Re: [WikiEN-l] two-tiered ratings system (Was: To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)

[wjhonson]

With the right hand, you rate the raters.  So each of us gets a clue 
stick and goes around whacking good editors "good rater" rate up a 
notch by voting for them as raters.

With the left hand, you rate the articles, and when other editors agree 
with you, they whack you and your "good rater" score goes up.

Now with the giant nose of Zenobia, you multiply the article rating by 
the raters rating, and average.

Thusly and so, articles get a good rating based on the best raters 
rating them good, and nasty bad evil raters, ratings fall into the 
first circle  (i.e. they are weighted as nothing).

Will Johnson





___
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 before!)

[Alvaro García]

The "X out of X readers found this review useful" is very helpful.
Using the same Amazon example, when you click See Reviews on a  
product, they show you a great thing: they put the most helpful and  
higher review aside the most helpful and lower review.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 21:59, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> Ian Woollard wrote:
>> On 14/01/2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>> Not everybody pays attention to GA/FA. A public rating system where
>>> anyone can rate each article on a 0-10 scale might be  
>>> controversial to
>>> implement, but on a cumulative basis would give a good statistically
>>> based valuation of the article.
>>>
>> Possibly not. The experience with these kinds of systems at Amazon  
>> for
>> example shows that interpreting votes is not simple. A lot of people
>> give consistently high, middle or low votes and there are many
>> pathologies, averaging them out gives much worse results than you
>> could expect.
>>
> Sure, optimists may very well score everything high, and pessimists  
> may
> score everything low.  Still, the overall results will tend toward  
> some
> mean value. probably higher the expected value of 5.0 that one might
> anticipate before we have any real data.  If the overall mean migrates
> to say 5.7 other interpretations of data can be adjusted accordingly.
> We don't interpret individual votes, but overall data.
>
> In our involvement with Wikipedia we have accepted the principle that
> anybody can write an encyclopedia article.  Choosing a number  
> between 0
> and 10 is a somewhat easier task.  Can we not accept that the vast
> majority will approach such a task with the same level of  
> responsibility?
>
> Yes, there will be some individuals determined to vote stupidly, but  
> one
> of the wonders of a statistical approach is that those efforts are  
> soon
> marginalized.
>
> 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

___
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)

[Alvaro García]

It went to a period of decline because Steve Jobs was fired. Then ha  
came back at 1998 and they released the iMac and the iBook, and some  
years later, on 2001, they released the iPhone. They continued  
anouncing good things. More iPods, the MacBooks came, the migration to  
Intel, and then, on 2007, came the iPhone. Talk about decline.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 16:14, "The Cunctator"  wrote:

> Apple was an engine of innovation from about 1976 to 1991 with  
> overlapping
> breakthrough projects (1976-1983: Apple I/II) (1978-1985: Macintosh)
> (1986-1992: Powerbook).  It then entered a period of decline,  
> reaching a
> nadir in the mid-nineties.
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Alvaro García   
> wrote:
>
>> Apple!?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>> On 14-01-2009, at 11:29, "The Cunctator"  wrote:
>>
>>> No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an
>>> inexorable
>>> decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
>>> innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple).
>>> Perhaps
>>> Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor
>>> to emerge
>>> under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for
>>> posterity
>>> is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat
>>> wrote:
>>>
 You high or something?
 - White Cat

 On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator  
 
 wrote:

> Long live deletionism!
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke
> > wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/13 Carcharoth 
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
 wikipe...@zog.org
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
 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
>>  
>> >  
>> >
 <
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&oldid=263769784
>
> <
>

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&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:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_(online_game
>>  
>> >  
>> >
 )<
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
>
> <
>

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
>>
>>>
>>> "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
>>
> ___
> 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 maili

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[phoebe ayers]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM, David Goodman  wrote:



> There is an alternate pathway. WPedians should find out what databases
> their local public library already subscribes to,and use them. They
> should then urge their public libraries to subscribe to what they
> need. The subscription rates for public libraries for limited subsets
> of JSTOR are not very high, but few public libraries subscribe, as
> they do not see a demand. Any library would rather spend its money on
> what its patrons will actually use, and ask for.

I agree that this is by far the most practical way to go. Journal &
database licensing is not too different from software licensing...
asking to buy a license for JSTOR for all Wikipedia editors is a lot
like asking to buy a group license for Microsoft Word for all
Wikipedia editors. Expensive, impractical, distinctly non-free, and of
questionable benefit for many. Taking full advantage of your public
library, however, is precisely what they are there for. Those within
range of a good university can typically be a "walk-in" patron and use
their resources on-site, as well.

Institutionally, I think our collective energies would be better spent
supporting the open access movement, free reference databases, efforts
to freely digitize public domain materials, etc. Slowly but surely we
can chip away at closed scholarship...

The problem of backing up our articles with solid scholarship is a big
one, but not one that simple access to any particular database solves.
For one thing, there's hundreds on hundreds of databases (which simply
point to the literature) out there, and thousands and thousands of
journals (which publish the literature) that are indexed by them. For
another thing, as an encyclopedia, we're a tertiary source: what we
really need access to are the best of the secondary sources out there,
the specialty encyclopedias and guides and handbooks that summarize
information, not (in most cases) the original journal literature.*
It's true that wider access for some full-text databases would be very
helpful: particularly news and business databases, perhaps, that would
include biographies for many of our BLPs. But fortunately these are
the databases most likely to be available in public library settings,
and unfortunately for everyone a lot of the very best reference
sources are still in print.

-- phoebe


* I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time trying to
reference Wikipedia articles, on all sorts of topics, using the full
arsenal of a good university library.

___
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 before!)

[Ray Saintonge]

Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 14/01/2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> Not everybody pays attention to GA/FA. A public rating system where
>> anyone can rate each article on a 0-10 scale might be controversial to
>> implement, but on a cumulative basis would give a good statistically
>> based valuation of the article.
>> 
> Possibly not. The experience with these kinds of systems at Amazon for
> example shows that interpreting votes is not simple. A lot of people
> give consistently high, middle or low votes and there are many
> pathologies, averaging them out gives much worse results than you
> could expect.
>   
Sure, optimists may very well score everything high, and pessimists may 
score everything low.  Still, the overall results will tend toward some 
mean value. probably higher the expected value of 5.0 that one might 
anticipate before we have any real data.  If the overall mean migrates 
to say 5.7 other interpretations of data can be adjusted accordingly.  
We don't interpret individual votes, but overall data.

In our involvement with Wikipedia we have accepted the principle that 
anybody can write an encyclopedia article.  Choosing a number between 0 
and 10 is a somewhat easier task.  Can we not accept that the vast 
majority will approach such a task with the same level of responsibility?

Yes, there will be some individuals determined to vote stupidly, but one 
of the wonders of a statistical approach is that those efforts are soon 
marginalized.

