Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk has been rock solid all along. I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself: Tens of thousands of articles were removed by one individual (User:TTN) via the means I listed in the past year and a half. This was done without securing a general consensus. He himself said that his motivation was merely to get rid of articles he feels are junk (which are practically every article on fiction). He was sanctioned for his conduct by the arbitration committee as he was revert waring among other things. A problem has emerged when people decided to expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles without securing a consensus for it. In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours, presumably because their value system varies. In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a consensus. If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action. Thinking laterally, just an idea: Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to see them). In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for anonymous users.) Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before becoming full-fledged articles. I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes. Can you at least explain me how such a ranking would slow down or stop deletionism? Such types of ranking already exists. For example Googles results are based on popularity. If more people are going to the 'Beowulf 2007' article than the 'Beowulf' article, that is hardly the fault of the authors of the articles. More history related topics are featured than fiction related topics. That alone is a ranking difference if you ask me. Such a ranking may provoke deletionism more. Consider a case where a history related topic gets a rating lower than a fiction related topic. Instead of improving the poorly written history related topic deletionists pursue seeking the deletion of the fiction related topic (which may not necessarily be better in quality). It is much easier to delete something than improve it. - White Cat -- White Cat -- -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
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking. That there would be a prime time Wikipedia, which any reader can find, and then a sub-surface Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed ready to go to prime time. These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are acceptable in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit. It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here. Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are acceptable in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit. Makes sense to me. If the articles for deletion process is usurped by the articles for purgatory process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess. Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a guilt-assumed article. As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be? My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it. --Noah-- ___ 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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
Consider it this way, if the other side is cheating in chess, why should you want to switch to checkers? There is no consensus behind the current practice so acting as if it is commonly accepted does not go beyond being a mere misconception. - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Noah Salzman n...@salzman.net wrote: On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are acceptable in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit. Makes sense to me. If the articles for deletion process is usurped by the articles for purgatory process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess. Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a guilt-assumed article. As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be? My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it. --Noah-- ___ 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] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
2009/1/12 Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote: Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here from observation of the phenomenon. This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen, in all sincerity, the following. 1: The dismissal of a print source as unverified 2: The rejection of a source because of the possibility (with no evidence) that its author played the game in question. 3: The rejection of a third source because it allowed games to be submitted for review (even though it didn't review all games submitted) And, most recently, the article has been the subject of a second AfD where the nominator flatly lies about the sourcing in the article, asserting that it is sourced to things it isn't, and ignoring sources it does have. That particular glory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game)_(2nd_nomination) Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game)oldid=263769784 The edit summary just says oops. Michel ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 I have been trying to write an essay on that for ages on that: see [[WP:TINCON]] ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary. During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches. In the course of the site many principles were adopted in this manner. - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
By community consensus I mean the result of community wide discussion. Community consensus does not mean a discrete discussions by an elite number of editors in some hidden sub project page no one cares about. - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 I have been trying to write an essay on that for ages on that: see [[WP:TINCON]] ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
Not commenting on the correct answer to inclusionist v deletionist but... Generally the best way to get lasting agreement on major policy changes on wikipedia is/used to be a policy RFC. You then advertise that RFC and get folks involved that way. That gives you the more then 10 that white cat was referring to. On 1/13/09, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: And since there is no effective means of community wide discussion, and after that, there is no means to determine that consensus has been reached, with a community so ill defined, we have a problem with consensus. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: By community consensus I mean the result of community wide discussion. Community consensus does not mean a discrete discussions by an elite number of editors in some hidden sub project page no one cares about. - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 I have been trying to write an essay on that for ages on that: see [[WP:TINCON]] ___ 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 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary. WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached? During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches. Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set? Marc - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 ___ 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] Now this is cool! or: Why free content is good
