Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

[wjhonson]

-Original Message-
From: Ken Arromdee 
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

>>Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say "I own the
>>copyright, go
>>ahead and host it

>The person who uploaded the audio program, received permission to do
>so, from the copyright owner.  That however isn't sufficient for
>wikilawyers who insist that the audio must be obtainable from an
>official website directly tied to the original program and that any
>transcript must come directly from the original copyright holder, etc
>etc etc. Certified, stamped, signed, and laminated.

Can you point me to some discussion about this?  The link to the Arbcom
decision doesn't seem to discuss this point much at all.  The link to
the Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT policy doesn't seem to apply, since it says that
you shouldn't link to an external site with a copy of a work if you 
*know*
that it's violating copyright (i.e. the default is to assume that the 
link
is okay and you need a specific reason to exclude it.)>>

-

Gosh I think it was a few *years* ago that it was pointed out on the 
Talk page of the Matt Sanchez article, that the audio snippet of the 
Alan Colmes radio program had been uploaded with permission.  In fact 
that clip still exists online, I just ran into it the other day yet 
again.

But Ken I stopped following the back-and-forth on Matt Sanchez from the 
time it degenerated into "Theatre of the Ridiculous".  The audio 
snippet (I think its about six minutes or so) is linked however from my 
own write-up which I linked in my past mesage.

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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Andrew Turvey]

Do we routinely check all Admin applicants to see if they are sock-puppets? 

Should we start doing so? 

- "Fred Bauder"  wrote: 
> From: "Fred Bauder"  
> To: "English Wikipedia"  
> Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 20:04:54 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case 
> 
> 
> > The harm to our public image comes from the fact that a senior trusted 
> > user has managed to deceive Wikipedia over a number of years and our 
> > systems were inadequate to deal with this. 
> > 
> > I hope there will be an honest debate in Wikipedia about how we can make 
> > sure this doesn't happen again. Coming not that long after the Essjay 
> > controversy, requiring trusted users to verify their identities seems 
> > like a sensible response. 
> > 
> > Andrew 
> > 
> 
> That is part of what is tricky, we do require verification of identity 
> for those who have the oversight and checkuser tools, but he never asked 
> for those, and so as a mere arbitrator, was never asked. 
> 
> Fred 
> 
> 
> 
> ___ 
> 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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Andrew Turvey]

- "Ray Saintonge"  wrote: 
> From: "Ray Saintonge"  
> To: "English Wikipedia"  
> Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 18:34:13 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case 
> 
> AGK wrote: 
> >> To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they 
> >> know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the 
> >> awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :) 
> >> 
> > The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and 
> > it's harming our public image. 
> > 
> 
> Inaccuracies are a fact of life with newspapers, but then your 
> conclusion may also be inaccurate. Inaccuracies come with the territory 
> of being big. Where is it stated that maintaining public image is one of 
> Wikipedia's goals? 

Promoting the public image of the Wikipedia website is very much one of the 
goals of Wikimedia UK and, I should imagine, the Wikimedia Foundation. Given 
that the Daily Mail quoted our Volunteers Director, it's very relevant to this 
discussion. 



Andrew Turvey 
Secretary 
Wikimedia UK 
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. 
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, 
Registered No. 6741827. 
The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United 
Kingdom. 
___
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] The London Review of Books on Wikipedia

[Sage Ross]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:

> "... encyclopedias have been made better by the advent of the internet,
> but newspapers have been made worse: the cumulative impact of the
> readers’ comments that can now be appended online to almost any article
> tends to diminish most forms of human understanding."
>
> Worth reading for that insight alone.

I don't buy the premise that reader comments have much, if anything,
to do with newspaper woes.  The internet has thrown newspapers'
business model under the bus, but reader comments and other forms of
participation have mostly been good developments.  Major newspapers
have bigger audiences than they ever had even while ad revenue
declines, and they have generally been late on the bandwagon for
allowing reader comments.  At New York Times, for instance, there
still aren't comments on regular news articles and comments on
editorials and op-eds are (as of pretty recently) curated, meaning
that editors can identify and highlight the most insightful comments.

The decline in newspaper quality also started well before the Internet
became ubiquitous and had more to do with business-minded editorial
decisions than anything else.

