Re: [WikiEN-l] collective or collaborative areas of Wikipedia
>> Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative >> others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation. > > I guess whatever floats their boat is what's best for them. > > I notice, from time to time, that some wikiprojects I run across have > become inactive. It's sad, really--almost like a memorial to once > might've been a tight-knit community. Even if it wasn't, still... > > What should we do that about that? One thing I'm worried about is, is > the less collaborative ones more likely to become inactive? Should we > write an short paragraph in the signpost about any wikiproject that's > *just about* to go inactive? I know there's an article about > wikiprojects in every signpost. > > Emily We could, but you might also join one and see what you, and others, can make of it. One project which is quite collaborative is the Arbitration Committee, not that I'm suggesting that... Fred > On Jun 19, 2009, at 4:12 PM, geni wrote: > >> 2009/6/19 Emily Monroe : At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial. At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing. Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors. >>> >>> True, true. It would makes sense that different parts of the >>> wikipedia need to have different levels of discussion. >>> >>> What about wikiprojects? Are they very "collaborative", or do >>> they >>> serve only as assessment graders? >>> >> >> Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative >> others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation. >> >> Articles on current events are commonly collaborative. >> >> -- >> 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 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] collective or collaborative areas of Wikipedia
2009/6/19 Emily Monroe : >> Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative >> others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation. > > I guess whatever floats their boat is what's best for them. > > I notice, from time to time, that some wikiprojects I run across have > become inactive. It's sad, really--almost like a memorial to once > might've been a tight-knit community. Even if it wasn't, still... > > What should we do that about that? One thing I'm worried about is, is > the less collaborative ones more likely to become inactive? Should we > write an short paragraph in the signpost about any wikiproject that's > *just about* to go inactive? I know there's an article about > wikiprojects in every signpost. Too many. In most cases they are best thought of as being in statis. Whatever targets the original people wanted to meet have either been met, abandoned or people have moved on to another forum. If a couple of new people come along with fresh targets they can re-awake. -- 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] US city requires Internet account passwords from employees
Siobhan Hansa wrote: > Amory Meltzer wrote: > >> I doubt it'll last. The ACLU is correct on the page when they say "I >> liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and >> your family photos," it's just excessive. It's also largely against >> the TOS for most of these sites. >> > It's also pretty dumb from a security perspective for them. If they > give the impression that requesting account and password information on > official forms is reasonable they can hardly be surprised if their > employees give out access to their council systems in this manner. > > Hmm! Maybe the people they should be hiring are the ones who openly refuse to answer. ;-) They are the ones with the courage and integrity to be trusted with sensitive information. 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] collective or collaborative areas of Wikipedia
On WikiProjects: The performance of collaboration projects varies almost as drastically as does the quality of Wikipedia's articles. At some ends, we have some quite impressive organisations - such as WProj Military history - that are very hands-on. At others, there are some quite useless projects that seem to exist simply for the sake of existing. There are still others - such as WProj Law - that aren't very 'collaborative' but do provide some useful tools and resources for improving the parallell subject area: for example, in my experience, WProj Law has little editor colloboration but, by virtue of its in-depth indexes of law articles, is useful for identifying articles that need improvement. 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] collective or collaborative areas of Wikipedia
> Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative > others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation. I guess whatever floats their boat is what's best for them. I notice, from time to time, that some wikiprojects I run across have become inactive. It's sad, really--almost like a memorial to once might've been a tight-knit community. Even if it wasn't, still... What should we do that about that? One thing I'm worried about is, is the less collaborative ones more likely to become inactive? Should we write an short paragraph in the signpost about any wikiproject that's *just about* to go inactive? I know there's an article about wikiprojects in every signpost. Emily On Jun 19, 2009, at 4:12 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/6/19 Emily Monroe : >>> At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my >>> experience usually very collegial. >>> >>> At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can >>> while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment >>> industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of >>> synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing. >>> >>> Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are >>> written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki >>> format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles >>> you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors. >> >> True, true. It would makes sense that different parts of the >> wikipedia need to have different levels of discussion. >> >> What about wikiprojects? Are they very "collaborative", or do >> they >> serve only as assessment graders? >> > > Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative > others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation. > > Articles on current events are commonly collaborative. > > -- > 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 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] collective or collaborative areas of Wikipedia