I thought I should share this gem with the list: An iPhone application that takes your location via GPS, lists articles about nearby towns/buildings/objects/etc., and reads them to you via speech synthesis. Instant free audio tour guide, (almost) anywhere. http://lifehacker.com/5129490/hearplanet-is-a-free-talking-tour-guide-for-your-iphone Cheers, Magnus ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
Please see my prior reply. A policy RFC is a very good way to gauge communty thought. You can figure out if the coommunity is divided strongly or are there some points that everyone agrees on. You will be surprised... Heck the latest RFCs on linking dates found some common ground... Albit not enough to foestall the RFAR... But the RFAR is almost more about behavior issues. Regardless... Policy RFC will get a better idea of consensus then this mailing list. Be sure to advertise the RFC in all the places that editors meet... Perhaps even a notice when editors go to see their watchlists. On 1/13/09, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary. WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached? During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches. Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set? Marc - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 ___ 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 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] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote: snip Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game)oldid=263769784 The edit summary just says oops. The deletion log helps in cases like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logpage=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_(online_game) OTRS Courtesy blank What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion. Not quite ideal in some ways, as this is a deletion, not a blanking (as the summary says), and these two actions (deletion and blanking) are very different, but you are best off asking the admin involved what happened there, though he may be unable to tell you much more. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
Well that is the best we have for community wide discussion about changes in policy. You could also try the village pump... But even that is only watched by a select few. By its very nature, the more people you put in a discussion the noisier and choatic a discussion gets. Really any discussion that you can have that has a large cross section of the community is likely to be a strong argument for changes in policy based on the results of the discussion. The trick is getting any meaningful agreement on principles or select parts of a change. If you can't get that then any changes you make to a policy that affects the whole encyclopedia as dramatically as this is always going to be contested as not enough people in the consensus. This issue is playing out now in an existing arbitration case. (changes were made on a discussion with 14 people... 11 supporting and 3 contesting... If I recall right) The point being large changes can't be made without bringing the changes up for the whole community to review. Right now I would say a well done policy RFC is your best option. Feel free to try something else... But that format seems to work best for lots of folks commenting. On 1/13/09, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 1/13/09 9:14 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz at wilh...@nixeagle.org wrote: Please see my prior reply. A policy RFC is a very good way to gauge communty thought. You can figure out if the coommunity is divided strongly or are there some points that everyone agrees on. You will be surprised... Heck the latest RFCs on linking dates found some common ground... Albit not enough to foestall the RFAR... But the RFAR is almost more about behavior issues. Regardless... Policy RFC will get a better idea of consensus then this mailing list. Be sure to advertise the RFC in all the places that editors meet... Perhaps even a notice when editors go to see their watchlists. I have been to these places, Wilhelm, and there seems to be more chaos than constructive dialogue going on there. And, it doesn't appear very easy for the average Community Member to navigate through it all. Marc On 1/13/09, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary. WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached? During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches. Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set? Marc - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 ___ 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 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 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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement' where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where people who know would improve them. And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's a general consensus. -- Alvaro On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman n...@salzman.net wrote: On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are acceptable in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit. Makes sense to me. If the articles for deletion process is usurped by the articles for purgatory process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess. Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a guilt-assumed article. As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be? My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it. --Noah-- ___ 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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]] and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines. That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus, then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our community would like to have some time left to write articles instead of making decissions on deleting articles. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote: It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement' where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where people who know would improve them. And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's a general consensus. -- Alvaro On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman n...@salzman.net wrote: On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are acceptable in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit. Makes sense to me. If the articles for deletion process is usurped by the articles for purgatory process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess. Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a guilt-assumed article. As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be? My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it. --Noah-- ___ 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 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] two-tiered ratings system (Was: To boldy delete what no one had deleted b...