___
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] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

[Ken Arromdee]

>>Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say "I own the 
>>copyright, go
>>ahead and host it

>The person who uploaded the audio program, received permission to do 
>so, from the copyright owner.  That however isn't sufficient for 
>wikilawyers who insist that the audio must be obtainable from an 
>official website directly tied to the original program and that any 
>transcript must come directly from the original copyright holder, etc 
>etc etc. Certified, stamped, signed, and laminated.

Can you point me to some discussion about this?  The link to the Arbcom
decision doesn't seem to discuss this point much at all.  The link to
the Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT policy doesn't seem to apply, since it says that
you shouldn't link to an external site with a copy of a work if you *know*
that it's violating copyright (i.e. the default is to assume that the link
is okay and you need a specific reason to exclude it.)

___
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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/8 Ray Saintonge :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/6/8 Joe Anderson :
>>
>>> Could someone speak to Google?
>>>
>>> Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
>>>
>> Sure it is, but that's not Google's problem, it's ours. Google will
>> link to wherever the best article on news topics are. At the moment,
>> that is very often Wikipedia, not Wikinews. I would like to encourage
>> people to go to Wikinews when they want to write about current affairs
>> and only create a Wikipedia article after the event is over, but I
>> don't think there is anything approaching a consensus for that.
>>
>>
> True enough. Wikinews is inevitably subject to Darwinistic
> considerations.  Unless it produces material that attracts readership it
> will just be ignored.

Yep, that's the same catch-22 faced by projects like Citizendium. They
have to become better than Wikipedia (in some way, not necessarily in
all ways) in order to get any readers, but they can't get the
contributors needed to beat Wikipedia without readers.

___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Fred Bauder]

> The harm to our public image comes from the fact that a senior trusted
> user has managed to deceive Wikipedia over a number of years and our
> systems were inadequate to deal with this.
>
> I hope there will be an honest debate in Wikipedia about how we can make
> sure this doesn't happen again. Coming not that long after the Essjay
> controversy, requiring trusted users to verify their identities seems
> like a sensible response.
>
> Andrew
>

That is part of what is tricky, we do require verification of identity
for those who have the oversight and checkuser tools, but he never asked
for those, and so as a mere arbitrator, was never asked.

Fred



___
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] European History Primary Sources portal launched

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/6/8 Oskar Sigvardsson :
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:14 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>>> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5748748/
>>> Of course, ideally Wikipedia wants secondary sources. But this will
>>> still be of great use.
>
>> No Poetic Edda. Less stuff than Gutenberg. Lame.
>
>
> It's a start. If it can be improved, then good!

I was trying to make a funny (see
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257&tid=107 for
reference), apparently not very successfully.

I think it looks great! It's like a directory for those obscure
university sites that have insane amount of material collected, but
that you never can find.

--Oskar

___
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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Brian]

PageRank authority. People-actually-read-it authority. People believe what
they read there authority.

A de facto authority.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:51 PM, AGK  wrote:

> >
> > I can't imagine why they would add Wikinews as a source - it has
> > no authority, whereas Wikipedia does.
>
>
> What type of authority, Brian? Reliability? Based on original reporting?
>
> AGK
> ___
> 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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Fred Bauder]

>>
>> I can't imagine why they would add Wikinews as a source - it has
>> no authority, whereas Wikipedia does.
>
>
> What type of authority, Brian? Reliability? Based on original reporting?
>
> AGK

Actually, no, based on use of reliable sources.

Fred



___
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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[AGK]

>
> I can't imagine why they would add Wikinews as a source - it has
> no authority, whereas Wikipedia does.


What type of authority, Brian? Reliability? Based on original reporting?

AGK
___
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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/8 Joe Anderson :
>   
>> Could someone speak to Google?
>>
>> Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
>> 
> Sure it is, but that's not Google's problem, it's ours. Google will
> link to wherever the best article on news topics are. At the moment,
> that is very often Wikipedia, not Wikinews. I would like to encourage
> people to go to Wikinews when they want to write about current affairs
> and only create a Wikipedia article after the event is over, but I
> don't think there is anything approaching a consensus for that.
>
>   
True enough. Wikinews is inevitably subject to Darwinistic 
considerations.  Unless it produces material that attracts readership it 
will just be ignored. 

