Re: [WikiEN-l] Earth Deletion Discussion
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Elias Friedman elipo...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomination)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_%282nd_nomination%29 I can't find a single reference on it which wasn't written by someone involved in the project. I mean, really, COI and NPOV problems don't come any more clearly demonstrated than this. Where are our reliable independent sources? We have standards, people. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
2009/4/1 Elias Friedman elipo...@gmail.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomination) And before anyone gets too outraged, do make note of today's date. One of these days people will learn to be original. -- geni ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomination) And before anyone gets too outraged, do make note of today's date. Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P ⚕ אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי elipo...@gmail.com http://elipongo.blogspot.com/ ___ 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] Microsoft kills Encarta
David Goodman wrote: I would very much liketo take Wps redirect and disam system and rationalize it. the first step would be to change the policy so the full form of the name, including middle names, are always used when available. The second is to add geographic designators for all local events and places and organizations below the national level. Well, I suppose adding a category to redirects from names in standard form could definitely be done now; and it would be possible (?) to make it a Preferences option to display standard form names as article titles. As for rationalisation of dab pages, the MOSDAB people constantly work on this. I have reservations, certainly, because (unlike the redirect case) the idea that a dab page is solely for shunting people on to another page strikes me as ideological rather than in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
No, my argument is not spurious - it's to the point. We operate in a community, and there are plenty of things I would do differently too if I had my way with everything. There's zero point in pursuing proposals that are strongly opposed by a significant section of the community. Majority (50%+1) is not good enough for something as important as this. As another poster said: Dont break the community. Flagged revisions and the increasing trend towards deletionism are the two developments that have the greatest risk of doing exactly that. - Original Message - From: doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 31 March, 2009 23:45:19 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 Your argument is spurious. It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it is passing. The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in a manner that will help BLP victims. Doing nothing would be better than this. Your argument is the logical fallacy that because something must be done means anything is better than the status quo, or that any movement is a step in the right direction - which does not consider that one can move, and move in the wrong direction. Andrew Turvey wrote: And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it. - Original Message - From: doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 Nathan wrote: Two more problems: 1) This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day for further participation. 2) None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily met with We'll work that out when the poll closes. Nice. Nathan (expanded opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing. It seems to be a victory of something must be done - and this is something over common sense. This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once. Nice indeed. Scott ___ 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] Flagged revs poll take 2
No, you argued that I should not oppose the current measure because it was all that could pass. My response is, better than nothing passes. Now you are arguing something else. Andrew Turvey wrote: No, my argument is not spurious - it's to the point. We operate in a community, and there are plenty of things I would do differently too if I had my way with everything. There's zero point in pursuing proposals that are strongly opposed by a significant section of the community. Majority (50%+1) is not good enough for something as important as this. As another poster said: Dont break the community. Flagged revisions and the increasing trend towards deletionism are the two developments that have the greatest risk of doing exactly that. - Original Message - From: doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 31 March, 2009 23:45:19 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 Your argument is spurious. It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it is passing. The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in a manner that will help BLP victims. Doing nothing would be better than this. Your argument is the logical fallacy that because something must be done means anything is better than the status quo, or that any movement is a step in the right direction - which does not consider that one can move, and move in the wrong direction. Andrew Turvey wrote: And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it. - Original Message - From: doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 Nathan wrote: Two more problems: 1) This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day for further participation. 2) None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily met with We'll work that out when the poll closes. Nice. Nathan (expanded opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing. It seems to be a victory of something must be done - and this is something over common sense. This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once. Nice indeed. Scott ___ 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] Flagged revs poll take 2
Sorry, I meant better that nothing passes doc wrote: No, you argued that I should not oppose the current measure because it was all that could pass. My response is, better than nothing passes. Now you are arguing something else. Andrew Turvey wrote: No, my argument is not spurious - it's to the point. We operate in a community, and there are plenty of things I would do differently too if I had my way with everything. There's zero point in pursuing proposals that are strongly opposed by a significant section of the community. Majority (50%+1) is not good enough for something as important as this. As another poster said: Dont break the community. Flagged revisions and the increasing trend towards deletionism are the two developments that have the greatest risk of doing exactly that. - Original Message - From: doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 31 March, 2009 23:45:19 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 Your argument is spurious. It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it is passing. The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in a manner that will help BLP victims. Doing nothing would be better than this. Your argument is the logical fallacy that because something must be done means anything is better than the status quo, or that any movement is a step in the right direction - which does not consider that one can move, and move in the wrong direction. Andrew Turvey wrote: And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it. - Original Message - From: doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 Nathan wrote: Two more problems: 1) This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day for further participation. 2) None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily met with We'll work that out when the poll closes. Nice. Nathan (expanded opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing. It seems to be a victory of something must be done - and this is something over common sense. This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once. Nice indeed. Scott ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny. Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them. (And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.) ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? This proposal aims (without causing any deletion spree of backlogs) to instigate the idea that basic sourcing is necessary for any BLP to remain on wikipedia. People are given time to source it (and can even do so retrospectively) - but we set time limits on unreferenced BLPs. We've currently got 30,000 of these unreferenced things - that needs sorting (preferably by sourcing rather than deletion) - but stemming the tide is the first step. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal ___ 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] English Wikipedia brief outage today