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] two-tiered ratings system (Was: To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)

[White Cat]

FAC seeks quality not quantity which is fine. FAness has no bearing on
article worthyness.
  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:53 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 2009/1/14 Ray Saintonge :
>
> > That's an unrealistic expectation. How long has it taken to build up
> > this list of 8200 articles? While the GA/FA has its usefulness, it is
> > not scalable nor equal to the task of being a general rating mechanism.
>
>
> Particularly as the FAC regulars expressly raise the bar higher
> whenever the rate of FAs seems to be going up, as they want it to be
> for the really very very very best articles. (Or they did last time I
> asked on WT:FAC about this.)
>
>
> - 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
>
___
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 before!)

[David Gerard]

2009/1/14 Ray Saintonge :

> That's an unrealistic expectation. How long has it taken to build up
> this list of 8200 articles? While the GA/FA has its usefulness, it is
> not scalable nor equal to the task of being a general rating mechanism.


Particularly as the FAC regulars expressly raise the bar higher
whenever the rate of FAs seems to be going up, as they want it to be
for the really very very very best articles. (Or they did last time I
asked on WT:FAC about this.)


- 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] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)

[White Cat]

I gather not being familiar with it is a good thing...
  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> White Cat wrote:
> > You high or something?
> >   - White Cat
> >
> I gather from this that you are not familiar with Cunc's curmudgeonly
> conscience. :-)
>
> Ec
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator 
> wrote
> >> Long live deletionism!
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ___
> 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 before!)

[Neil Harris]

Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 14/01/2009, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>   
>> Not everybody pays attention to GA/FA. A public rating system where
>> anyone can rate each article on a 0-10 scale might be controversial to
>> implement, but on a cumulative basis would give a good statistically
>> based valuation of the article.
>> 
>
> Possibly not. The experience with these kinds of systems at Amazon for
> example shows that interpreting votes is not simple. A lot of people
> give consistently high, middle or low votes and there are many
> pathologies, averaging them out gives much worse results than you
> could expect.
>
>   
That sounds like an interesting hidden-variable Bayesian estimation 
problem: given n reviewers of various propensities and m reviewed 
objects, and # of reviews >> n+m, make a joint maximum likelihood 
estimate of both the "true" properties of both reviewers and reviewed 
objects. Bogus "outlier" editors could just be modeled as all variance, 
with their mean irrelevant.

I'd be quite surprised if someone hasn't solved this already, and 
written a paper about it.

-- Neil


___
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!

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

How you figure out which pages go in the non-google section is
somewhere in between only FA and everything. Figuring out that exact
point is up to debate :P

For example you can say any article with a "dispute" tag on it... But
saying that means that some of our religion articles may not be
googlable

The answer to your question though is in between the two extremes.

On 1/14/09, wjhon...@aol.com  wrote:
> < wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Indeed  but doesn't every non featured article fall under "not ready  for
> consumption" category?
> - White  Cat>>
>
> That's odd to me.  You think an article needs to be FA before we  should let
> people find it in a search?
> That seems to be a 10 percent rule, while I'm advocating a 90 percent  rule.
> That is that *most* articles are ready, only the few that already undergo
> AfD might (and I use "might" advisedly) not be so ready.
> This is a mole hill, not a mountain.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
> **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
> capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
> ___
> 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)

[The Cunctator]

Apple was an engine of innovation from about 1976 to 1991 with overlapping
breakthrough projects (1976-1983: Apple I/II) (1978-1985: Macintosh)
(1986-1992: Powerbook).  It then entered a period of decline, reaching a
nadir in the mid-nineties.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Apple!?
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 14-01-2009, at 11:29, "The Cunctator"  wrote:
>
> > No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an
> > inexorable
> > decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
> > innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple).
> > Perhaps
> > Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor
> > to emerge
> > under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for
> > posterity
> > is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You high or something?
> >> - White Cat
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Long live deletionism!
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke
> >>>   wrote:
> >>>
>  2009/1/13 Carcharoth 
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
> >> wikipe...@zog.org
> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >> 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
> >> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&oldid=263769784
> >> >
> >>> <
> >>>
> >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&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:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_(online_game
> >> )<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
> >> >
> >>> <
> >>>
> >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
> 
> >
> > "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
> 
> >>> ___
> >>> 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] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)

[Ray Saintonge]

White Cat wrote:
> You high or something?
>   - White Cat
>   
I gather from this that you are not familiar with Cunc's curmudgeonly 
conscience. :-)

Ec
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator  wrote
>> Long live deletionism!
>>
>> 


___
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 before!)

[Ian Woollard]

On 14/01/2009, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> Not everybody pays attention to GA/FA. A public rating system where
> anyone can rate each article on a 0-10 scale might be controversial to
> implement, but on a cumulative basis would give a good statistically
> based valuation of the article.

Possibly not. The experience with these kinds of systems at Amazon for
example shows that interpreting votes is not simple. A lot of people
give consistently high, middle or low votes and there are many
pathologies, averaging them out gives much worse results than you
could expect.

-- 
-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] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...

[WJhonson]

Yes Ian I agree.  It's not really a question of *law*, its a  question of 
*citation practice*.
 
Will
 
 
 


**Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
___
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...

[WJhonson]

<>
--
Or in two years, when someone notices that many user name credits point to  
limbo, and recreates all the history of every user name, just so we can have a  
clean path back to something.
 
W
 
 


**Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
___
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...

[WJhonson]

<>
 
I agree.  A credit like "Credit: Corbis, which does not specify it's  own 
source and which possibly lacks copyright..."
 
;)~~~
 
Will
 
 
**Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
___
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!

[WJhonson]

<>
 
That's odd to me.  You think an article needs to be FA before we  should let 
people find it in a search?
That seems to be a 10 percent rule, while I'm advocating a 90 percent  rule.
That is that *most* articles are ready, only the few that already undergo  
AfD might (and I use "might" advisedly) not be so ready.
This is a mole hill, not a mountain.
 
Will Johnson
 
 


**Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
___
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!

[WJhonson]

<>
-
You may not know much about me.  I am at-times viciously anti-admin  :)
Power corrupts and admins can get corrupted as easily as the next petty  
bureaucrat
I would never, not ever, not one single time ever, advocate a new power for  
admins.
I would advocate removing 80% of the special admins powers which already  
exist.
 
Now that I've had my soapbox, no, I'm saying these articles can be read  
in-project, but not out-project.
 
Stubs are not necessarily not-ready-for-viewing.  They are just stubby  and 
we'd like to expand them.
This proposal only discusses those articles that would go up for AfD.
Not even the most outrageous editor tags every stub, so neither would  we.
Some might get tagged however.  Like I said it's two different  issues.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 


**Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
___
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 before!)

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> Not everybody pays attention to GA/FA. A public rating system where
> anyone can rate each article on a 0-10 scale might be controversial to
> implement, but on a cumulative basis would give a good statistically
> based valuation of the article.