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] The London Review of Books on Wikipedia

[Fred Bauder]

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>> "Like Boiling a Frog", David Runciman.
>> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html
>>
>> >From the last issue of the London Review of Books, a long and chewy
>> article about Wikipedia; generally positive, though it draws attention
>> to the problems of writing quality and "recentism". There's a review
>> of Andrew Lih's book buried somewhere in it, too...
>>
>>
> "... encyclopedias have been made better by the advent of the internet,
> but newspapers have been made worse: the cumulative impact of the
> readers’ comments that can now be appended online to almost any article
> tends to diminish most forms of human understanding."
>
> Worth reading for that insight alone.
>
> Charles

Imagine what would happen if the readers could actually get at the articles.

Fred



___
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] The London Review of Books on Wikipedia

[Charles Matthews]

Andrew Gray wrote:
> "Like Boiling a Frog", David Runciman. 
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html
>
> >From the last issue of the London Review of Books, a long and chewy
> article about Wikipedia; generally positive, though it draws attention
> to the problems of writing quality and "recentism". There's a review
> of Andrew Lih's book buried somewhere in it, too...
>
>   
"... encyclopedias have been made better by the advent of the internet, 
but newspapers have been made worse: the cumulative impact of the 
readers’ comments that can now be appended online to almost any article 
tends to diminish most forms of human understanding."

Worth reading for that insight alone.

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

[WikiEN-l] The London Review of Books on Wikipedia

[Andrew Gray]

"Like Boiling a Frog", David Runciman. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html

>From the last issue of the London Review of Books, a long and chewy
article about Wikipedia; generally positive, though it draws attention
to the problems of writing quality and "recentism". There's a review
of Andrew Lih's book buried somewhere in it, too...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] European History Primary Sources portal launched

[David Gerard]

2009/6/8 Oskar Sigvardsson :
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:14 PM, David Gerard wrote:

>> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5748748/
>> Of course, ideally Wikipedia wants secondary sources. But this will
>> still be of great use.

> No Poetic Edda. Less stuff than Gutenberg. Lame.


It's a start. If it can be improved, then good!


- 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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Joe Anderson]

On 2009-06-08 17:47:10 +0100, Andrew Turvey 
 said:

> 
> - "Joe Anderson"  wrote:
>> From: "Joe Anderson" 
>> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
>> 
>> On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard  said:
>> 
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/
>>> 
>> 
>> Could someone speak to Google?
>> 
>> Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
> 
> Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, 
> surely? This is a great endorsement of our material.
> 
> If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. 
> They wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews.
> 
> Andrew
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Wikinews is carried by Google, fyi. So it may be confusing for them to 
see two WMF links.



___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Durova]

Very well stated.  The ability to oversight, or to promote a successful RfA,
or to checkuser, or even to be one vote among fifteen in whether dates
should be delinked--is all trivial compared to real world news like this.

Let's hope that everyone else who holds a position of similar trust
(arbitrator, functionary) examines these matters and takes proactive
measures to examine and remedy any other problems that may exist, both for
themselves and in review of their peers.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Andrew Turvey  wrote:

>  "AGK"  wrote:
> > From: "AGK" 
> > To: "English Wikipedia" 
> > Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 15:24:30 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> Portugal
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case
> >
> > >
> > > To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they
> > > know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the
> > > awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
> >
> > The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and
> > it's harming our public image.
>
> Gross inaccuracies that harm our public image?
>
> Not that I can see. Some of the details are wrong - number of ArbCom cases
> for instance, but that's pretty irrelevant to the story or indeed our
> reputation. Likewise with the relationship between Wikimedia UK and the
> Foundation.
>
> The Daily Mail will spin the story as they see fit. What we might disagree
> with is the editorialising, which we can do little about, not any errors of
> fact.
>
> The harm to our public image comes from the fact that a senior trusted user
> has managed to deceive Wikipedia over a number of years and our systems were
> inadequate to deal with this.
>
> I hope there will be an honest debate in Wikipedia about how we can make
> sure this doesn't happen again. Coming not that long after the Essjay
> controversy, requiring trusted users to verify their identities seems like a
> sensible response.
>
> Andrew
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Ray Saintonge]

AGK wrote:
>> To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they
>> know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the
>> awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
>> 
> The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and
> it's harming our public image.
>   


Inaccuracies are a fact of life with newspapers, but then your 
conclusion may also be inaccurate.  Inaccuracies come with the territory 
of being big. Where is it stated that maintaining public image is one of 
Wikipedia's goals?


