[WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free online newspapers funded by advertising doesn't seem to be brining in the bucks, there is much discussion in the media as to whether online newspapers will start charging their customers. It's just this second struck me that this could have dire consequences for Wikipedia. Presumably we have millions of citations that point to online newspaper content. If they decide to put their archives behind a pay wall, what's going to happen to those citations? Are we going to say that we accept that people will have to pay if they now wish to verify a statement? Or are we going to have to a) laboriously re-reference everything and b) lose a great deal of content that we've been unable to find alternative citations for? Arguably I'm jumping the gun here. But it may be worth discussing in advance as I reckon this issue isn't going to go away. Does anyone think I should post this to the 'Foundation' mailing list too? ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of print. I don't see the problem. On 07/08/2009, Bod Notbod wrote: > This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television > news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free > online newspapers funded by advertising doesn't seem to be brining in > the bucks, there is much discussion in the media as to whether online > newspapers will start charging their customers. > > It's just this second struck me that this could have dire consequences > for Wikipedia. Presumably we have millions of citations that point to > online newspaper content. If they decide to put their archives behind > a pay wall, what's going to happen to those citations? Are we going to > say that we accept that people will have to pay if they now wish to > verify a statement? Or are we going to have to a) laboriously > re-reference everything and b) lose a great deal of content that we've > been unable to find alternative citations for? > > Arguably I'm jumping the gun here. But it may be worth discussing in > advance as I reckon this issue isn't going to go away. > > Does anyone think I should post this to the 'Foundation' mailing list too? > > ___ > 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:40 AM, michael west wrote: > We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of > print. I don't see the problem. I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's valid but I'll throw it out there. Where a book (possibly out of print) is cited we should be giving details of Title, Author, ISBN and possibly Edition. With newspaper links we should be giving Newspaper, Journalist, Access Date... I'm wondering if, if newspaper content goes behind a pay wall, we would really have to be giving citation information that pertains to the actual printed copy of the article, ie, Newspaper, Print Date and Page Number? Also, though you don't see a problem and are comfortable with how you would handle this development I wonder how you can be sure how editors (particularly anon and policy ignorant editors) will respond to this new turn of events. People will have an entirely reasonable expectation that if they click on a citation link that they will, indeed, be taken to a page that backs up any given assertion (and not a registration screen). If that doesn't happen they may respond by removing the link and the content it was supposed to verify. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
> This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television > news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free > online newspapers funded by advertising doesn't seem to be brining in > the bucks, there is much discussion in the media as to whether online > newspapers will start charging their customers. > > It's just this second struck me that this could have dire consequences > for Wikipedia. Presumably we have millions of citations that point to > online newspaper content. If they decide to put their archives behind > a pay wall, what's going to happen to those citations? Are we going to > say that we accept that people will have to pay if they now wish to > verify a statement? Or are we going to have to a) laboriously > re-reference everything and b) lose a great deal of content that we've > been unable to find alternative citations for? > > Arguably I'm jumping the gun here. But it may be worth discussing in > advance as I reckon this issue isn't going to go away. > > Does anyone think I should post this to the 'Foundation' mailing list > too? > All that is required is a reliable source, properly cited; not a free source. Whatever happens to the newspaper business, there will be mass distribution of the information they generate; otherwise, the new, viable business plan would not work. 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
2009/8/7 Bod Notbod : > I'm wondering if, if newspaper content goes behind a pay wall, we > would really have to be giving citation information that pertains to > the actual printed copy of the article, ie, Newspaper, Print Date and > Page Number? We should really be giving publication date (which usually equates to print date, if only because the newspapers fudge it accordingly) anyway, so this shouldn't be too much of a problem. If someone's quoting news stories without saying where they're from, hit them. ;-) > Also, though you don't see a problem and are comfortable with how you > would handle this development I wonder how you can be sure how editors > (particularly anon and policy ignorant editors) will respond to this > new turn of events. People will have an entirely reasonable > expectation that if they click on a citation link that they will, > indeed, be taken to a page that backs up any given assertion (and not > a registration screen). If that doesn't happen they may respond by > removing the link and the content it was supposed to verify. It's interesting to note that we don't tend to find this with scholarly sources - I don't think I've ever noticed anyone removing JSTOR links or the like because "I can't see them", whilst people *will* happily remove links to commercially locked news stories. I think the expectation there is that we are used to one being restricted-access, but we expect the other to be accessible, so if it's not we assume something's wrong or it ought to be replaceable. If news goes routinely to paid-access, well, we'll change our expectations accordingly! More broadly, there's a good side and a bad side to this. The bad side, yes, a lot of our existing references will break, and it'll be a bit harder to write good, robustly cited, articles in the future. On the plus side, it might help wean us off an over-reliance on news stories and (often slapdash) journalism as our preferred sources, and that's got to be beneficial. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Emily Monroe wrote:
> Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something
> we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary
> history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to
> avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more
> attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get
> attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation,
> peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not
> write Wikipedia articles.
