[WikiEN-l] [[Linuxconf]] the second most popular article after Michael Jackson?
What exactly makes Linuxconf the second most popular Wikipedia article after Michael Jackson? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages # Michael Jackson (33,092 hits last hour) # Linuxconf (12,512 hits last hour) ... -- Dan http://dandascalescu.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] News agencies are not RSs
In reply to Wjhonson, here's an example of a captured reporter who subsequently had the chance to explain how careless coverage endangered his life. In late 2001 Canadian journalist Ken Hechtman was in Afghanistan when the United States invaded, and was arrested as a suspected spy. Here's the situation he faced. "Before the trial begins, the judge tells me to pick a name out of his hat. "What does he win?" I asked, indicating the big, black-turbaned Talib with the shit-eating grin. "He gets to shoot you, just as soon as we finish this formality of a trial. Okay, let's get started!" Ya gotta love these guys and their wacky black humour! Did I mention that my translator, a doctor from the Malaysian refugee camp where I'd started the day, was convinced I was guilty and never missed an opportunity to tell me or the judge so?" Afterward they actually aimed a rifle at him and pulled the trigger, in an effort to get him to talk. They didn't tell him the clip was empty. Just about at the point where he thought he was persuading the authorities that he really wasn't a spy, the news of his situation spread through the Canadian and international press. Journal de Montréal published a fact that put his life right back in danger: he was Jewish. The Taliban had Internet connections; they picked up on that. It wasn't possible for him to publish those circumstances in a reliable source until after his release. http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2001/120601/news8.html -Lise On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigo wrote: > > Three more points: > > > > 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by > > Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim > > officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers. > > Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have > raised > > the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in > particular - > > and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context. > > The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security > professionals in government and private employ, and decided against > it. They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had > them kidnapped before. > > I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume > they know perfect. > > > 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, > makes > > such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the > > problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement > that > > after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics > were > > substantially contributive to any success in this case. > > You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the > hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated > Wikipedia and web history analysis experts. This is true for some > organizations - but not many. The level of ignorance of advanced > information sources is suprising even among groups that use some > advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet > communications. Even on topics they were acutely interested in, Al > Qaeda (who have doctors and engineers on staff) failed to gather > useful information on modern chemical and biological and nuclear > weapons. All the key info they're looking for is on the web and > searchable - they didn't have much better than random stuff pulled > from Google. > > The pirates in Somalia have good communications - but poor > intelligence other than regarding shipowners. > > That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again. > Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while > after they're generally disclosed. Government intelligence agency and > military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly. > > > 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S. > > administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an > > organization that does not follow the same professional standards that > > Western news orgs claim to follow? > > I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile. They're > trying to be an independent, honest, neutral actor in newsgathering in > the Mideast, from a natively middle eastern perspective. They're > smart, sophisticated, and pissing just about everyone off on all > sides. Around here, that usually means they're both accurate, > zealous, and impartial. > > That does not always serve US short term interests. But then, from > the US government's perspective, neither does the NY Times at times. > > My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle > eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the > ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary > islamic terrorists. I think Al Jazeera's staff see thems
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigo wrote: > Three more points: > > 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by > Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim > officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers. > Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised > the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular - > and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context. The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security professionals in government and private employ, and decided against it. They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had them kidnapped before. I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume they know perfect. > 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes > such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the > problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement that > after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics were > substantially contributive to any success in this case. You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated Wikipedia and web history analysis experts. This is true for some organizations - but not many. The level of ignorance of advanced information sources is suprising even among groups that use some advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet communications. Even on topics they were acutely interested in, Al Qaeda (who have doctors and engineers on staff) failed to gather useful information on modern chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. All the key info they're looking for is on the web and searchable - they didn't have much better than random stuff pulled from Google. The pirates in Somalia have good communications - but poor intelligence other than regarding shipowners. That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again. Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while after they're generally disclosed. Government intelligence agency and military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly. > 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S. > administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an > organization that does not follow the same professional standards that > Western news orgs claim to follow? I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile. They're trying to be an independent, honest, neutral actor in newsgathering in the Mideast, from a natively middle eastern perspective. They're smart, sophisticated, and pissing just about everyone off on all sides. Around here, that usually means they're both accurate, zealous, and impartial. That does not always serve US short term interests. But then, from the US government's perspective, neither does the NY Times at times. My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary islamic terrorists. I think Al Jazeera's staff see themselves that way and I hope and think that they're right. -- -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] News agencies are not RSs
Three more points: 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers. Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular - and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context. 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement that after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics were substantially contributive to any success in this case. 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S. administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an organization that does not follow the same professional standards that Western news orgs claim to follow? -Stevertigo ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
I'd just like to clarify one point. The NYT article does make it seem as if the entire reason that the actions were done were because Jimmy asked or requested it. This is not the case and I know this first-hand, of course being one of those administrators involved. I did what I did because I felt it was appropriate. I did not do it for any other reason. Of course I cannot speak for others but I would only assume that they have similar thoughts. --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@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] News agencies are not RSs
Four thoughts:
1) Geni's question about Pajhwok Afghan News is valid. But also Al Jazeera,*
Adnkronos, Little Green Footballs, *The Jawa Report* and *Dan Cleary,
Political Insomniac*, also apparently qualify as "unreliable sources." Or
"temporarily unreliable sources," if that's the preffered term.