We have something similar at the moment, done by editors, not readers
(a big difference):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment

That has about 6 or 7 levels, depending whether you include both GA and A-class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_by_quality

Stats are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index

Estimates as to the reliability of the assessments vary, but the stats
at the time of writing are:

1489 projects (WikiProjects)
1,960,650 articles tagged
1,607,658 articles assessed

Total number of articles: 2,698,457

See also the talk page of that index for some more stats.

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] two-tiered ratings system (Was: To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)

[Ray Saintonge]

edgarde 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,
>>>   
> This already exists with GA/FA ratings. Creating a new public/internal
> division just adds a new front for controversy.
>   
Not everybody pays attention to GA/FA. A public rating system where 
anyone can rate each article on a 0-10 scale might be controversial to 
implement, but on a cumulative basis would give a good statistically 
based valuation of the article.

> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Noah Salzman wrote:
>   
>> ... 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?
>> 
> The grass roots would be needed to ramp up GA/FA effort considerably.
> EN currently has about 5800 Good Articles (as rated), and 2400
> Featured. Current article count is over 2.5 million.
>   

That's an unrealistic expectation. How long has it taken to build up 
this list of 8200 articles? While the GA/FA has its usefulness, it is 
not scalable nor equal to the task of being a general rating mechanism.

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...

[Ian Woollard]

On 14/01/2009, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> You are only right to a limited extent.  While it makes sense to say
> that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only
> that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights.  If
> Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to
> be noted.

It's not legally true either. For example if a newspaper or magazine
gets a PD image from Corbis and publishes it, they *are* bound by
their contract they made with Corbis to obtain the image.

However, readers aren't so bound. If one of them copies the image,
they have every right to do so, and are not legally (and probably not
morally either) obliged to credit the magazine or Corbis, the readers
usually don't have any contractual obligation, and copyright doesn't
apply since it's still PD.

So Corbis does have some protection, even for PD images, from contract
law, but it's easily bypassed.

> Ec

-- 
-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] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>> dger...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> This  does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable
>> morally,  given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the  public
>> domain.>>
>> 
>> Copyright and Credit are two seperate items.  We need to discuss them
>> seperately.
>> You don't Credit the Copyright holder.  You Credit your source, which  may or
>> may not be a copyright holder.
>>
>> You credit where *you* got it from.  You even "Credit" public domain  sources
>> such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on  anything
>> whatsoever.
>>
>> "Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely
>> stating what your own source was.  "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law",  
>> it has to
>> do with "Normal scholarly citation methods"
>>
> You are only right to a limited extent.  While it makes sense to say
> that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only
> that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights.  If
> Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to
> be noted.

Turning it around and stepping into a time machine, it is interesting
to speculate about what people will think in 100 years time when they
are looking at a photograph and the credit is to "Pbroks13" to use a
random example of a featured picture. Will the people around then
argue whether some of the usernames used today are truly pseudonymous
or not, and get into long and involved arguments about that? And does
it make sense to talk about GFDL works eventually falling into the
public domain, and does it make any difference? :-)

Or to put it another way, is GFDL freer or less-free than PD?

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] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...

[Ray Saintonge]

wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
> dger...@gmail.com writes:
>
> This  does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable
> morally,  given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the  public
> domain.>>
> 
> Copyright and Credit are two seperate items.  We need to discuss them  
> seperately.
> You don't Credit the Copyright holder.  You Credit your source, which  may or 
> may not be a copyright holder.
>  
> You credit where *you* got it from.  You even "Credit" public domain  sources 
> such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on  anything 
> whatsoever.
>  
> "Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely  
> stating what your own source was.  "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law",  it 
> has to 
> do with "Normal scholarly citation methods"
>   
You are only right to a limited extent.  While it makes sense to say 
that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only 
that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights.  If 
Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to 
be noted.

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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I shall mind it nevermore forevermore.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Nevermind.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 14-01-2009, at 11:30, "White Cat" 
> wrote:
>
> > I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García  w
> > rote:
> >
> >> Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alvaro
> >>
> >> On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat"
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Which does not connect with the content of my post...
> >>>
> >>> So what?
> >>> How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my
> >>> post.
> >>> If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards
> >>> fiction
> >>> related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
> >>>
> >>>  - White Cat
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  >>> m> w
> >>> rote:
> >>>
>  Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher
>  PageRank.
> 
> 
>  --
>  Alvaro
> 
>  ___
>  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!

[White Cat]

I do not see the reason why some people are in a panic. We are nowhere near
a situation where we run out of topics.
If anything real world topics such as science, history and etc will keep
developing.

The problem we have today is that some peoples standards of inclusion is so
low that it is compromising our content amount in bulk. In other words,
there is a current substantial decrease in content amount as a result.

  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:

> Explain why :P
>
> Also as a secondary thought how many articles *can* we add? There is a
> limit where adding new articles is going to be harder and harder to do
> for the lack of worthy topics. The only way I can see a substantial
> increase in new articles is if we relax our standards of inclusion
> (not going to opine on if this is a good or a bad thing).
>
> For example we don't list every book ever created as its own article.
> The same thought seems to go to the rest of the encyclopedia. We don't
> have every person on this planet having a page. We don't have every
> company having a page etc.
>
> There is a large but finite number of articles we can write... Once
> those are started the work comes to improving the existing items,
> Sourcing, improving prose, etc. This is the work that seems to be not
> as popular... At least with newer folks. (I point to our huge
> maintainace backlogs for articles as proof of this)
>
>
> ___
> 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!

[Alvaro García]

Nevermind.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 11:30, "White Cat"   
wrote:

> I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García  w 
> rote:
>
>> Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>> On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat"  
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Which does not connect with the content of my post...
>>>
>>> So what?
>>> How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my
>>> post.
>>> If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards
>>> fiction
>>> related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
>>>
>>>  - White Cat
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García >> m> w
>>> rote:
>>>
 Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher
 PageRank.


 --
 Alvaro

 ___
 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!

[Alvaro García]

Stubs aren't bad. They may be about a topic which doesn't have many  
information.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 12:57, Ken Arromdee  wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> I am sorry I still do not get it.
>> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles  
>> from
>> the
>> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>>
>> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community  
>> has
>> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the  
>> "Hide It
>> process" much less contentious.
>
> You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
>
> Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up  
> being the same
> as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
>
>> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
>> articles?
>> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
>> consumption".>>
>>
>> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are  
>> published
>> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this  
>> does
>> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>
> Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or  
> isn't it?
> If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
>
>
> ___
> 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!