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Kill the messenger! Does anyone have a mob of peasants with torches standing around handy? Perhaps someone will write an article about the legendary Wikipedia riots of April 1, 2009. Ec -Original Message- From: Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 4:45 pm Subject: [WikiEN-l] English Wikipedia brief outage today An out-of-memory condition crashed the database master for English Wikipedia; we were down for about 25 minutes. All is restarted and recovered now (thanks Domas!); our other sites were not affected. http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/03/english-wikipedia-database-temporarily-down/ -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org) ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
on 4/1/09 11:16 AM, doc at doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? Absolutely! The basis for any encyclopedia article should be: This is what I learned about the subject, and this is where I learned it. The only other issue would then be the balance of the sources. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
2009/4/1 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal +1 - 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
2009/4/1 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com: On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny. Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them. (And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.) Oh, lighten up! People are just having a little fun, no one takes it seriously, and no one is breaking the rules. People are just having a laugh! It's a small bit of satire at the culture at AfD, and an opportunity for people to make Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (our spiritual ancestor) jokes. Amen. Surely it's a good sign that the community can take the piss out of itself. ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in it. On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny. Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them. (And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.) ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
In a message dated 4/1/2009 9:45:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arrom...@rahul.net writes: (And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. If we really need the article to be made by people from other planets, I have a few candidates I could offer. Will Johnson **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: (And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.) In all seriousness, this is why it's just a guideline and not a policy. There are no problems with a subject editing his or her own article (or someone directly related to the subject), as long as they follow our other policies and guidelines. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I've seen no evidence that the unsourced BLPs are more prone to subtle vandalism at the time of creation than the sourced ones. If it's unsubtle vandalism, speedy already takes care of it just fine. If it happens later, this proposal doesn't do any good towards solving the problem. Maybe there will be a miracle, and flagged revisions will actually prove workable. On 4/1/09, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/1 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com: Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? Nope. Reason being that sourcing is no more than a sop to the media to pretend we are doing something. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Earth Deletion Discussion
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in it. Personally, I've never understood why deliberately misleading people is supposed to be funny. I don't particularly enjoy having my time wasted by people having a lark just because it is a certain day of the year. I don't see why we should tolerate disruption that would, on any other day of the year, be instantly dealt with. Now, I don't make a big deal out this on the wiki, because dozens of people will jump down my throat with exactly the kind of language you use. I recognise that, apparently, other people find this kind of thing fun and totally acceptable. But I can certainly sympathise with the people who you describe as buzzkillers. For them, of course, the buzz has been killed already and they are more than a little fed up. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I agree with the sentiment that flagged revisions would take care of this additional issue as well. Flagged revisions also allows people, like me, who are used to working entirely online, to create drafts, then wander away for a while, then come back and add more details, until you have a publishable version. This is the way I frequently work. Flagged revs would allow that to be all in-project. Right now, I sometimes have to create drafts on some white-board at some other site, then copy and paste when I have a worked-up version. Which is needless double-work in my opinion. Will Johnson **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 13:08, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: (And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being COI.) In all seriousness, this is why it's just a guideline and not a policy. There are no problems with a subject editing his or her own article (or someone directly related to the subject), as long as they follow our other policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, that was not my experience with the FOSS article [[MojoMojo]]. I am one of the project contributors and have first-hand knowledge of the subject. After submitting outside references from reliable specialized sources, and disclosing the fact that I am a contributor, I was accused of COI throughout the AfD and on IRC. -- Dan [[User:Dandv]] ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
Don't get me wrong, I like April Fools, but there is so much unfunny stuff around... Man, whoever takes the cleanup job at the end of today has my condolences. - Chris On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in it. Personally, I've never understood why deliberately misleading people is supposed to be funny. I don't particularly enjoy having my time wasted by people having a lark just because it is a certain day of the year. I don't see why we should tolerate disruption that would, on any other day of the year, be instantly dealt with. Now, I don't make a big deal out this on the wiki, because dozens of people will jump down my throat with exactly the kind of language you use. I recognise that, apparently, other people find this kind of thing fun and totally acceptable. But I can certainly sympathise with the people who you describe as buzzkillers. For them, of course, the buzz has been killed already and they are more than a little fed up. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will almost certainly walk through this. Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP problem, it will not really even help. We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. We have two choices: 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability (=less watched by knowledgable people) BLPs. OR 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more articles. The second option means looking at: 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not waste resources arguing with such people. 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject should not be open to it again. 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check the verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor giving the information to show his working - so that the partoler (or the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
George Herbert wrote:
We have standards, people.