2009/6/19 Emily Monroe : >> At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my >> experience usually very collegial. >> >> At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can >> while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment >> industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of >> synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing. >> >> Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are >> written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki >> format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles >> you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors. > >True, true. It would makes sense that different parts of the > wikipedia need to have different levels of discussion. > >What about wikiprojects? Are they very "collaborative", or do they > serve only as assessment graders? > Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation. Articles on current events are commonly collaborative. -- 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] collective or collaborative areas of Wikipedia
> At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my > experience usually very collegial. > > At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can > while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment > industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of > synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing. > > Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are > written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki > format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles > you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors. True, true. It would makes sense that different parts of the wikipedia need to have different levels of discussion. What about wikiprojects? Are they very "collaborative", or do they serve only as assessment graders? Emily On Jun 19, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Dahsun wrote: > > Thinking on Emily's point about social interaction on wikipedia, I'm > well aware that the amount of interaction that I have with other > editors varies dramatically depending on the areas of the Wiki that > I spend time in. > > At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my > experience usually very collegial. > > At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can > while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment > industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of > synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing. > > Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are > written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki > format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles > you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors. > > WereSpielChequers > > >> Message: 7 >> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:41:38 -0700 >> From: stevertigo >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Social ideas (was Hi there) >> To: English Wikipedia >> Message-ID: >><7c402e010906182141y47e1ec10kd0211735cdee6...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >>> Stevertigo wrote: >>> >>> But do I understand correctly, Emily, that by "social aspects" you mean more what we might >> call "community," or "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects? >>> Emily Monroe >> wrote: >>> Yes, that's what I mean! >>> >> I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes. >>> >> >> (Because we've gotten our hellos out of the way, I've >> retitled the thread) >> >> It generally "goes" nowhere here unless you seed it with a >> question or idea. >> If your stated interest can be translated into a question, >> it might go >> something like: >> What socially-oriented ideas might make >> Wikipedia better? >> >> Though you may not yet understand the intricacies, it still >> would not be out >> of place for you to suggest some ideas yourself. Especially >> when you want to >> start a new conversation. In threads like this, we can deal >> with a few >> different things at once, and who knows what might come >> up? >> >> I myself am wondering if anyone has seen any userboxes made >> into >> bumperstickers. >> >> -Steven >> >> >> -- > > > > > > ___ > 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] US city requires Internet account passwords from employees
Amory Meltzer wrote: > I doubt it'll last. The ACLU is correct on the page when they say "I > liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and > your family photos," it's just excessive. It's also largely against > the TOS for most of these sites. It's also pretty dumb from a security perspective for them. If they give the impression that requesting account and password information on official forms is reasonable they can hardly be surprised if their employees give out access to their council systems in this manner. Looks like a policy thoughtlessly adopted by people who haven't considered the big-picture view of what they are asking for. From Wikipedia's perspective it's interesting but largely a non-event. The few people who have accounts and apply for jobs there who would actually pass on their Wikipedia accounts must be very marginal. Not the biggest security concern I would think. (Though if anyone notices a bunch of accounts suddenly making positive and suspiciously similar entries about Bozeman we'll know what their real plan is...) Helen ___ 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] US city requires Internet account passwords from employees
I doubt it'll last. The ACLU is correct on the page when they say "I liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and your family photos," it's just excessive. It's also largely against the TOS for most of these sites. It's an interesting view at the sort of importance and clout the Internet has these days, but I'll laugh if it lasts the summer, what with all the employees, legislature, ACLU, and the Internet against the city of Bozeman. As you say Ec, there's no such thing as "not-compulsory." It's like taking the Fifth - theoretically it's a clean, meaningless gesture, but in practice you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't take it as a sign of guilt. ~Amory ___ 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] Social ideas (was Hi there)
Not exactly a userbox, but I did see a bumper sticker that said
{{fact}} on it once :-)
___
philippe
[[en:User:Philippe]]
On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:41 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> I myself am wondering if anyone has seen any userboxes made into
> bumperstickers.