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] Call for Participants: NICE interface modification

[Sam Korn]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:

AGK,

Good point.  Our only concern is having to re-apply to the IRB.  It
seems that this change does not materially affect the general
consent/installation process, so we pulled it out and will make it
available upon requests from individuals.


Thanks for doing this, Aaron.

Sam

--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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] Call for Participants: NICE interface modification

[Aaron Halfaker]

AGK,

Good point.  Our only concern is having to re-apply to the IRB.  It
seems that this change does not materially affect the general
consent/installation process, so we pulled it out and will make it
available upon requests from individuals.

-Aaron

AGK wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> Could the automatic installation section not simply be removed from
> the install.html page?
>
> AGK


___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Andrew Turvey]

 "AGK"  wrote: 
> From: "AGK"  
> To: "English Wikipedia"  
> Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 15:24:30 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case 
> 
> > 
> > To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they 
> > know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the 
> > awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :) 
> 
> The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and 
> it's harming our public image. 

Gross inaccuracies that harm our public image? 

Not that I can see. Some of the details are wrong - number of ArbCom cases for 
instance, but that's pretty irrelevant to the story or indeed our reputation. 
Likewise with the relationship between Wikimedia UK and the Foundation. 

The Daily Mail will spin the story as they see fit. What we might disagree with 
is the editorialising, which we can do little about, not any errors of fact. 

The harm to our public image comes from the fact that a senior trusted user has 
managed to deceive Wikipedia over a number of years and our systems were 
inadequate to deal with this. 

I hope there will be an honest debate in Wikipedia about how we can make sure 
this doesn't happen again. Coming not that long after the Essjay controversy, 
requiring trusted users to verify their identities seems like a sensible 
response. 

Andrew 

___
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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Sam Korn]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Turvey 
wrote:


- "Joe Anderson"  wrote:

From: "Joe Anderson" 
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard  said:

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/
>

Could someone speak to Google?

Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?


Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, surely? 
This is a great endorsement of our material.

If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They 
wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews.

Andrew
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l





--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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] European History Primary Sources portal launched

[Charles Matthews]

> It's always good to see external organisations making available to the
> public material that would be more accessible to intellectual circles during
> the pre-Internet era.
>
> AGK
>   
But from what I gather so far this is more like offering a custom Google 
search tailored to the EHPS approved list of sites. Well, that's what 
you get by navigating to their search option. How can one easily "save" 
the search? It would be handy to have that EHPS button to try, and some 
way short of having it in its own tab.

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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/8 Joe Anderson :
> Could someone speak to Google?
>
> Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?

Sure it is, but that's not Google's problem, it's ours. Google will
link to wherever the best article on news topics are. At the moment,
that is very often Wikipedia, not Wikinews. I would like to encourage
people to go to Wikinews when they want to write about current affairs
and only create a Wikipedia article after the event is over, but I
don't think there is anything approaching a consensus for that.

___
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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Brian]

I can't imagine why they would add Wikinews as a source - it has no
authority, whereas Wikipedia does.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Turvey  wrote:

>
> - "Joe Anderson"  wrote:
> > From: "Joe Anderson" 
> > To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> Portugal
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
> >
> > On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard  said:
> >
> > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/
> > >
> >
> > Could someone speak to Google?
> >
> > Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
>
> Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better,
> surely? This is a great endorsement of our material.
>
> If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They
> wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews.
>
> Andrew
> ___
> 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] European History Primary Sources portal launched

[Charles Matthews]

David Gerard wrote:
> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5748748/
>
> Of course, ideally Wikipedia wants secondary sources. But this will
> still be of great use.
>
>
>   
It's a directory, really. I see it has British History Online, which I 
use constantly, and which has both primary and secondary source 
material. I suppose other sites there may be likewise.

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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Andrew Turvey]

- "Joe Anderson"  wrote: 
> From: "Joe Anderson"  
> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source 
> 
> On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard  said: 
> 
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/ 
> > 
> 
> Could someone speak to Google? 
> 
> Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat? 

Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, surely? 
This is a great endorsement of our material. 

If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They 
wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews. 

Andrew 
___
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] European History Primary Sources portal launched

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:14 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5748748/
>
> Of course, ideally Wikipedia wants secondary sources. But this will
> still be of great use.

No Poetic Edda. Less stuff than Gutenberg. Lame.

--Oskar

___
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] European History Primary Sources portal launched

[AGK]

>
> http://archiv.twoday.net/ 
> stories/5748748/ 


>  Of course, ideally Wikipedia
> wants secondary sources. But this will still be of great use.


It's always good to see external organisations making available to the
public material that would be more accessible to intellectual circles during
the pre-Internet era.

AGK
___
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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[AGK]

>
> Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?


It may be, yes, but I doubt most organisations outside of the Wiki bubble
have heard of Wikinews—Google included—or are at least are aware that it is
a distinct project from Wikipedia. (The similarities between the enwiki Main
Page's "In The News" section and Wikinews doesn't help matters; cf., recent
WikiEN-l thread on the two.)

AGK
___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Charles Matthews]

Durova wrote:
> Tough situation.  Even with David not talking, it's a little surprising that
> the background got presented like that.  It looks like the reporter didn't
> fully understand.
The Mail understands well enough, I guess, that (a) editing under a 
pseudonym is OK, and (b) editing [[David Cameron]] is OK even if you are 
a Labour party member. So "caught altering David Cameron's Wikipedia 
entry" certainly misleads as to where the problem lies. "Although the 
alterations were not inaccurate or overtly critical, many were 
unfavourable." Yes, but were they or were they not "from a neutral point 
of view"? Pah. Reporters know that difference, if they care to.  I'm 
glad I generally don't have to read this stuff.

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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Joe Anderson]

On 2009-06-08 16:04:01 +0100, AGK  said:

> The Daily Mail is notorious in the United Kingdom for its somewhat
> sensationalist reporting. I am doubtful that the reporter tried too hard to
> establish facts that would have closed down an opportunity to smear a Labour
> Party politician.
> AGK
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Too right, no doubt politically biased.

Could someone contact them to ask for a correction regarding 'the 
British arm of the U.S. company, said: ''? 



___
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] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source

[Joe Anderson]

On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard  said:

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/
> 
> 
> - 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

Could someone speak to Google?

Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?



___
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] European History Primary Sources portal launched

[David Gerard]

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5748748/

Of course, ideally Wikipedia wants secondary sources. But this will
still be of great use.


- 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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[David Gerard]

2009/6/8 AGK :

> The Daily Mail is notorious in the United Kingdom for its somewhat
> sensationalist reporting. I am doubtful that the reporter tried too hard to
> establish facts that would have closed down an opportunity to smear a Labour
> Party politician.


Remember their story on the Scientology case. Never let mere facts
stand in the way of a stirring epic tale.


- 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] Call for Participants: NICE interface modification

[AGK]

Aaron,
Could the automatic installation section not simply be removed from the
install.html page?

AGK
___
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] Call for Participants: NICE interface modification

[Aaron Halfaker]

I think that is a popular observation/opinion.  If we could go back,
we'd probably never have the automatic installation.  We went through a
lot of trouble with it thinking it could help less experienced users
install the tool assuming they would be less comfortable adding code to
their monobook.js.  We see now that it really only ended up being trouble.

Thanks for installing the tool though.  Let me know via email or talk
page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EpochFail) if you have any
questions or find any bugs.

-Aaron

AGK wrote:
>
>  I would, however, urge everyone to use the "manual" installation
> process.  I don't think it's good form to ask people for their
> credentials on another site.  Indeed, it is forbidden (actively
> prohibited) for those with Toolserver accounts to do this.
>
>
> I'm with Sam on this one.
>
> AGK 


___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[AGK]

The Daily Mail is notorious in the United Kingdom for its somewhat
sensationalist reporting. I am doubtful that the reporter tried too hard to
establish facts that would have closed down an opportunity to smear a Labour
Party politician.
AGK
___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Durova]

Tough situation.  Even with David not talking, it's a little surprising that
the background got presented like that.  It looks like the reporter didn't
fully understand.  From this distant vantage (California), I wonder whether
ComCom could have explained the context?