A cynic though might say the rationale looks something like: 'if its a third
string newspaper from a smelly third-world country, or else the largest Arab
world-based news agency, then "its [temporarily] not a reliable source."'
What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a
newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand
out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if
Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual
journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity
might be validated.
2) The idea that media attention would raise someone's ransom value is also
a bit tendentious and the subjectives involved make it.. subjective. Did
Rohde's Pulitzer factor into it? Obviously his New York Times status was an
issue: Would a Vanity Fair reporter get the same treatment or consideration?
3) Its conceivable that if Rohde was of some unpleasant design, then his
bosses might not have not bothered with the embargo. The "young white [fe]
male" dimension might have relevance.
Thus the story is also about how their personal love for one of their valued
own helped to temporarily redefine the journalistic priorities of news
organizations around the world. Wikipedia's participation was likewise not
based in vague concepts like professionalism or "reliable sources," but out
of love for a fellow accomplished and respected person from the
English-speaking world.
Accomplished people everywhere should now feel safe that as they - out of
professional interest in human destruction - wander into dusty, hostile, and
foreign lands, their stories will be tweaked a little bit. I do understand
though that if I sent someone to Mordor - to bring back profitable reportage
or whatever - I myself might pull some strings to get them back too. I might
even shoot at Al Jazeera.*
Anyway, apparently now NYT and Wired owe Wikipedia one each.
2) Found this on the Rohde talk page:
"Okay, [?] now blackout every kidnapping. I suggest [we also censor]
articles
about drugs, [as] that will probably save lives too. - 89.61... "
89 makes an interesting point. There are other things that kill people and
we write about them as if they are just another thing. Most of the
paraphilias qualify - much of that category is just plain destruction and
death. Other concepts effectively promote destructive behaviours, and there
are notions that basically reduce to 'criminalistic inconsequentialism'
("perfect crime" etc.).
-Stevertigo
___
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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM, George Herbert wrote: > > The balance we're using is working for our public reputation among > readers, the media, media critics and internet critics, policymakers. > In this particular case, the controversy seems limited to our own > internal review. That's not the case. See: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/8wnzh/jimmy_wales_cooperated_with_the_new_york_times_to/ (150+ comments on reddit) http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/29/was-wikipedia-correct-to-censor-news-of-david-rohdes-capture/ (Christian Science Monitor blog suggests that what is ethical for a traditional news organization may not be for Wikipedia) http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/29/the-nytimes-wikipedia-whitewash/ (Michelle Malkin links this to the whole 'liberal media' meme: "Would Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have done this for Fox News or the Washington Times? ") -Sage ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
Mr. Martinez wasn't kidnapped at the time, was he? I mean, there was nobody actually holding him prisoner, was there? I don't think many westerners realise how endemic kidnapping for profit is in this region of the world; it's commonplace and a longstanding pattern of behaviour that goes back centuries. Most of these kidnappings are economically driven, and target anyone they think might have the money; the overwhelming majority of kidnap victims are non-notable, so they would never have an article about them into which their kidnapping could be added. But people with a larger reputation have a different economic value, and they can be sold to those who wish to make their kidnapping a political/religious issue. And once the people are being held for idealistic reasons, the rules - and the risks - change. Risker 2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote: > > While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in > > the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. > > I already posted this, but... > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1 > > > ___ > 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee : > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote: >> I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through >> office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, >> it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest >> of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more >> problematic. >> >> As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the >> context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. > > It would have been much better if it was officially an office action. Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet. ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Andrew Turvey : > "Thomas Dalton" wrote: > >> >> Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The >> community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're >> not allowed to question or get an explanation for. > > Office actions are taken over content all the time. By the office, yes. ArbCom and functionaries are not part of the office and, while I think technically Jimbo's name is on the list of people that can take office actions, I don't think he's done on in a while (nor has the office, for that matter, as far as I am aware). ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote: > While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in > the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. I already posted this, but... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1 ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote: > I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through > office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, > it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest > of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more > problematic. > > As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context > - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. It would have been much better if it was officially an office action. Instead, ordinary Wikipedians were being put in the position of being told by people with authority that the rules demanded something that they manifestly did not. Yes, it was a reliable source, and they said it wasn't, and it's an excuse. Think about what you are really saying when you're saying "it's an excuse". We *trust* the people in charge of Wikipedia to enforce rules fairly. This trust was broken. (And it was by no means the first time, it's just that the cause was a little better this time.) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wrote: > > George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a > causative effect. I don't believe that our (Jimmy et al's private) actions here "caused" anything. The combined effect of all of the media together embargoing this is unclear. What the NYT felt and convinced others was that the situation, which was arguably very bad in real life, would not get worse if it was held confidential for a time. Causality is hard to prove or argue, but it was held confidential for a time, and did not get worse. > But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics > debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others > media outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting > something or other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think > suppressing from the general public, information already known to the > captors, could possibly do. The entire value here is in minimizing the apparent political and media impact of the kidnapping, in terms of its value to the kidnappers. If they are focused on monetary gain, then minimizing the apparent significance of the reporter by lowering their profile, and humanizing them by carefully and in a limited fashion emphasizing their humanitarian contributions, can reduce the expected ransom value and enthusiasm with which the captors will bargain (and risk that they'd kill him out of spite, if negotiations go badly). If they are focused on making a media statement, either with PR exploitation of the kidnapee or by murdering them in a very public manner, the victim having a lower profile makes the value of such a statement lower, and if they weren't rapidly killed to make a public statement the odds that they will survive longer or eventually escape or be rescued increase. On the practical side, our (again, Jimmy et al's - I had no idea this was going on) actions were consistent with what other media were doing, embargoing the story as it were, and if it was ethical for the BBC and Washington Post and Time and CNN to embargo it then I don't believe it was unethical for us to. On a more theoretical note... Wikipedia's value is maximized if we're seen by our readers and our writers as a combination of useful (can find what I'm looking for), reliable (what I find is truthful), relatively complete, and ethical source of information. We chose not to publish many categories of information, because there is a lack of reliable sources for it, it would be illegal to publish it, or it would be unethical for us to publish it. There is plenty of information I know which is not in Wikipedia - some because I can't provide verifiable reliable sources, some because it would be unethical to publish it, some because it's classified information and while I learned it outside of "official" channels and am not subject to security clearance related publication limits, it would be better for at least the US and probably the world if it's not discussed widely. The balance we're using is working for our public reputation among readers, the media, media critics and internet critics, policymakers. In this particular case, the controversy seems limited to our own internal review. I would rather ten internal shitstorms than one "Kidnapped reporter murdered - Wikipedia to blame" editorial in the New York Times if we chose to do otherwise. The overall balance says we have done right here. Thank you, Jimmy. I believe that you and (functionaries, or whoever) called this one right. -- -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] News agencies are not RSs
"Thomas Dalton" wrote: > > Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The > community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're > not allowed to question or get an explanation for. Office actions are taken over content all the time. A. ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
- "Michael Peel" wrote: > I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first > heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life > approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within > Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why > it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have > been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved > reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still > played out in the same fashion. I'm also a little uneasy about it, but to me it seems to be the one case in 1000 where even Wikipedia agrees that more information is actually a bad thing. I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic. As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. 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] News agencies are not RSs
> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : >>> 2009/6/29 Nathan : Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail. >>> >>> I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that >>> we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can >>> really impose a decision without discussion. >>> >> >> Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. >> A >> few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a >> general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead. > > Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The > community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're > not allowed to question or get an explanation for. > They are, in extreme instances, and the inability of the editors as a whole to either maintain confidentiality or even make a decision, (to say nothing of the transparency of the software) makes such decisions necessary. What has to get done, get's done. I have some doubt that you would actually disagree with any decision that has been made in this way. 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] News agencies are not RSs
David Goodman wrote: > would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped > who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations? > > preventing harm is the argument of all censors > That may be the case; but saying that acting to prevent harm makes one a censor is not a valid deduction from that, but a trite fallacy. The truth of the matter is that the policy on BLP involves us in casuistry, in the technical sense. Your first comment illustrates that point. 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : >> 2009/6/29 Nathan : >>> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the >>> people" - >>> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and >>> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. >>> >>> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can >>> see >>> just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent >>> danger) >>> would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor >>> compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire >>> lifespan >>> of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In >>> at >>> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by >>> WJohnson >>> and geni will prevail. >> >> I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that >> we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can >> really impose a decision without discussion. >> > > Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A > few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a > general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead. Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for. ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM, wrote: > > George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a > causative effect. > But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics > debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others > media outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting > something or other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think > suppressing from the general public, information already known to the > captors, could possibly do. > > You may not understand it, but given that you appear to be the minority perhaps you should consider that you may not be correct. There is no debate about conveying facts to the captors that they don't already know. The simple point is that making it public and giving the kidnapping a much higher profile would have fundamentally changed the dynamics of the situation, and not in a good way. 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] News agencies are not RSs
> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" > - > that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and > responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. > > In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can > see > just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) > would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor > compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire > lifespan > of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In > at > least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by > WJohnson > and geni will prevail. > > Nathan > We simply can't let that happen. Their reputation must somehow be factored into decision making. 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] News agencies are not RSs
George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a causative effect. But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others media outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting something or other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think suppressing from the general public, information already known to the captors, could possibly do. <> -Original Message- From: George Herbert To: English Wikipedia Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wrote: > So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to > make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can > go around the world in the opposite direction as well. ?And for twice as > long. > > Smart thinking. ?Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it. > Has.. that.. ever... worked... before? > No it hasn't. It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually. -- -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 ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
On 29 Jun 2009, at 22:40, George Herbert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wrote: >> So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving >> on, is to >> make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, >> so it can >> go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for >> twice as >> long. >> >> Smart thinking. Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it. >> Has.. that.. ever... worked... before? >> No it hasn't. > > It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually. In this case, it didn't matter that his profile was raised instantly to whatever level after his release - the important period was when he was held captive. It was more delay than suppression. I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still played out in the same fashion. Mike ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wrote: > So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to > make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can > go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for twice as > long. > > Smart thinking. Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it. > Has.. that.. ever... worked... before? > No it hasn't. It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually. -- -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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM, stevertigo wrote: > But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef > Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's *live with this story, and I guess that's > what's messing with me. > Eugh! *Life. -Stevertigo Email needs to be wiki. If only wiki were in some ways like email, 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
I might have an interesting side note here. Sorry if this is a bit out of context. I have a source in a certain "other government agency," who knows about a certain unnamed individual in Pakistan whom *we are going to bomb straight into wherever terrorists go when they get bombed. Through my source, I know much of the intel. I thus have considered publishing it in certain semi-reputable news sources (I was certain the New York Times was in this category, but apparently they think they aren't). Anyway, I'm finishing up an indymedia piece right now - with anonymous sources and everything. That in turn is going to be the basis for the Wikipedia article on the impending killing, which I will publish no sooner than 2.2 minutes after I publish the news story. The names are different, so there's no conflict of interest. The question though is, should I publish it? I mean, there's the higher principle of "killing the bad guy" and all, and that's really what's interesting about the story. Otherwise who cares? But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's live with this story, and I guess that's what's messing with me. I guess its kind of the same scenario in reverse, I suppose. -Stevertigo On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that > > we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can > > really impose a decision without discussion. > > Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A > few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a > general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead. > ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
> 2009/6/29 Nathan : >> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the >> people" - >> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and >> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. >> >> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can >> see >> just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent >> danger) >> would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor >> compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire >> lifespan >> of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In >> at >> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by >> WJohnson >> and geni will prevail. > > I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that > we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can > really impose a decision without discussion. > Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead. 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] News agencies are not RSs
Explain first how you know that the kidnappers don't already know who they've captured when they've captured them.? Every person carries identity papers and as a side-note, I would expect they would have targeted a person *just because* they were famous for some reason. Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the 24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea? -Original Message- From: Nathan To: English Wikipedia Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wrote: > > But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than > they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the > logic is. > > > > Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the 24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea? 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 ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Nathan : > Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" - > that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and > responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. > > In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see > just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) > would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor > compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan > of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at > least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson > and geni will prevail. I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion. ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wrote: > > But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than > they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the > logic is. > > > > Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the 24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea? 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] News agencies are not RSs