___
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] US city requires Internet account passwords from employees
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/19 Nathan : > >> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/19/us/AP-US-Internet-Background-Checks.html >> >> New employees, and perhaps current ones (?), are being asked to provide >> details of all web-based accounts, including forums and social networking >> sites. Details are meant to include usernames and passwords. Maybe we should >> have a user category of "Public employees in Bozeman, Montana" just in >> case... I doubt this turns into a new wave of intrusiveness, at least in the >> near future, but its disturbing even as an isolated case. For the legal >> types, any caselaw on whether employers (public or private) can demand this >> sort of information without violating the "implied right to privacy"? >> > "[The city] says it won't hold it against anyone for refusing to provide it." > > If it's not compulsory, I don't see a problem, as long as that fact is > made clear to people. I don't see the point in asking if it isn't > compulsory, though, unless they intend to trick people into thinking > it is. Who would voluntarily give up that information? The success of endless scams where people give up passwords and other personal information is as much proof as we need to show that people would voluntarily give up the information. Colour these requests with an air of apparent authority and the rate of compliance will go up significantly. While it's likely true that the city cannot make these requirements compulsory, there's more than one kind of compulsory. A person who fails to give this information may be seen as not a team-player, and suffer consequences accordingly. 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] collective or collaborative areas of Wikipedia
Thinking on Emily's point about social interaction on wikipedia, I'm well aware that the amount of interaction that I have with other editors varies dramatically depending on the areas of the Wiki that I spend time in. At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial. At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing. Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors. WereSpielChequers > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:41:38 -0700 > From: stevertigo > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Social ideas (was Hi there) > To: English Wikipedia > Message-ID: > <7c402e010906182141y47e1ec10kd0211735cdee6...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > Stevertigo wrote: > > > > But do I understand correctly, Emily, that > > > by "social aspects" you mean more what we might > call "community," or > > > "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects? > > Emily Monroe > wrote: > > Yes, that's what I mean! > > > I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes. > > > > (Because we've gotten our hellos out of the way, I've > retitled the thread) > > It generally "goes" nowhere here unless you seed it with a > question or idea. > If your stated interest can be translated into a question, > it might go > something like: >What socially-oriented ideas might make > Wikipedia better? > > Though you may not yet understand the intricacies, it still > would not be out > of place for you to suggest some ideas yourself. Especially > when you want to > start a new conversation. In threads like this, we can deal > with a few > different things at once, and who knows what might come > up? > > I myself am wondering if anyone has seen any userboxes made > into > bumperstickers. > > -Steven > > > -- ___ 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] US city requires Internet account passwords from employees
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > "[The city] says it won't hold it against anyone for refusing to provide > it." > > If it's not compulsory, I don't see a problem, as long as that fact is > made clear to people. I don't see the point in asking if it isn't > compulsory, though, unless they intend to trick people into thinking > it is. Who would voluntarily give up that information? > > I get the feeling it doesn't say "(This is optional, and we won't hold it against you if you leave it blank.)" on the form. That's why the laws against hiring discrimination don't simply empower job-seekers to refuse to answer questions, but bar them from being asked at all (even with the caveat that "I'm going to ask you if you're old or disabled, but you don't have to tell me."). ~Nathan ___ 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] US city requires Internet account passwords from employees
2009/6/19 Nathan : > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/19/us/AP-US-Internet-Background-Checks.html > > New employees, and perhaps current ones (?), are being asked to provide > details of all web-based accounts, including forums and social networking > sites. Details are meant to include usernames and passwords. Maybe we should > have a user category of "Public employees in Bozeman, Montana" just in > case... I doubt this turns into a new wave of intrusiveness, at least in the > near future, but its disturbing even as an isolated case. For the legal > types, any caselaw on whether employers (public or private) can demand this > sort of information without violating the "implied right to privacy"? "[The city] says it won't hold it against anyone for refusing to provide it." If it's not compulsory, I don't see a problem, as long as that fact is made clear to people. I don't see the point in asking if it isn't compulsory, though, unless they intend to trick people into thinking it is. Who would voluntarily give up that information? ___ 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] What sparked your interest in Wikipedia? (was Googlethinks Wikipedia is a news source)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Jay Litwyn wrote: > of what I do best and made it easier to read. Then I went meticulously > through the entire talk page, adding headings where there was a change in > topic -- and tried to answer everything. Much later, perhaps in 2008, I Ha, reminds me of how I got rapped over the knuckles for deleting a talk page. I thought I was being helpful! I saw the talk page, all the discussion looked old and no longer relevant, so I thought I'd clear it out for them. Heh. Steve ___ 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] US city requires Internet account passwords from employees
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/19/us/AP-US-Internet-Background-Checks.html New employees, and perhaps current ones (?), are being asked to provide details of all web-based accounts, including forums and social networking sites. Details are meant to include usernames and passwords. Maybe we should have a user category of "Public employees in Bozeman, Montana" just in case... I doubt this turns into a new wave of intrusiveness, at least in the near future, but its disturbing even as an isolated case. For the legal types, any caselaw on whether employers (public or private) can demand this sort of information without violating the "implied right to privacy"? Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