{citeneeded}
___
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] Earth Deletion Discussion
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 14:06, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that's a sad reality. :-( Wikipedians respond too crazily to COIs... what we usually suggest is that people don't tell others that they have first-hand knowledge. :-) Here is dmoz.org's policy on insider editors: The ODP exists as a non-commercial, end-user resource created by Web users for Web users. We do not bar editors with business affiliations, since those editors with their own sites usually know their competition and related sites better than anyone. This knowledge can be ideal for helping build an authoritative directory. Does Wikipedia have something similar? In the end, it should matter what is written and how it's supported -- not who wrote it. This idea sounds great. Is there a policy or rule for it? I'm asking because in the same [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MojoMojo]], users of this FOSS pitched in with various arguments, and were flagged as: [[User:foo]] has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I find this detrimental to Wikipedia because it means that only established Wikipedia users should edit a specialized article (or talk about its deletion). But in the vast majority of cases, FOSS developers are focused on development and don't even have a Wikipedia account. The above flag then effectively muzzles the voices of those who know, in favor of those who have made many edits but have little particular experience in the subject matter. ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
doc, I think you underestimate the number of good editors who do not want to be admins but would gladly take this on. Considering what an admin does, I can understand not wanting the distinction, but having a real role in making sure we have an acceptable content is another thing entirely. But you are certainly right that it won;'t solve the subtler problems--though I think experienced people develop a good eye for what is likely to be NPOV violations. Option 1 above makes little sense to me, and I think to you also, because less watched does not = less notable. it just means less popular. We'll lose most of the senators. We'll keep the wrestlers. Option 2 will take a lot of tweaking. Since flagged revisions is essentially certain to be approved for a trial, why don't we wait and see how it works, as the first of the tweaks. If we change too many variables at once, we'll end up with a lot of rules that won;t really have been necessary. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will almost certainly walk through this. Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP problem, it will not really even help. We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. We have two choices: 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability (=less watched by knowledgable people) BLPs. OR 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more articles. The second option means looking at: 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not waste resources arguing with such people. 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject should not be open to it again. 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check the verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor giving the information to show his working - so that the partoler (or the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I'm in agreement with David here. I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly be interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a policeman is quite a different role. So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature. There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for admins, and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly disruptive to the system even though long-term participants. We don't need any more of that. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs doc, I think you underestimate the number of good editors who do not want to be admins but would gladly take this on. Considering what an admin does, I can understand not wanting the distinction, but having a real role in making sure we have an acceptable content is another thing entirely. But you are certainly right that it won;'t solve the subtler problems--though I think experienced people develop a good e ye for what is likely to be NPOV violations. Option 1 above makes little sense to me, and I think to you also, because less watched does not = less notable. it just means less popular. We'll lose most of the senators. We'll keep the wrestlers. Option 2 will take a lot of tweaking. Since flagged revisions is essentially certain to be approved for a trial, why don't we wait and see how it works, as the first of the tweaks. If we change too many variables at once, we'll end up with a lot of rules that won;t really have been necessary. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will almost certainly walk through this. Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP problem, it will not really even he lp. We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. We have two choices: 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability (=less watched by knowledgable people) BLPs. OR 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more articles. The second option means looking at: 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not waste resources arguing with such people. 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject should not be open to it again. 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check the verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor giving the information to show his working - so that the partoler (or the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
2009/4/1 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com: Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? Without commenting on this specific proposal, I thought it interesting that the de.wikipedia.org community implemented a fairly simple way to drive more sourcing on all articles: They made the edit summary field mandatory for new users, and have renamed it to Summary and Sources, making it clear in lots of places that edits without sources aren't acceptable. If you look at anon recent-changes on de.wp, you'll notice that this has led to lots of people including URLs, etc., directly in their edit summaries. [1] This makes it at least a bit easier for other users to decide on whether the edit was legitimate. [1] http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Letzte_%C3%84nderungenhideliu=1 - As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently unexplained. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: - As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently unexplained. Perhaps it should check whether there is content outside of /* section indicators */ rather than checking for an empty field (which I presume is what it does). -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