[White Cat]

Indeed but doesn't every non featured article fall under "not ready for
consumption" category?
   - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:

> I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published"
> namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be
> made to change red links that point to where the article should be in
> main space a different color and point them at the "non-published"
> space.
>
> In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not
> index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers
> would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are
> still "in the works".
>
> Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the
> other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are
> done today.
>
> Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around
> alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer
> to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you
> like, just be constructive about it.
>
> On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> >> I am sorry I still do not get it.
> >> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
> >> the
> >> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
> >>
> >> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
> >> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
> >> process" much less contentious.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
> >
> > Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the
> > same
> > as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
> >
> >> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
> >> articles?
> >> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
> >> consumption".>>
> >>
> >> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
> >> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
> >> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
> >
> > Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
> it?
> > If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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!

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

Explain why :P

Also as a secondary thought how many articles *can* we add? There is a
limit where adding new articles is going to be harder and harder to do
for the lack of worthy topics. The only way I can see a substantial
increase in new articles is if we relax our standards of inclusion
(not going to opine on if this is a good or a bad thing).

For example we don't list every book ever created as its own article.
The same thought seems to go to the rest of the encyclopedia. We don't
have every person on this planet having a page. We don't have every
company having a page etc.

There is a large but finite number of articles we can write... Once
those are started the work comes to improving the existing items,
Sourcing, improving prose, etc. This is the work that seems to be not
as popular... At least with newer folks. (I point to our huge
maintainace backlogs for articles as proof of this)

On 1/14/09, The Cunctator  wrote:
> Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would
> hasten the process.
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz
> wrote:
>
>> I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published"
>> namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be
>> made to change red links that point to where the article should be in
>> main space a different color and point them at the "non-published"
>> space.
>>
>> In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not
>> index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers
>> would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are
>> still "in the works".
>>
>> Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the
>> other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are
>> done today.
>>
>> Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around
>> alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer
>> to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you
>> like, just be constructive about it.
>>
>> On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> I am sorry I still do not get it.
>> >> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
>> >> the
>> >> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>> >>
>> >> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
>> >> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
>> >> process" much less contentious.
>> >
>> > You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
>> >
>> > Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being
>> > the
>> > same
>> > as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
>> >
>> >> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
>> >> articles?
>> >> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
>> >> consumption".>>
>> >>
>> >> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
>> >> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
>> >> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>> >
>> > Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
>> it?
>> > If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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)

[Alvaro García]

Apple!?


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 11:29, "The Cunctator"  wrote:

> No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an  
> inexorable
> decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
> innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple).  
> Perhaps
> Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor  
> to emerge
> under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for  
> posterity
> is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat
> wrote:
>
>> You high or something?
>> - White Cat
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Long live deletionism!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke  
>>> >>> wrote:
>>>
 2009/1/13 Carcharoth 

> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
>> wikipe...@zog.org

> wrote:
>
> 
>
>> 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
>>  
>> >  
>> >
>>> <
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&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:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_(online_game
>>  
>> )>  
>> >
>>> <
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29

>
> "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

>>> ___
>>> 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!

[The Cunctator]

Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would
hasten the process.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:

> I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published"
> namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be
> made to change red links that point to where the article should be in
> main space a different color and point them at the "non-published"
> space.
>
> In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not
> index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers
> would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are
> still "in the works".
>
> Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the
> other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are
> done today.
>
> Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around
> alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer
> to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you
> like, just be constructive about it.
>
> On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> >> I am sorry I still do not get it.
> >> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
> >> the
> >> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
> >>
> >> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
> >> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
> >> process" much less contentious.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
> >
> > Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the
> > same
> > as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
> >
> >> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
> >> articles?
> >> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
> >> consumption".>>
> >>
> >> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
> >> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
> >> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
> >
> > Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
> it?
> > If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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)

[Marc Riddell]

on 1/14/09 10:49 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:

> Unfortunately neither your nor my fancy words will resolve the dispute.

> - White Cat

Very true, WC. That would take re-thinking the process. H.

Marc

> 
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Marc Riddell
> wrote:
> 
>> on 1/14/09 9:38 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> The Phoenix will surely rise again. How soon? Time will tell.
>>> - White_Cat
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an
>> inexorable
 decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
 innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple).
 Perhaps
 Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to
 emerge
 under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for
>> posterity
 is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
>> 
>> There is light at the end of the tunnel. Right now it may take an
>> observatory telescope to detect it but it's there. But that light will only
>> remain there provided we all keep questioning. The important things are,
>> take nothing as "gospel", take nothing as a "given". We must all keep
>> questioning.
>> 
>> Marc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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!

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published"
namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be
made to change red links that point to where the article should be in
main space a different color and point them at the "non-published"
space.

In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not
index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers
would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are
still "in the works".

Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the
other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are
done today.

Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around
alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer
to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you
like, just be constructive about it.

On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> I am sorry I still do not get it.
>> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
>> the
>> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>>
>> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
>> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
>> process" much less contentious.
>
> You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
>
> Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the
> same
> as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
>
>> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
>> articles?
>> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
>> consumption".>>
>>
>> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
>> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
>> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>
> Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't it?
> If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
>
>
> ___
> 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!

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I am sorry I still do not get it.
> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from 
> the
> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
> 
> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has 
> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It 
> process" much less contentious.

You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.

Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same
as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.

> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other 
> articles?
> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public 
> consumption".>>
> 
> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published 
> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does 
> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.

Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't it?
If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.


___
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)

[White Cat]

Unfortunately neither your nor my fancy words will resolve the dispute.
   - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:

> on 1/14/09 9:38 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The Phoenix will surely rise again. How soon? Time will tell.
> > - White_Cat
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator 
> wrote:
> >
> >> No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an
> inexorable
> >> decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
> >> innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple).
> >> Perhaps
> >> Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to
> >> emerge
> >> under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for
> posterity
> >> is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
>
> There is light at the end of the tunnel. Right now it may take an
> observatory telescope to detect it but it's there. But that light will only
> remain there provided we all keep questioning. The important things are,
> take nothing as "gospel", take nothing as a "given". We must all keep
> questioning.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> ___
> 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)

[Marc Riddell]

on 1/14/09 9:38 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:

> The Phoenix will surely rise again. How soon? Time will tell.
> - White_Cat
> 
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator  wrote:
> 
>> No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an inexorable
>> decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
>> innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple).
>> Perhaps
>> Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to
>> emerge
>> under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity
>> is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Right now it may take an
observatory telescope to detect it but it's there. But that light will only
remain there provided we all keep questioning. The important things are,
take nothing as "gospel", take nothing as a "given". We must all keep
questioning.

Marc



___
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)

[White Cat]

The Phoenix will surely rise again. How soon? Time will tell.
  - White_Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator  wrote:

> No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an inexorable
> decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
> innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple).
> Perhaps
> Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to
> emerge
> under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity
> is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat
> wrote:
>
> > You high or something?
> >  - White Cat
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Long live deletionism!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke  > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2009/1/13 Carcharoth 
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
> > wikipe...@zog.org
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&oldid=263769784
> >
> > > <
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&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:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_(online_game)
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
> >
> > > <
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "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
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > 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!