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail. 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] News agencies are not RSs
But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is. -Original Message- From: Sam Blacketer To: English Wikipedia Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:15 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker wrote: > While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in > the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either. There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same position but it is close enough. * Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
Is there some apparent claim that the kidnappers didn't know who they had kidnapped? That we were telling them who the person was?? I'm fairly sure that kidnappers first priority would be "Let's kidnap someone who means something, not just some joker who nobody cares about." Or some claim that the kidnappers regularly watch Wikipedia to try to see who "John Smith" really is? Or something?? The entire logic of the news suppression escapes me somehow.? I don't see how suppressing who the person is, in the western media, would have any impact whatsoever on what the kidnappers do or don't. Will -Original Message- From: Risker To: English Wikipedia Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur in the area. Risker 2009/6/29 David Goodman > would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped > who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations? > > preventing harm is the argument of all censors > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > >> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be > >> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > >> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find > some way > >> > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. > And that > >> > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure > news > >> > agencies were reliable. > >> Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area > >> (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is > >> frankly beyond me. > > > > Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the > information, > > it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by > abusing > > the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If > > you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have > > placed in the system. > > > > > > ___ > > 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer : > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker wrote: > >> While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in >> the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. > > > There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a > consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately > but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were > released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign > media has broken it either. Do you know it was an embargo and not simply that they didn't have the 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker wrote: > While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in > the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either. There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same position but it is close enough. * Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 74
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Matt Jacobs wrote: > It really doesn't matter what policy administrators used to keep it quiet, > or even if they abused the rules. The information had a very real > probability of affecting whether a man lived or died, so that takes obvious > precedence over internal rules on an online website. 1) We have IAR so we don't need to abuse the rules. In this case, WP:OFFICE would have been even better. 2) Whether something endangers lives is often not a black and white decision (especially if it was reported in an Afghan newspaper, which reduces it from "will endanger lives" to "might endanger lives"). We would not give similar consideration to non-well-connected Wikipedians who think something should be left out of an article because it endangers lives, especially if it was reported in a newspaper (in which case the person wanting to remove it will be told that Wikipedia is not censored and that we couldn't possibly hurt someone by publishing something that's already in a newspaper). In fact there have been cases in the past where the Times or other newspapers have been accused of endangering lives *by* releasing information. For instance, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1 . I've never heard of Wikipedia not using the information in such cases. (Of course, you could argue that since the name is already out, Wikipedia can't cause any further harm, but the same could be said about something being reported in an Afghan news source.) 3) Abusing the rules this way makes it hard to trust Jimbo, administrators, and anyone else with authority in future disputes. ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur in the area. Risker 2009/6/29 David Goodman > would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped > who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations? > > preventing harm is the argument of all censors > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > >> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be > >> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > >> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find > some way > >> > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. > And that > >> > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure > news > >> > agencies were reliable. > >> Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area > >> (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is > >> frankly beyond me. > > > > Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the > information, > > it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by > abusing > > the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If > > you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have > > placed in the system. > > > > > > ___ > > 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] News agencies are not RSs
would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations? preventing harm is the argument of all censors David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be >> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely >> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way >> > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And >> > that >> > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news >> > agencies were reliable. >> Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area >> (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is >> frankly beyond me. > > Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information, > it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by abusing > the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If > you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have > placed in the system. > > > ___ > 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be > > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way > > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that > > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news > > agencies were reliable. > Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area > (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is > frankly beyond me. Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information, it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by abusing the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system. ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : >> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : >>> >>> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. >>> >>> Fred >> >> An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total >> war situation. >> -- >> geni >> > > It's not a big war, but we certainly are "at war" with the kidnappers. > > Fred So? Total war and what is going on in Afghanistan are not comparable to any useful extent and thus attempts to use examples from total war situations are not helpful. -- 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] News agencies are not RSs
> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : >> >> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. >> >> Fred > > An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total > war situation. > -- > geni > It's not a big war, but we certainly are "at war" with the kidnappers. 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : > > Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. > > Fred An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total war situation. -- 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Sage Ross : > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, wrote: >> Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his >> life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in >> the first place? >> > > It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken > notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the > kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic > value if executed). > > -Sage (User:Ragesoss) We are not the western media and that page gets under 500 views a month. -- 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] News agencies are not RSs
> In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes: > > >> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken >> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the >> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic >> value if executed).>> >> > > -- > > So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other > information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would > report it, if > they had a reliable source from which to do so. > > Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information > outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger > someone's > life". I'm not talking about outing secret agents here. > > Will > Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, wrote: > > So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other > information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report > it, if > they had a reliable source from which to do so. No. In fact, the New York Times contacted a wide range of mainstream media organizations (NPR, other national papers, etc.) to coordinate the media blackout. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105775059 -Sage ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 > In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes: > > > > It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken > > notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the > > kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic > > value if executed).>> > > > > -- > > So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other > information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would > report it, if > they had a reliable source from which to do so. > > Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information > outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger > someone's > life". I'm not talking about outing secret agents here. > > Will > > > > The reporter's kidnapping was well known amongst the Western media, but was deliberately not reported, often at the request of the New York Times. Similar situations have happened involving Canadian reporters and members of NGOs who have been kidnapped; there is usually no report until they are either released, escaped from captivity, or executed. In almost every case, the news media has been well aware of the situation and has a report ready to run once safety/death is confirmed. Risker ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for twice as long. Smart thinking. Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it. Has.. that.. ever... worked... before? No it hasn't. Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes: > It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken > notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the > kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic > value if executed).>> > -- So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report it, if they had a reliable source from which to do so. Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger someone's life". I'm not talking about outing secret agents here. Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 > Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his > life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in > the first place? > > Will > > > It would raise the price of his release. It would encourage deeper digging into his background, which could make him appear to be more of an "infidel" and thus less worthy of basic human dignity, potentially subjected to greater physical and mental privations. (Kidnappees who are considered to be aligned with other nemeses are treated more harshly.) It would increase the danger to those who were kidnapped with him, if they were perceived to have been working for an infidel, and he and his fellow kidnappees would be more likely to be executed as "examples" to others. Risker ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, wrote: > Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his > life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in > the first place? > It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed). -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place? Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 74
> > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:03:33 +0100 > From: Sam Blacketer > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs > To: English Wikipedia > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni wrote: > > > 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen : > > > ?We were really helped by the fact that it hadn?t appeared in a place > > > we would regard as a reliable source,? he said. ?I would have had a > > > really hard time with it if it had.?" > > > ... > > > > The question is though is is > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a > > reliable source? > > > What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian > Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. > > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And > that > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news > agencies were reliable. > > -- > Sam Blacketer > Thank god common sense won out over the egotism of those who insist they must know everything as soon as it happens, and also to tell everyone in every forum possible. It would be utterly absurd to even take the self-centered whining regarding censorship seriously. Waiting several months for the conclusion of the incident in no way harmed WP. It really doesn't matter what policy administrators used to keep it quiet, or even if they abused the rules. The information had a very real probability of affecting whether a man lived or died, so that takes obvious precedence over internal rules on an online website. Sxeptomaniac ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : > When someone's life is at stake, Ignore all rules actually kicks in. The government of Iran has made it fairly clear that further protests carry the risks of further deaths. It's also fairly clear that the protests in part at least are aimed at gaining western media coverage. If they fail at that they are likely to stop more quickly. Should we remove our content on the Iranian elections? After all lives are at stake. -- 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] News agencies are not RSs