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:24 AM, AGK  wrote:

> >
> > To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they
> > know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the
> > awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
>
>
> The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and
> it's harming our public image.
>
> AGK
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[AGK]

>
> To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they
> know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the
> awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)


The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and
it's harming our public image.

AGK
___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[FT2]

To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they know
there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the awareness AC
doesn't solve 99% of them :)

FT2


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:24 PM, AGK  wrote:

> >
> > Mr Boothroyd has been a member of its 15-strong international arbitration
> > committee for two years, helping settle hundreds of disputes a day.
>
>
> The number is probably closer to "1 a week" (in terms of the frequency of
> case closures), but why should something as silly as the facts get in the
> way of a nice helping of sensationalism.
>
> AGK
>
>
___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[AGK]

>
> Mr Boothroyd has been a member of its 15-strong international arbitration
> committee for two years, helping settle hundreds of disputes a day.


The number is probably closer to "1 a week" (in terms of the frequency of
case closures), but why should something as silly as the facts get in the
way of a nice helping of sensationalism.

AGK
___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[David Gerard]

2009/6/8 Charles Matthews :
> Harry Willis wrote:

>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boo
>> throyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html
>> (Not sure "forced to resign" is accurate, given the text of his resignation
>> letter.)

> The story is bad news all round, for us. Here's what else is wrong with
> the Mail's coverage, though:


Remember their one on the Scientology case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1189581/Wikipedia-bans-Church-Scientology-editing-site-prevent-propaganda.html

Never let mere facts get in the way of a truly stirring epic tale.


- 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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Charles Matthews]

Harry Willis wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boo
> throyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html
>
> (Not sure "forced to resign" is accurate, given the text of his resignation
> letter.)
>
>   
The story is bad news all round, for us. Here's what else is wrong with 
the Mail's coverage, though:

- "malicious tampering"

Handily assumes what it sets out to prove.

- "Any Internet user can alter pages but Wikipedia appoints supposedly 
impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes."

Total myth.

- "sock-puppeting  -  using multiple, bogus online identities to create 
an illusion of support or unpopularity for a person or organisation."

"Bogus" is misleading journalese. "Pseudonymous", please. And they have 
mixed in the definition astroturfing.

- "Wikimedia UK, the British arm of the U.S. company"

Wrong.

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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[AGK]

>
> (Not sure "forced to resign" is accurate, given the text of his
> resignation letter.)


With the greatest to respect to Sam, I think it was a case of "jump or be
pushed." When news of his failure during the Committee elections of '07 to
disclose his prior accounts (especially the accounts that had had their
+sysop flag removed).

AGK
___
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] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Harry Willis]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boo
throyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html

(Not sure "forced to resign" is accurate, given the text of his resignation
letter.)

– H

___
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] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

[Jay Litwyn]

 wrote in message news:bde.47fa0fc9.375ac...@aol.com...
In a message dated 6/5/2009 10:48:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
philippe.w...@gmail.com writes:

> > Pardon  the dumb question, but do we have a "{{nomirror}}" or similar
> > feature?  If so, some combination of {{noindex}}, {{nomirror}},  and
> > flagged revisions might be a temporary  panacea...>>

> Any person can mirror any article.  A person does not obey hidden  robot
> commands :)

That's why I rated the password protection option as higher. Beyond password 
protection for files, a system can also hav Read, Write, and Permit options 
given to specific users, groups, or programs for a file. Note that if a user 
has permit access, then they can give themselves permission to read and 
write a file. Outside of wikipedia, files hav less credibility, so even if 
some information escapes, it does not hav a large collective stamp of 
approval until it is available at wikipedia proper. I was on a system that 
could prevent you from disassembling or recreating a program with the 
debugger. Give read permission only to the run program. It was called 
Michigan Terminal System. Similarly, I was able to append files with a 
program called BOUL:MEETING, and I did not need direct write access, so I 
did not get it, unless I created it. It might even still exist at the UofA. 
Having someone big approve their own bio here should encourage donations. No 
read access to the IP means no mirror. MTS had everything the internet has 
today, except size and 24bit+30fps+640by480 graphics. It charged you about a 
penny for every screen of text, though. 




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