[White Cat]

I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat" 
> wrote:
>
> > Which does not connect with the content of my post...
> >
> > So what?
> > How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my
> > post.
> > If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards
> > fiction
> > related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
> >
> >   - White Cat
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  w
> > rote:
> >
> >> Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher
> >> PageRank.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alvaro
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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)

[The Cunctator]

No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an inexorable
decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). Perhaps
Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to emerge
under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity
is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat
wrote:

> You high or something?
>  - White Cat
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator 
> wrote:
>
> > Long live deletionism!
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke  > >wrote:
> >
> > > 2009/1/13 Carcharoth 
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
> wikipe...@zog.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > <
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&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:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_(online_game)
> > <
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "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
> > >
> > ___
> > 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!

[Alvaro García]

Or Nüpedia. That would be great.
Á la Nü Jazz, Nü Metal, etc.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 11:05, "The Cunctator"  wrote:

> We should rename this project "Newpedia" or something.
>
> Hmm... maybe a little jazzier
>
> How about "Nupedia"?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:40 AM,  wrote:
>
>> <
>> I am sorry I still do not get it.
>> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles  
>> from
>> the
>> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>>
>> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community  
>> has
>> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the  
>> "Hide It
>> process" much less contentious.
>>
>> <<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public  
>> consumption
>> or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>
>>
>> Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then
>> you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would
>> simply be to hide it, not delete it.
>>
>> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
>> articles?
>> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
>> consumption".>>
>>
>> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are  
>> published
>> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this  
>> does
>> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>>
>> <<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your
>> tone
>> implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
>> deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
>> disruptive.>>
>>
>> You always have a choice.  When you are going 60 mph toward a lake  
>> and
>> need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly  
>> quickly to
>> avoid a more perilous result.
>>
>>
>> <<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize
>> thoughts a bit.>>
>>
>> Thank you.  A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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!

[Alvaro García]

Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat"   
wrote:

> Which does not connect with the content of my post...
>
> So what?
> How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my  
> post.
> If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards  
> fiction
> related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
>
>   - White Cat
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  w 
> rote:
>
>> Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher  
>> PageRank.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>> ___
>> 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)

[White Cat]

You high or something?
  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator  wrote:

> Long live deletionism!
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke  >wrote:
>
> > 2009/1/13 Carcharoth 
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > > 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
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&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:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_(online_game)
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
> >
> > >
> > > "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
> >
> ___
> 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!

[The Cunctator]

We should rename this project "Newpedia" or something.

Hmm... maybe a little jazzier

How about "Nupedia"?



On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:40 AM,  wrote:

> <
> I am sorry I still do not get it.
> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
> the
> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>
> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
> process" much less contentious.
>
> <<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption
> or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>
>
> Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then
> you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would
> simply be to hide it, not delete it.
>
> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
> articles?
> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
> consumption".>>
>
> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>
> <<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your
> tone
> implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
> deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
> disruptive.>>
>
> You always have a choice.  When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and
> need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to
> avoid a more perilous result.
>
>
> <<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize
> thoughts a bit.>>
>
> Thank you.  A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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!

[The Cunctator]

Ah well, Wikipedia was fun while it lasted.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:34 AM, White Cat
wrote:

> Which does not connect with the content of my post...
>
> So what?
>  How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post.
> If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction
> related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
>
>   - White Cat
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:
>
> > Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alvaro
> >
> > ___
> > 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)

[The Cunctator]

Long live deletionism!

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:

> 2009/1/13 Carcharoth 
>
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke 
> > wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > > 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:Log&page=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
>
___
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!

[White Cat]

Which does not connect with the content of my post...

So what?
 How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post.
If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction
related topics is baseless and unwarranted.

   - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> ___
> 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!

[Alvaro García]

Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.


--
Alvaro

On 13-01-2009, at 5:53, "White Cat"   
wrote:

> One side of the issue is aggressively mass removing articles without  
> backing
> such an act with consensus of any kind. When that happens the other  
> side
> does not even think of compromising. The opposing side pushes back  
> with
> equal aggression. This kind of aggressive conflict between any two  
> sides
> disrupts the entire site. This is what's happening. That is the  
> outstanding
> problem at this point. It isn't the only outstanding problem but is  
> the
> first one that needs to be addressed for us to work on a consensus  
> everyone
> can agree on. Do we all agree thus far? Because neither one of you  
> have said
> so. I apologize if I missed any remarks establishing this.
>
> As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their  
> search
> results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles.
>
> Consider "Beowulf"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beowulf+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Google+Search
>
> As you can see the historic article (Old English heroic epic poem)  
> is #1.
> 2007 movie comes as #2. The computer clusters of NASA comes #3.
>
> Mind that #1 and #2 are fiction related topics and #3 is a real  
> world topic.
> In this case the fiction related work is more popular/notable than  
> the real
> world topic.
>
> Consider "Enterprise"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Enterprise+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 and #3 is a fiction related.
>
> The real world ships (OV-101 & CVN-65) called Enterprise come before  
> the
> fictional ship (NCC-1701). CV-6 comes as the 20th hit.
>
> Consider "Voyager"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Voyager+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 is the fictional series and other 18 hits are not even fiction
> related. The fictional ship USS voyager comes up in the next page at  
> #21.
>
> Consider "Zero"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Zero+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 is 0 (number) in mathematics - a real world topic to say the  
> least. #2
> is A6M Zero, the Japanese fighter aircraft in WW2. #3 is the fictional
> character. #4 is a real world topic (chemistry). And the remaining  
> topics
> are either disambiguation or real world related articles.
>
> Of course when I do a search on "Naruto"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> I get 19 hits on fiction related topics. Even then the 20th is a  
> real world
> topic!
>
> So where exactly is the Google ranking inadequate or unfair? Mind  
> that I
> made no effort to "hide" fiction related topics in the search urls I  
> posted
> so far.
>
> Had I searched for "Naruto -anime"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> I get 18 real world topics. With the use of a few more words.
>
> Consider "Naruto -anime -manga -episodes -user -Wikipedia:featured"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+-
>  
> "Wikipedia:featured"+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search  
> >
>
> I can effectively remove fiction related hits on my search results.  
> Or... I
> could use smarter search words to get what I am looking for.
>
> Consider: "Naruto University"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+University+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all  
> fiction
> related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles  
> each month.
> Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.
>
> So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related  
> articles
> as a whole?
>
> - White Cat
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM,  wrote:
>
>> 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