> 2009/6/29 geni : > >> Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical. > > > There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing > so. > > > - d. > Yes, but now we should definitely take another look. Most likely it's a reasonably good source, just not in the Western news loop the New York Times is depending on. I'm proud to have Wikipedia in that loop, when appropriate. That doesn't mean that when The New York Times goes to the White House and gets orders to cover up some pernicious US plot that we should obey, assuming we have any way of knowing. We did not seem to be able to sort out the truth about Iraq. Hard to do so when you can almost always rely on the New York Times. 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] News agencies are not RSs
> Sam Blacketer wrote: >> This case is more about basic common sense... > > Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case) > The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other > major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain > fact out of the media for N months. And can this still be done > when one of the other media outlets has 1,000,000 cats as editors, > who actively resist herding, and especially when someone's trying > to suppress some information that "wants to be free". > When someone's life is at stake, Ignore all rules actually kicks in. I have no problem whatever with what the Times or Jimbo did. 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] News agencies are not RSs
Sam Blacketer wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni wrote: > > >> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen : >> >>> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place >>> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a >>> really hard time with it if it had.”" >>> ... >>> >> The question is though is is >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a >> reliable source? >> > > > What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian > Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. > > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news > agencies were reliable. > > Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is frankly beyond me. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ 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] Wikimedia in the UK
What Wikimedia events or activities would you like to see take place in the UK? We're currently trying to pull together ideas for "initiatives" that Wikimedia UK can support, at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives/Proposals There have been lots of ideas posted at: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives/Ideas which need fleshing out before they can be taken forward. We've also got a list of things that we've already supported at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives We're having an open IRC meeting to discuss possible initiatives, which will take place this coming Tuesday, the 30th June 2009, at 8.30PM BST (19:30 GMT), in #wikimedia-uk on irc.freenode.net . For more information, and to say that you'll be coming, please visit: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/Discussions/Initiatives Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is set up as a membership-run non-profit UK company limited by guarantee. To find out more information, to join or to donate, please visit our website at http://uk.wikimedia.org/ . Thanks, Mike Peel Chair, Wikimedia UK - http://uk.wikimedia.org/ 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] News agencies are not RSs
geni wrote: > 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen : > >> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place >> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a >> really hard time with it if it had.”" >> ... >> > > The question is though is is > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a > reliable source? > > > > If it isn't perhaps it should be removed from the four other articles that use it as a source. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
Sam Blacketer wrote: > This case is more about basic common sense... Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case) The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain fact out of the media for N months. And can this still be done when one of the other media outlets has 1,000,000 cats as editors, who actively resist herding, and especially when someone's trying to suppress some information that "wants to be free". ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 geni : > Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical. There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing so. - 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] Wikipedia Statistics
Thank you, Thomas!
--muhamamad
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Muhammad Abdul-Mageed {محمد عبدالمجيد} :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am writing up an academic paper on Wikipedia and need to include some
> > statistics in the background section about the encyclopedia. What I am
> > looking for includes, *but is not limited to*:
> >
> > 1. The number of articles in English and the following hugest 3 or 4
> > language versions,
> > 2. The number of unique users, say in June 2009
> > 3. The number of editors in English and perhaps some other versions.
> >
> > I have made some search and found that the "Wikipedia statistics" page (
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/), for example, provides some of this
> > information. But I thought some of the people in the list will probably
> have
> > related good advice as well.
>
> Most statistics pages are linked to here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AStatistics
>
> In particular, the sizes of the various languages are here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics
>
> ___
> 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer : > This case is more about basic common sense. I'm not interested in the collection of prejudices you acquired by the age of 18. They are a poor substitute for logic, evidence and reason. > If someone's life may be > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news > agencies were reliable. If editors were not concerned with the reliability of the news agency they should just cite BLP on the basis that it's pretty much impossible to show that any given edit doesn't violate it and the side effects of rule lawyering with it are likely to be more limited. Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical. -- 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen : > > “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place > > we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a > > really hard time with it if it had.”" > > ... > > The question is though is is > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a > reliable source? What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen : > “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place > we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a > really hard time with it if it had.”" > ... The question is though is is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a reliable source? -- 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] News agencies are not RSs
'Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia' http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html "A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia’s page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping." ... "The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times. In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia’s cooperation was not a given. “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.”" ... "The Wikipedia page history shows that the next day, Nov. 13, someone without a user name edited the entry on Mr. Rohde for the first time to include the kidnapping. Mr. Moss deleted the addition, and the same unidentified user promptly restored it, adding a note protesting the removal. The unnamed editor cited an Afghan news agency report. In the first few days, at least two small news agencies and a handful of blogs reported the kidnapping. " ... " When the news broke Saturday, the user from Florida reposted the information, with a note to administrators that said: “Is that enough proof for you [expletives]? I was right. You were WRONG.”" -- gwern ___ 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] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
2009/6/29 David Gerard : > 2009/6/29 geni : >> 2009/6/29 David Gerard : > >>> I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when >>> several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK >>> PHOTOS just give credit and licence. > >> Only if you consider CC-BY-SA to be weak copyleft. > > > Do let us know how taking them to court for using your stuff works out. In the UK the case would be extremely unlikely to ever reach court. Due to the way copyright is treated by UK courts unless you are very sure of you case it's almost always cheaper to throw say £50-100 at the person then never use their work again. In practice you can argue it either way. The critical line of the license is: "Each constituting separate and independent works in themselves" So I suspect it would be fairly easy to defend say a random sports pic as long as you CCed the caption but if the pic is referred to within the article it is a bit hard to see how the article would count as an independent work -- 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] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
2009/6/29 geni : > 2009/6/29 David Gerard : >> I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when >> several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK >> PHOTOS just give credit and licence. > Only if you consider CC-BY-SA to be weak copyleft. Do let us know how taking them to court for using your stuff works out. - 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] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
2009/6/29 David Gerard : > 2009/6/28 Andrew Turvey : > >> Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should >> complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights? > > > I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when > several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK > PHOTOS just give credit and licence. Only if you consider CC-BY-SA to be weak copyleft. -- 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] Using english-Wikipedia XML dump
You might want to ask in the technical forum. Hopefully someone can point you that way, or answer your question here. Carcharoth On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:24 PM, akhil1988 wrote: > > Hi All! > > Here's a newbie to this forum. > > I am looking for some references to help me use Wikipedia XML dump. > > Here's what I have to do with the XML dump: > > I will set up a server on which people can browse Wikipedia articles and > also a processed version of the corresponding Wikipedia article. By > processed version means a wikipedia article with some additional information > with each line. eg > > A line in a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago) goes > as: > > Chicago (pronounced /ʃɨˈkɑːɡoʊ/ or /ʃɨˈkɔːɡoʊ/) is the largest city in the > U.S. state of Illinois, and with over 2.8 million people is the third > largest city in the country. > > My processed version of wikipedia page would be like this: > > Chicago (pronounced /ʃɨˈkɑːɡoʊ/ or /ʃɨˈkɔːɡoʊ/) is the largest city in the > U.S. state of Illinois, and with over 2.8 million people is the third > largest city in the country. > > Dont bother about "Some additional information about this line". This is > some NLP (natural Language Processing) stuff which processes the line and > generates some additional information about the line. > > So, if somebody wants to access the processed version of any Wikipedia > article, he can go to: http://myserver/wiki/processed_Chicago > > I hope I am clear what I intend to do with the wikipedia XML dump. > > For this I need to know the following things: > > 1. How should I extract articles from the XML dump, process them by > extracting plain text from them and then insert the processed page back line > by line at the same place in the XML article as before along with the > additional information that will be generated by the NLP stuff. > In this whole process, I want to maintain the look of the wikipedia page as > the original version. > > 2. How to render a wikipedia page from the XML dump just like as we see in > the online version of the Wikipedia. > > 3. XML dump does not have images in it, so how will I render images when a > page on my server is accessed. > > Any references or ideas in this regard will be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > Akhil > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Using-english-Wikipedia-XML-dump-tp24236727p24236727.html > Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.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 > ___ 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] Using english-Wikipedia XML dump
Hi All! Here's a newbie to this forum. I am looking for some references to help me use Wikipedia XML dump. Here's what I have to do with the XML dump: I will set up a server on which people can browse Wikipedia articles and also a processed version of the corresponding Wikipedia article. By processed version means a wikipedia article with some additional information with each line. eg A line in a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago) goes as: Chicago (pronounced /ʃɨˈkɑːɡoʊ/ or /ʃɨˈkɔːɡoʊ/) is the largest city in the U.S. state of Illinois, and with over 2.8 million people is the third largest city in the country. My processed version of wikipedia page would be like this: Chicago (pronounced /ʃɨˈkɑːɡoʊ/ or /ʃɨˈkɔːɡoʊ/) is the largest city in the U.S. state of Illinois, and with over 2.8 million people is the third largest city in the country. Dont bother about "Some additional information about this line". This is some NLP (natural Language Processing) stuff which processes the line and generates some additional information about the line. So, if somebody wants to access the processed version of any Wikipedia article, he can go to: http://myserver/wiki/processed_Chicago I hope I am clear what I intend to do with the wikipedia XML dump. For this I need to know the following things: 1. How should I extract articles from the XML dump, process them by extracting plain text from them and then insert the processed page back line by line at the same place in the XML article as before along with the additional information that will be generated by the NLP stuff. In this whole process, I want to maintain the look of the wikipedia page as the original version. 2. How to render a wikipedia page from the XML dump just like as we see in the online version of the Wikipedia. 3. XML dump does not have images in it, so how will I render images when a page on my server is accessed. Any references or ideas in this regard will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Akhil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Using-english-Wikipedia-XML-dump-tp24236727p24236727.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.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] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
2009/6/28 Andrew Turvey : > Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should > complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights? I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK PHOTOS just give credit and licence. - 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
