> > number of edits to complete a move might be desirable. >>> > >>> >> - Joe >>> > >>> > -- >>> > -Ian Woollard >>> > >>> > We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly >>> > imperfect world would be much better. >>> > >>> > ___ >>> > WikiEN-l mailing list >>> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> You have successfully failed! >> > > > > -- > You have successfully failed! > -- You have successfully failed! ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Scientia Potentia est < bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In the end, BLP is not one of our five pillars. The fact that we are an > encyclopedia is. > > bibliomaniac15 > That pretty much says it all. --Falcorian ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
I hope you'll forgive me - I've joined this mailing list half-way through this discussion. I am interested in what's being said, but am having a hard time trying to summarize it in my head. If I'm right, Phil is complaining that NOR contradicts NPOV because someone won't necessarily be able to defend themselves in their article because what they say (eg through a letter) will be OR, and therefore the article won't have NPOV? And then there's the discussion about whether the subject of an article can request the permanent deletion of that article? But then of course we'll have the scenario where only generally positive articles remain. Can't we just have it so that they insist that Wikipedia correct factual errors about themselves? And what's all this about spoiler warnings? Has there been a recent policy change? Where does one find out about these things? Thank you for being patient! I look forward to participating in the mailing list constructively. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's new plea for donations stirs skepticism
2008/12/31 Nathan : > I still find it really surprising that people who purport to write useful > columns and articles, even if its blogging and not mainstream news, do such > piss poor research. If it were me, I'd be embarrassed to have written > something that demonstrates such a high level of ignorance and > misunderstanding - particularly since Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not, in > any sense, minor elements of the Web world and ArsTechnica is, supposedly, > "plugged in" to the Web and technology. Ad-banner trolling. The tech press in general are whores, cheap diseased ones. Previously whores to print advertisers, now whores to ad-banner trolling. So unsubstantiable bullshit is the order of the day, because IT GETS THE CLICKS. It's so much nicer dealing with the mainstream press - at least they can spell "journalism." - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's new plea for donations stirs skepticism
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Christiano Moreschi wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREKAAYFAklbi6YACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oIN6QCfUucN6csDaZb1tx+/5pt72VQL SyEAnR5+/l1A0Z9H3QbgTMhhrlB9TZM0 =XHjL -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > Lol, they put MERKEY into their piece? Hilarious. Way to kill your > credibility, guys. They have some valid points but Merkey? heh. > > CM They did include a caveat: "(Keep in mind that Merkey has a reputation of his own as well. Jimmy Wales denies any wrongdoing in all of these supposed incidents.)" The linked site, http://scofacts.org/merkey.html, is hardly flattering to Merkey. -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
On 12/29/08, Joe Szilagyi wrote: > And like anything on Wikipedia, "subject to change". Who says we can't > have Six Pillars? Why not five marble pillars and five plastic ones, depending on the topic? —C.W. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's new plea for donations stirs skepticism
Lol, they put MERKEY into their piece? Hilarious. Way to kill your credibility, guys. They have some valid points but Merkey? heh. CM > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:50:50 -0500 > From: nawr...@gmail.com > To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's new plea for donations stirs skepticism > > I still find it really surprising that people who purport to write useful > columns and articles, even if its blogging and not mainstream news, do such > piss poor research. If it were me, I'd be embarrassed to have written > something that demonstrates such a high level of ignorance and > misunderstanding - particularly since Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not, in > any sense, minor elements of the Web world and ArsTechnica is, supposedly, > "plugged in" to the Web and technology. > > -- > Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation > today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _ Get Windows Live Messenger on your Mobile http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl001001ukm/direct/01/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's new plea for donations stirs skepticism
I still find it really surprising that people who purport to write useful columns and articles, even if its blogging and not mainstream news, do such piss poor research. If it were me, I'd be embarrassed to have written something that demonstrates such a high level of ignorance and misunderstanding - particularly since Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not, in any sense, minor elements of the Web world and ArsTechnica is, supposedly, "plugged in" to the Web and technology. -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's new plea for donations stirs skepticism
Gah, yet another use of the thread I started to misrepresent Wikimedia and the fundraising drive. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