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Mothly

   1. Wiki  (+ 268 redirect hits per day)
   2. The Beatles  (+ 60,737 redirect hits per day)
   3. YouTube  (+ 6,163 redirect hits per day)
   4. Christmas  (+ 384 redirect hits per day)
   5. Ponzi scheme
   6. Wikipedia  (+ 713 redirect hits per day)
   7. Favicon.ico
   8. Deaths in 2008  (+ 4,172 redirect hits per day)
   9. Hanukkah
   10. Twilight (2008 film)  (+ 1,511 redirect hits per day)
   11. United States  (+ 10,085 redirect hits per day)
   12. Facebook  (+ 399 redirect hits per day)
   13. Virgin Killer
   14. The Dark Knight (film)  (+ 1,541 redirect hits per day)
   15. Twilight (novel)  (+ 3,239 redirect hits per day)
   16. Heroes (TV series)  (+ 6,659 redirect hits per day)
   17. Robert Pattinson  (+ 10 redirect hits per day)
   18. Barack Obama  (+ 56,551 redirect hits per day)
   19. Naruto  (+ 1,636 redirect hits per day)
   20. Sex  (+ 859 redirect hits per day)
   21. Rod Blagojevich
   22. Lil Wayne  (+ 6,644 redirect hits per day)
   23. Edward Cullen (Twilight)  (+ 2,010 redirect hits per day)
   24. The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film)
   25. Seven Pounds

A less detailed analysis... Mind that for some odd reason on December 2008
people shown a lot of interest in topics like Ponzi scheme, Christmas,
Virgin Killer, Twilight (2008 film), Twilight (novel), Robert Pattinson.

The reason for that is...

The last three items (Twilight (2008 film), Twilight (novel), Robert
Pattinson): These are related to the Twilight saga (whatever it is - I
really do not care) which released the movie or something...

Virgin Killer: had a controversy surrounding it over the controversial album
cover. Read about it if you like at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer#Internet_censorship

Christmas: 25 Dec... Seems like people needed to learn about it from
Wikipedia...

Ponzi scheme: had a controversy on 11 Dec concerning former chairman of the
NASDAQ Stock Market Bernard Madoff. Fun part of it is that more people cared
about the meaning of Ponzi scheme than Bernard Madoff himself. If you care
to read more about it, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme#Bernard_Madoff

At a glance you can see that there is an overflow of fiction related topics.
This is primarily due to releases in December. If you put it in the context
of a year-long statistics most of those will not even show as a blip. So I
really do not see a threat in fiction related articles.

  - White Cat

___
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!

[White Cat]

Indeed. Our (Wikipedias) most visited articles is "littered" with fiction
related topics. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages

for a list of "most visited" articles. There are links to other tools which
provide more detailed statistics.

For your convenience:

http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2008/wikipedia/en/

Thats the yearly visits. For the sake of our sanity we will ignore
statistics on daily or even monthly visits.

Wikipedias top 25 most visited article with real content (excluding special
pages and the main page as well ass any non-main namespace page ) in 2008
is:

   1. Wiki - Software
   2. YouTube - Website
   3. Barack Obama - Politics
   4. Sarah Palin - Politics
   5. Facebook - Website
   6. The Dark Knight (film) - Pop Culture
   7. Wikipedia - Website (US!)
   8. Sex - Science (o_O)
   9. Deaths in 2008 - General content
   10. United States - Science (Geography, socialy and etc)
   11. MySpace - Website
   12. John McCain - Politics
   13. Beatles - Pop Culture - Music
   14. 2008 Summer Olympics - Olympics
   15. Large Hadron Collider - Science
   16. Hotmail - Website
   17. Naruto - Pop Cultue - Anime
   18. Heroes (TV series) - Pop Culture - Sci fi
   19. Google - Website
   20. Joe Biden - Politics
   21. Lil Wayne - Pop Culture - Music
   22. Michael Phelps - Olympics
   23. Batman - Pop Culture - Sci fi (or whatever)
   24. United States presidential election, 2008 - Politics
   25. Miley Cyrus - Pop Culture - Music


Now lets analyze all this.

First of all please recall that 2008 had two significant events.

   - The Election in the United States
   - The Summer Olympics in China

Politics: 5
Olympics: 2
Websites: 6
Pop Culture: 7
Other: 5

If we count Other+Olympics+Websites+Politics as real world... Thats 18 real
world and 7 pop culture.

I do not see the threat of pop culture there...

   - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

>
>
> Good point. I haven't seen this argument raised prominently before,
> that fiction articles *don't* swamp our real-world coverage. It would
> be worth trying to get more rigorous results from a wider survey like
> this, and finding someone willing to help with some moderate form of
> statistical analysis. The number of page views is also something that
> should have more prominence in the debate, in my opinion.
>
> 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
>
___
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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I think not. We already have plenty of that. Tens of thousands of articles
were deleted via redirectification, afds, prods and speedy deletions as well
as other methods.
Just because some people are being extremely aggressive does not mean people
like me will settle with something less aggressive but equally disruptive.

There is a lack of consensus to mass delete any article category. So can you
please stop pretending as if there is such a consensus?

  - White Cat


On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Oh yes, you're right.
>
> Speedy deletion would be required on some case.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 13-01-2009, at 14:18, "Martijn Hoekstra"
>  wrote:
>
> > 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  w
> > rote:
> >> 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  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
>
> ___
> 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!

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM, White Cat
 wrote:



> All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all fiction
> related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles each month.
> Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.
>
> So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related articles
> as a whole?

Good point. I haven't seen this argument raised prominently before,
that fiction articles *don't* swamp our real-world coverage. It would
be worth trying to get more rigorous results from a wider survey like
this, and finding someone willing to help with some moderate form of
statistical analysis. The number of page views is also something that
should have more prominence in the debate, in my opinion.

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!)

[White Cat]

I am thinking of a general questionnaire. Not one just on fiction but over
policy related issues in general. This is not aimed at editors alone but
also to the readers.
 - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:30 AM, White Cat
>  wrote:
> > Perhaps it would be better if we had a questionnaire out there. I think
> our
> > approach is a bit wrong.
> > How about we ask the readers what they want to see on the site. After all
> > our policy decisions should be inline with what the readers want.
> >
> > I know this has not been done before... I am starting
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questionnaire/2009
> >
> > I hope it will help with the decision making process.
> >
> > I hope to ask questions like:
> >
> > Are you happy with the amount of coverage of fiction related topics?
> > Yes (why)
> > No (why)
> > No opinion.
> >
> > Better wording is of course welcome.
>
> There is a fiction-related questionnaire already by Pixelface (not
> everyone likes it though):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pixelface/Fiction_Survey_2008_draft
>
> 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
>
___
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!)

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:30 AM, White Cat
 wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better if we had a questionnaire out there. I think our
> approach is a bit wrong.
> How about we ask the readers what they want to see on the site. After all
> our policy decisions should be inline with what the readers want.
>
> I know this has not been done before... I am starting
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questionnaire/2009
>
> I hope it will help with the decision making process.
>
> I hope to ask questions like:
>
> Are you happy with the amount of coverage of fiction related topics?
> Yes (why)
> No (why)
> No opinion.
>
> Better wording is of course welcome.