{{citation needed}}
I could equally argue the opposite. I could argue that many Wikipedia
articles, especially BLPs are written by *fans* or supporters of the
person in question and that this may tend towards hagiography. But I
have no citations for my claim either.
The community also seems to have decided that criticism *sections* are
undesirable and that criticism should be spread throughout an article.
I agree with this as an ideal. But I think a criticism section is
quite useful in the earlier stages of an article's development simply
because, when an article is still being built, it is easier to
compartmentalise areas for ease of adding new facts. But, y'know, I
guess that argument's already been had at some stage, so I'm not about
to try and overthrow consensus.
___
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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: More broadly, there's a good side and a bad side to this. The bad side, yes, a lot of our existing references will break, and it'll be a bit harder to write good, robustly cited, articles in the future. On the plus side, it might help wean us off an over-reliance on news stories and (often slapdash) journalism as our preferred sources, and that's got to be beneficial. What worries me on the topic is that as newspapers shift to online content - content which is *not* mirrored in the dead-tree version (this is increasingly common eg. I read that the Wall Street Journal does this now) - their pages become less and less reliably accessible. For example, it wasn't that long ago that the NYT merged with another paper and broke all the links, and those missing articles (referenced by Wikipedia articles) couldn't be refound in the NYT website. If the original paper's domain blocked WebCitation and Internet Archive with robots.txt (as is very likely), then any of those articles which were online only are basically *gone*. The set of newspapers that block caching/archiving of their webpages is large; as is the set that is moving online; we can also expect the set of newspapers that will fail or merge in coming years to be large as well. The union of these 3 sets is, I think, nonzero. And that is a problem our conventional solutions (treat it as a print-ref; use an archived copy) don't address. I don't really have a solution, but I can predict that editors will continue to use them at their convenience, and that our articles will be damaged by those references' link-rot. (A pity that the big archivers are so damn ethical!) -- gwern signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia was founded for OR
http://business.in.com/column/zen-garden/daddy-has-kira-to-thank/812/0 'Daddy has Kira to Thank: The world's most democratic storehouse of knowledge really began in a one-room school in Alabama; it took shape in a little girl's hospital bed' "I decide to ask him that one question: Tell us about something deeply personal that helped you shape your world view, that has made Wikipedia what it is. A few seconds of silence follow. Then, slowly, he recollects how as a child in Huntsville, Alabama, he was home-schooled until his eighth grade. His mother and grandmother ran a one-room school at home where there were four other children. They ran classes for children of different grades all in the same room. So a child could opt to learn whatever — it was not driven by a system, but by a child’s quest to know. And of course, the place was full of encyclopedias of all kinds. So, as a child, Wales built affection for the idea of encyclopedias. That was the root! A few more seconds of silence follow. Then Wales clears his throat and says, “I have never told this before, but there is something else deeply personal that impacted me. My daughter Kira, suffered from a rare condition from birth that would have eventually killed her. She was a newborn baby with very rare lung incapacity with no known cure. A certain doctor in San Diego had found an untested cure that seemed to work on at least some children. But its outcome was not conclusively proven. So, parents who took their children had to make a call. The procedure required the child to be paralysed for a few moments and it was repeated a number of times before the child’s lungs began to function normally again. Left with no other options, we agreed to give it a try. We watched as four times she was turned upside down, her entire system stopped and the lungs cleaned. At the end of it, she breathed and, thank God, has become perfectly normal.” ... He wipes it off and begins haltingly. “At the end of the procedure, I realized how precious the doctor’s knowledge was. It occurred to me that no one other than this doctor would ever know about this whole thing. There had to be a way”. And that is how Wikipedia came about. First as Nupedia, that went nowhere. For three years, it struggled with the concept of a free, Internet-based encyclopedia with expert review of content, before Wales turned the idea on its head, leaving the choice of editing content to anyone who was willing to. As one looks back, it isn’t the story of a young dot-commer who raised venture capital money at eyepopping valuations to become yet another private-jet owner." I'm a little skeptical that this is any of the real reasons, given the fallibility of human memory, and never seeing anything like this mentioned in materials from the early days - but this would be a great reason, because this doctor is not described as publishing in an RS, so his knowledge is OR! (Bwa ha ha ha. This is almost as good as those Afghan news agencies not being