If you think that then you're not understanding the proposal. It isn't a two-tier of *what you can read*, you cannot read these even in snippet form outside the project. That's quite a different thing from the FA system which is completely an internal event that no one outside really cares about. So these pages would not be included in dumps, they wouldn't be indexed, links to them would be in a different color, if even allowed at all. An alternative would be to create a brand-new project for wikipoop and put them all there. In a message dated 1/13/2009 7:01:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wikipe...@surlygeek.com writes: On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are acceptable in the mainstream, This already exists with GA/FA ratings. Creating a new public/internal division just adds a new front for controversy. **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) ___ 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] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/13/2009 10:28:59 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, fastfiss...@gmail.com writes: I once e-mailed them about this and the person who e-mailed me back said that they were claiming the copyright on the _scans_, not the images themselves. That is sort of the argument I was making a while ago, and I was greatly interested in the recent copyright case where some museum (I can't remember the details) was claiming copyright over high quality images they produced of old (flat) artworks (i.e. paintings or drawings). The case went against them I believe and the reasoning was repeated here on this list just recently. It would seem pretty clear that the same reasoning could be used against say Google books scans of old documents/books/maps. That these scans themselves enjoy no special ability for a new copyright claim vis a vis the expiration of old copyrights (pre 1922). Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious opposition by the majority we consider that a general agreement. In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are avoiding the drama till the dust could settle. None of this has a fixed rule by the way... So I do not really have an easy answer. It may sound like I am rambling on without providing any answers which would accurately describe how I am right now. Full of questions without any real answers... - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary. WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached? During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches. Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set? Marc - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.comwrote: In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 ___ 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 mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] WikiGeist: Wikipedia equivalent of Google's Hot Trends
-- Forwarded message -- From: WikiGeist wikige...@365capita.org Date: 2009/1/13 Subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiGeist: Wikipedia equivalent of Google's Hot Trends To: wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org Hi, Just completed a project using the Wikipedia page counters made available by *Domas Mituzas ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-December/035435.html) *WikiGeist is an attempt to build the Wikipedia equivalent of Google's Hot Trends or other websites' most popular widget. It tracks, aggregates, ranks and reports the page views on en.wikipedia.org. There are three types of report: Top Pages by Count (ranks the articles according to the number of page views during the past hour,) Top New Entries (ranks the articles by page views with prior page views of 0) and Top Pages by Page Count Increase. When articles are accessed individually, a excerpt of the wikipedia page is shown as well as a graph reporting the trend during the past 24 hours. Let me know what you think of it. Thanks. willy -- [[user:Tookam]] ___ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
I am not too keen on a policy RFC. Not that I oppose it but I do not believe we had enough preliminary discussion to come up with a decent proposal. A policy RFC would get shot down almost instantly. As for the RFAR comment. Arbcom has proven themselves to be useless in this dispute. They went out of their way not to resolve the dispute. They are first class in establishing findings of fact but are dead last when it comes in doing something about those facts they found... - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.orgwrote: Well that is the best we have for community wide discussion about changes in policy. You could also try the village pump... But even that is only watched by a select few. By its very nature, the more people you put in a discussion the noisier and choatic a discussion gets. Really any discussion that you can have that has a large cross section of the community is likely to be a strong argument for changes in policy based on the results of the discussion. The trick is getting any meaningful agreement on principles or select parts of a change. If you can't get that then any changes you make to a policy that affects the whole encyclopedia as dramatically as this is always going to be contested as not enough people in the consensus. This issue is playing out now in an existing arbitration case. (changes were made on a discussion with 14 people... 11 supporting and 3 contesting... If I recall right) The point being large changes can't be made without bringing the changes up for the whole community to review. Right now I would say a well done policy RFC is your best option. Feel free to try something else... But that format seems to work best for lots of folks commenting. ___ 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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
AFDs cannot conclude as a merge. AFDs are meant to be a binary decision. Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any further. - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Noah Salzman wrote: Makes sense to me. If the articles for deletion process is usurped by the articles for purgatory process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess. It's already happened, with articles for deletion replaced by merging on the grounds that merging is not deletion. ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
Just thinking about it is enough to turn anybody insane! :o - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 2:26 PM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious opposition by the majority we consider that a general agreement. In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are avoiding the drama till the dust could settle. None of this has a fixed rule by the way... So I do not really have an easy answer. It may sound like I am rambling on without providing any answers which would accurately describe how I am right now. Full of questions without any real answers... It sounds to me like you are trying to make sense out of some things, WC, and for that I congratulate you. And, answers or no answers, keeping asking the questions. One huge answer is better communication skills for all involved. It is achievable, if only a commitment would be made to achieve it. Marc On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 8:36 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote: When consensus is reached the relevant pages are updated accordingly. In general major changes (such as the one in discussion) is voted upon by the entire community. Not five or six editors but hundreds of editors. The voting happens after there is an agreement on the general principles - even if such an agreement is partial or temporary. WC, how is it determined that this agreement has been reached? During the vote people are given the option to support/oppose different approaches. Is there a set time for the vote? And, if so, how is it set? Marc - White Cat On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 1/13/09 2:33 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.comwrote : In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any kind should be taken until a consensus is secured. On any given subject within the Project, how does someone go about achieving consensus? And how and when do you determine that a consensus has been reached? 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 ___ 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 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 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] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