There is a fiction-related questionnaire already by Pixelface (not
everyone likes it though):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pixelface/Fiction_Survey_2008_draft

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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:40 PM,  wrote:

> <
> <<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your
> tone
> implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
> deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
> disruptive.>>
>
> You always have a choice.  When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and
> need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to
> avoid a more perilous result.
>
>
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
I don't drive.

  - White Cat
___
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!

[wjhonson]

<
I am sorry I still do not get it.
1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from 
the
public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>

To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has 
decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It 
process" much less contentious.

<<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption 
or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>

Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then 
you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would 
simply be to hide it, not delete it.

<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other 
articles?
After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public 
consumption".>>

No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published 
today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does 
is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.

<<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your 
tone
implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
disruptive.>>

You always have a choice.  When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and 
need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to 
avoid a more perilous result.


<<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize 
thoughts a bit.>>

Thank you.  A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.

Will Johnson





___
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!

[White Cat]

AFD itself is quite broken. Decisions made at AFD may
not necessarily represent the best interest of the site. The use of DRV had
skyrocketed over the passing years. Originally there was no need for a DRV.
  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 2009/1/14 Carcharoth :
>
> > "cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a
> > long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup.
> > What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then
> > *adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But
> > that is not a close of "cleanup".
>
>
> This does not square with practice, where people will aggressively
> defend whatever the AFD comes out as. "But the AFD consensus was to
> GUT THAT LIST!"
>
>
> - 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
>
___
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!

[White Cat]

I am sorry I still do not get it.
1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from the
public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?

2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption or
not? A process like "requests for publishing"?

3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles?
After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".

4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your tone
implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
disruptive.

5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize thoughts a
bit.

  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> What  would that serve? I do not understand that!
> Please help me understand what  non-indexing stub articles will serve?
> Wouldn't that hamper the entire  point of stubs. We advertise via stub
> templates to ask people to expand  articles for a reason.>>
>
>
> 
> "No Indexing" is not related to "stub" or "not stub".
> It's related to "the community has decided this article isn't ready for
> public consumption"
>
> The article could be a thousand words long and still not be ready.
> This proposal is an alternative to mass deletions, and I would think you'd
> be ready to accept any alternative to that.
>
> 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
>
___
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!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

What  would that serve? I do not understand that!
Please help me understand what  non-indexing stub articles will serve?
Wouldn't that hamper the entire  point of stubs. We advertise via stub
templates to ask people to expand  articles for a reason.>>



"No Indexing" is not related to "stub" or "not stub".
It's related to "the community has decided this article isn't ready for  
public consumption"
 
The article could be a thousand words long and still not be ready.
This proposal is an alternative to mass deletions, and I would think you'd  
be ready to accept any alternative to that.
 
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] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
dger...@gmail.com writes:

This  does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable
morally,  given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the  public
domain.>>



David that isn't relevant.
Copyright and Credit are two seperate items.  We need to discuss them  
seperately.
You don't Credit the Copyright holder.  You Credit your source, which  may or 
may not be a copyright holder.
 
You credit where *you* got it from.  You even "Credit" public domain  sources 
such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on  anything 
whatsoever.
 
"Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely  
stating what your own source was.  "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law",  it 
has to 
do with "Normal scholarly citation methods"
 
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!

[White Cat]

What would that serve? I do not understand that!
Please help me understand what non-indexing stub articles will serve?
Wouldn't that hamper the entire point of stubs. We advertise via stub
templates to ask people to expand articles for a reason.

Also what is the problem here in your words. Just to make sure we do not
have a disagreement.

  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:24:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> As for  your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their
>  search
> results? Google's search results establish the "prime time"  articles.>>
>
>
> --
> This position however is not a solution.
> The other position proposed is a solution.
>
> Anybody, with the right search terms "Little brown bear that sells honey on
> late night television..."
> can find almost anything with a *top page* hit.
>
> The proposal is to noindex those sub-prime pages completely.
> Completely unindexed, no index whatsoever, not on the 999th page, not
> anywhere.
> Hope that's more clear.
>
> 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
>
___
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...

[David Gerard]

2009/1/14  :

> 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.


This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable
morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public
domain.


- 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] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)

[White Cat]

Perhaps it would be better if we had a questionnaire out there. I think our
approach is a bit wrong.
How about we ask the readers what they want to see on the site. After all
our policy decisions should be inline with what the readers want.

I know this has not been done before... I am starting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questionnaire/2009

I hope it will help with the decision making process.

I hope to ask questions like:

Are you happy with the amount of coverage of fiction related topics?
Yes (why)
No (why)
No opinion.

Better wording is of course welcome.

  - White Cat
___
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!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:24:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

As for  your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their  search
results? Google's search results establish the "prime time"  articles.>>


--
This position however is not a solution.
The other position proposed is a solution.
 
Anybody, with the right search terms "Little brown bear that sells honey on  
late night television..."
can find almost anything with a *top page* hit.
 
The proposal is to noindex those sub-prime pages completely.
Completely unindexed, no index whatsoever, not on the 999th page, not  
anywhere.
Hope that's more clear.
 
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!

[David Gerard]

2009/1/14 Carcharoth :

> "cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a
> long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup.
> What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then
> *adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But
> that is not a close of "cleanup".


This does not square with practice, where people will aggressively
defend whatever the AFD comes out as. "But the AFD consensus was to
GUT THAT LIST!"


- 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] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

One side of the issue is aggressively mass removing articles without backing
such an act with consensus of any kind. When that happens the other side
does not even think of compromising. The opposing side pushes back with
equal aggression. This kind of aggressive conflict between any two sides
disrupts the entire site. This is what's happening. That is the outstanding
problem at this point. It isn't the only outstanding problem but is the
first one that needs to be addressed for us to work on a consensus everyone
can agree on. Do we all agree thus far? Because neither one of you have said
so. I apologize if I missed any remarks establishing this.

As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their search
results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles.

Consider "Beowulf"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beowulf+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Google+Search

As you can see the historic article (Old English heroic epic poem) is #1.
2007 movie comes as #2. The computer clusters of NASA comes #3.

Mind that #1 and #2 are fiction related topics and #3 is a real world topic.
In this case the fiction related work is more popular/notable than the real
world topic.

Consider "Enterprise"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Enterprise+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

#1 and #3 is a fiction related.

The real world ships (OV-101 & CVN-65) called Enterprise come before the
fictional ship (NCC-1701). CV-6 comes as the 20th hit.

Consider "Voyager"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Voyager+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

#1 is the fictional series and other 18 hits are not even fiction
related. The fictional ship USS voyager comes up in the next page at #21.

Consider "Zero"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Zero+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

#1 is 0 (number) in mathematics - a real world topic to say the least. #2
is A6M Zero, the Japanese fighter aircraft in WW2. #3 is the fictional
character. #4 is a real world topic (chemistry). And the remaining topics
are either disambiguation or real world related articles.

Of course when I do a search on "Naruto"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

I get 19 hits on fiction related topics. Even then the 20th is a real world
topic!

So where exactly is the Google ranking inadequate or unfair? Mind that I
made no effort to "hide" fiction related topics in the search urls I posted
so far.

Had I searched for "Naruto -anime"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

I get 18 real world topics. With the use of a few more words.

Consider "Naruto -anime -manga -episodes -user -Wikipedia:featured"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+-"Wikipedia:featured"+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

I can effectively remove fiction related hits on my search results. Or... I
could use smarter search words to get what I am looking for.

Consider: "Naruto University"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+University+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all fiction
related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles each month.
Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.

So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related articles
as a whole?

- White Cat

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM,  wrote:

> 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
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wi

[WikiEN-l] two-tiered ratings system (Was: To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)

[edgarde]

> 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.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Noah Salzman  wrote:
> ... 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?

The Powers That Be would be needed to change what search engines are
told to ignore. (Presumably in robots.txt.)

The grass roots would be needed to ramp up GA/FA effort considerably.
EN currently has about 5800 Good Articles (as rated), and 2400
Featured. Current article count is over 2.5 million.

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GA_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FA_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics

Es.

___
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!

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz  wrote:
> On 1/13/09, White Cat  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But they do and theyn have for quite some time. Other results from an
> AFD are cleanup, redirect, no consensus (default keep), keep, delete,
> I think there are a few others. It *is* widely accepted practice and
> has been for as long as I have been here.



"cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a
long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup.
What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then
*adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But
that is not a close of "cleanup".

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!)

[White Cat]

Indeed. That was what I was trying to say.
   - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:07 AM, David Goodman  wrote:

> " 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 
> 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
>
___
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

[David Goodman]

I agree with Phoebe that in general no university will be able to do
that. Let me add some details, since licensing these materials has for
years been my professional specialty--ever since first such electronic
journals have been available. .

The normal licensing arrangement with a university for most publisher
is that permission is granted for use of the material for any actual
current member of the university, and, often, for anyone with
permission to use the university library who is actually present in
the library. This is typically enforced by a combination of i.p.
-based access fir the university's domain, supplemented with access
through a proxy server for those physically outside the domain--the
access to the proxy server is normally controlled by the university
identification system.

The contract is usually quite specific about who will count as a
member of the university--normally current full or part time students,
staff, and faculty. The university undertakes to enforce access via
the server appropriately, and all universities take this quite
seriously. It is also usually possible to obtain a certain number of
individual passwords for designated individuals, with the university
guaranteeing their proper distribution, as a means of bypassing the
proxy server. Neither the publishers nor the universities usually like
this, because of the nuisance of administration.

Some publishers insist on further restrictions--typically not
permitting what is called walk-in access to those who may have access
to the library, but are not university members. some universities also
for reasons of their own prefer not to give such people access even
when the publisher permits it.

Additional restrictions are sometimes present, especially for the most
expensive material, such as patent of chemical databases: a limit to
the number of simultaneous users, an absolute restriction to campus
use only, a further absolute restriction to use within the library
building only, or even a restriction of the use at a limited number of
designated workstations, or even a single workstation. Typically, the
cheaper the material ,the more flexible the arrangements.

Payment is normally based upon one of three mechanisms: 1/ total head
count numbers of students plus faculty on a per-person basis, 2/ bands
of large/medium/small university size-- generally also taking into
consideration whether it is a research university likely to make
extensive use, or just an undergraduate college, and  3/ sometimes for
the less expensive titles, a flat rate per journal.

I cannot imagine that most publishers will be willing to permit
off-campus access from members of the public, even were the university
willing to pay for it at an increased price. I won't say it is
absolutely impossible, but I have negotiated many contracts and never
even attempted such a provision.

Similarly, I cannot imagine a reputable university prepared to try to
cheat or equivocate on such provisions. I would certainly have refused
to assist any such request. although there is a certain degree of
adversary relationship with publishers as in any situation involving
vendors and purchasers, there is also  reliance upon good fait of the
parties involved. The contracts usually require the university to
assist in the investigation of breeches of the contract (these
attempts are not uncommon--people will try to download extremely large
bodies of material, sometimes for personal use, sometimes for the
purpose of small or even large scale illicit redistribution) -- and
the universities cooperate. (The contracts usually provide for
cancellation of service if they do not so cooperate, but such
cooperation is also seen as reasonable. There have been a few very
large scale breeches over the years. We do not talk much about the
details.) There is a difference between resenting the profits of
commercial publishers, and being willing to steal their property.
WPedians with their emphasis on copyright observance should well
understand this.   .

Public libraries are typically changed for remote access per head
count of the population served, at a reduced rate from that for
universities, assuming a much less intensive use. Control is usually
through a proxy server with access through the library card
identification number.  The most expensive materials will not be
licensed on this basis to public libraries, but only for library use
only, and normally at   a defined number of terminals or for a single
simultaneous user at at time .

The only practical route will be a declared arrangement, either
donated or paid for, for a limited number os users and a limited
amount of material. This is not impossible, especially if the WMF is
willing to operate the necessary proxy server and control the access
to it. If the foundation proposes to try, I know the people to speak
to, and will serve as a contact. But i certainly will do so only
openly and in a commercially respectable manner. the only way of doin

Re: [WikiEN-l] Consensus (was To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:29 PM, White Cat
 wrote:
> 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...

One of my reasons (not stated at the time) for recusing from that case
request that was ultimately not accepted was because I believe this
kind of issue is best handled at the article and policy level and that
work is needed on devising processes that work to bring large-scale
change to policies and guidelines slowly but surely through the
system, with the full input of the community throughout the process.

Just a few basic principles for all such discussions of proposed
changes would be:

1) Take things slowly - rushing will derail the process, moving slower
ensures long-term stability

2) Draft a set of changes that reflect changes in actual practice

3) Advertise the proposed changes properly - this is no longer trivial
on Wikipedia due to the project size

4) Provide a proposed overall timetable at the start, flexible enough
to get broad support

5) Allow input and changes and full discussion at each stage - discuss
and edit, do not vote

6) Judge the right times in the process to move from drafting to
polling and back

7) Be prepared to repeat each stage several times and endure lots of
hard work and false starts

8) Monitor the progress in terms of participation (growing numbers
after each stage is good, declining numbers is bad)

9) Final straw poll to determine acceptance must have widespread
advertisement and clear timetable for start and end

10) Neutral person or group of people need to be found to close the
whole process and declare a result

11) Celebrate or prepare to start a new round of editing the proposal

With many refinements from experiences other people have had of such processes.

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