I don't believe it's possible to move something from the public to the private domain. The issue at hand wasn't that. The issue was *can* we use *their* image of that public domain material as the source image or source in general? That's not the same as, can we go take some other image of the same work, or take our own image of it and use that. They never implied (as far as I know) that the mere act of making an image, immediately gained them copyright over *all previous images of that work ever*. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) ___ 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] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote: snip Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game)oldid=263769784 The edit summary just says oops. The deletion log helps in cases like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logpage=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_(online_game) OTRS Courtesy blank What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion. The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page now reads The result was *delete*. with the rest of the deletion summary in html comment. I'm officially weirded out. :) Michel ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
White Cat wrote: In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious opposition by the majority we consider that a general agreement. In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are avoiding the drama till the dust could settle. Dust has a hard time settling in the midst of a hurricane. Ec ___ 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] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/13/2009 5:40:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, mor...@gmail.com writes: We were, I thought, talking of photos that Corbis does not own the rights to and never did, and is certainly not the creator of. - If I take a photo of your photo, I own the photo that I created. As does Corbis. If they scan, upload, duplicate, xerox, or in any other way, create a new physical item, even if it's an exact copy of some other item, they own that new item. You should not ethically use their item, without crediting them. That is not the same as a copyright, and just because you make a copy doesn't mean you create a new copyright to that copy. It certainly has no bearing whatsoever on the state of the original item. If someone wants to use a Corbis created copy, simply because it's easier than trying to find another copy of that same thing, that Corbis didn't create, then that's their problem for being lazy. That doesn't however prevent anyone from linking to that image, describing it, or using it under fair use. However to simply take the image, use it, and neither give them credit, nor state it was even from a Corbis repository would not be ethical. However I see no problem with adding a link and saying Here's a picture that Corbis copied, from a public source, showing President Bush eating a hot dog. Convenience links don't mean use it however you want. They mean use it but try to be fair to us. Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
does not face serious opposition by the majority that's not an appropriate rule for policy, it should be not face serious opposition for a substantial minority, or, more accurately, when all but a few of the established editors involved are at least willing to live with it I've seen people give various figures for the size of the necessary supermajority, but it should be more a matter of tolerance than a poll. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: White Cat wrote: In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious opposition by the majority we consider that a general agreement. In general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes are casted. The key problem is people are sick and tired of the deletionists-inclusionsist war. It has been going on for about 5 years now. A lot of people are avoiding the drama till the dust could settle. Dust has a hard time settling in the midst of a hurricane. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ 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] Subscription idea
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource? Would such a restriction really be a major disaster? Limited access to content for which we previously had no access? Sometimes achieving a worthy goal requires a compromise, and in this case it doesn't strike me as an unnacceptable compromise (even granting full credit to your description of the status of things, which I imagine probably has some ambiguity you are leaving out). Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we always reinvent the wheel? That is an interesting possibility - is that achievable? Would interpreting an existing set of agreements between publishers and a university as authorizing that institution to grant access to Wikimedia editors be something that any major university is willing to do? Something that DGG can perhaps comment on. Nathan Hi all, Speaking as (the other?) professional librarian on the list -- I doubt very much that this would happen, since a) most libraries can barely afford the subscriptions they have to databases and journals; and b) the cost of those subscriptions is almost always based on the number of people served -- usually the number of faculty and students on the campus. Limiting the use of these databases to the campus population is taken very seriously, and usually done by IP access, authenticated through a proxy server by whatever login system the campus uses. I can't envision a way that we could restrict access to the databases/journals that WMF could hypothetically subscribe to, to any reasonable population, when anyone can sign up for a Wikimedia account. -- phoebe ___ 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] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I see lots of stuff I know to be public domain in news media in particular that credits it to Corbis, Getty, etc. This happens even in very obvious cases, like US military photos of atomic tests. Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be scandalous. IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal. The image belongs to me, and I give you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise. That's S.O.P. in the image world. Nothing to do with copyright. Seperate issue. We were, I thought, talking of photos that Corbis does not own the rights to and never did, and is certainly not the creator of. Copy of a copy of a copy and so on Original is usually a negative or print in some archive (the original original may be long gone). Many copies are often made of a single photo or image. In the case of photos from the early 20th century, you sometimes have many copies from an original negative or plate being distributed to various places and people, and various histories being recorded for each separate copy. If the original provenance is lost, it can sometimes appear that a single photo has several different claims of ownership. 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