RSs.) -- gwern signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Bod Notbod wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:40 AM, michael west wrote: > > >> We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of >> print. I don't see the problem. >> > > I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's > valid but I'll throw it out there. > > Where a book (possibly out of print) is cited we should be giving > details of Title, Author, ISBN and possibly Edition. > > With newspaper links we should be giving Newspaper, Journalist, Access Date... > > I'm wondering if, if newspaper content goes behind a pay wall, we > would really have to be giving citation information that pertains to > the actual printed copy of the article, ie, Newspaper, Print Date and > Page Number? > > Also, though you don't see a problem and are comfortable with how you > would handle this development I wonder how you can be sure how editors > (particularly anon and policy ignorant editors) will respond to this > new turn of events. People will have an entirely reasonable > expectation that if they click on a citation link that they will, > indeed, be taken to a page that backs up any given assertion (and not > a registration screen). If that doesn't happen they may respond by > removing the link and the content it was supposed to verify. > Well, removing a reference that supports a fact in an article, without providing a better reference instead, is quite a serious offence in our terms. Note the tension between "you can edit this page right now", which is part of the credo, and "you can verify this fact right now", which isn't and never has been, however much some people have muddied the water on verifiability. The obvious solution is the one I would normally apply where possible: reference in parallel to a paper source and and online source, even if the best online source is inferior to the best paper source (which is typical in academic areas). So online free sources and online subscription sources, within reason, should co-exist. "Within reason" implies this is mainstream information, nothing very private. We can actually expect some sort of shake-out if newspaper journalism becomes more subscription-led, where public libraries subscribe to certain important and reliable newspapers. 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Note the tension between "you can edit this page right now", > which is part of the credo, and "you can verify this fact right now", > which isn't... ...unless it's a BLP, right? ___ 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 was founded for OR
gwe...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm a little skeptical that this is any of the real reasons, given the > fallibility of human memory, and never seeing anything like this > mentioned in materials from the early days - but this would be a great > reason, because this doctor is not described as publishing in an RS, > so his knowledge is OR! The story about Kira fills in something Jimbo mentioned before, though. I gave up a while ago on thinking the early history of WP was something a historian could completely elucidate. This story adds another layer to the question of the motivations of one of the principal actors (something the historians will eventually have to deal with). 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Bod Notbod wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles > Matthews wrote: > > >> Note the tension between "you can edit this page right now", >> which is part of the credo, and "you can verify this fact right now", >> which isn't... >> > > ...unless it's a BLP, right? > > You say that why? There isn't a different definition of verifiability on BLPs, as far as I know. There is a higher degree of attention to all aspects of policy in relation to BLPs. Seems to fit as "difference of degree, not difference of kind". Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] UNICEF: State of World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2009
Hoi, I think this is relevant and of interest to us all... Thanks, GerardM Report and related press release of interest... The Minority Rights Group International (MRG) in collaboration with UNICEF has recently released their "State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2009," which includes a full chapter on Multilingual Education. Links to the report: http://www.minorityrights.org/7948/state-of-the-worlds-minorities/state-of-the-worlds-minorities-and-indigenous-peoples-2009.html#links_and_downloads A press release focusing on Language: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47693 EDUCATION: Mother Tongue Absent in Thousands of Classrooms by Haider Rizvi Article: Indigenous Languages: A View from UNICEF http://www.minorityrights.org/download.php?id=664 ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: >>> Note the tension between "you can edit this page right now", >>> which is part of the credo, and "you can verify this fact right now", >>> which isn't... >>> >> >> ...unless it's a BLP, right? >> >> > You say that why? There isn't a different definition of verifiability on > BLPs, as far as I know. There is a higher degree of attention to all > aspects of policy in relation to BLPs. Seems to fit as "difference of > degree, not difference of kind". Looks like you're right. You know there's a bit of text that appears when you're in editing mode between the edit window and the 'submit' button? I seemed to remember that it said something different when you edit a BLP than when you edit say 'donkey' or 'saucer'. But it doesn't. Don't know where I got that idea from. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Good idea though! What does eeryone think of writing a special Editnotice for BLP articles? More effective possibly than the talkpage notice. I can speak from experience, however, that some will still ignore. However, every little bit helps, yes? I am not speaking of writing policy there, mind you, merely a little notice to be aware. -kc- - Original Message - From: "Bod Notbod" To: ; "English Wikipedia" Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model > > Looks like you're right. You know there's a bit of text that appears > when you're in editing mode between the edit window and the 'submit' > button? I seemed to remember that it said something different when you > edit a BLP than when you edit say 'donkey' or 'saucer'. But it > doesn't. Don't know where I got that idea from. > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2287 - Release Date: 08/07/09 06:22:00 ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:40 AM, michael west wrote: > > > We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of > > print. I don't see the problem. > > I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's > valid but I'll throw it out there. > > Where a book (possibly out of print) is cited we should be giving > details of Title, Author, ISBN and possibly Edition. > > With newspaper links we should be giving Newspaper, Journalist, Access > Date... > > I'm wondering if, if newspaper content goes behind a pay wall, we > would really have to be giving citation information that pertains to > the actual printed copy of the article, ie, Newspaper, Print Date and > Page Number? > Thing is, I expect most people don't keep newspapers, but people do have plenty of books, easily accessible in libraries and in their homes (and easy to buy). I don't know the case for other people, but in my "local" library old local newspapers are kept on microfilm, which makes accessing them really tedious, especially if you don't know when whatever you're looking for occurred. At least books are generally easily accessible. Newspapers more often than not are chucked away by most people, which makes citing them difficult if News Corp does this and other news sites follow suit. -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Al Tally wrote: > Thing is, I expect most people don't keep newspapers, but people do have > plenty of books, easily accessible in libraries and in their homes (and easy > to buy). I don't know the case for other people, but in my "local" library > old local newspapers are kept on microfilm, which makes accessing them > really tedious, especially if you don't know when whatever you're looking > for occurred. At least books are generally easily accessible. Newspapers > more often than not are chucked away by most people, which makes citing them > difficult if News Corp does this and other news sites follow suit. Is it possible that part of the reason people chuck newspapers away and keep books is because they think books are (in general) more reliable? Or to put it another way, newspapers are transient, and books are more permanent. Some stuff in newspapers is really horribly unreliable. Books as well. But the best books are nearly always better than newspapers. Even if a book is written based in part on newspaper reports, it should go beyond that and establish firmer reliability and more research into whatever is being written about. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
> I can speak from experience, however, that some will still ignore.
> However, every little bit helps, yes?
I agree, every bit helps.
As for ignoring issue: I have a (somewhat badly formatted) edit notice
telling people to please use the {{talkback}} temp, and sign/date
their message. I finally put a message behind my user name telling
people to use the {{talkback}} temp, since I suspected some people
weren't even looking at my talk page, never mind edit it, and new
people still don't sign their message. *sigh* Any solution for BLPs?
Emily
On Aug 7, 2009, at 9:52 AM, KillerChihuahua wrote:
> Good idea though! What does eeryone think of writing a special
> Editnotice
> for BLP articles? More effective possibly than the talkpage notice.
>
> I can speak from experience, however, that some will still ignore.
> However,
> every little bit helps, yes?
>
> I am not speaking of writing policy there, mind you, merely a little
> notice
> to be aware.
>
> -kc-
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bod Notbod"
> To: ; "English Wikipedia"
>
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription
> Model
>
>>
>> Looks like you're right. You know there's a bit of text that appears
>> when you're in editing mode between the edit window and the 'submit'
>> button? I seemed to remember that it said something different when
>> you
>> edit a BLP than when you edit say 'donkey' or 'saucer'. But it
>> doesn't. Don't know where I got that idea from.
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2287 - Release Date:
> 08/07/09
> 06:22:00
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia was founded for OR
Skepticism rears it's ugly head. Are we, as internet sleuths given enough information here to *find* the name of the doctor, the name of the condition? If we are not, or if a generic-type search for rare lung condition with unproven treatment... or whatever fails to find anything useful I'm like that, hard-hearted, suspicious, cynical, etc. By the way what is a "rare" lung capacity. I think what he must mean is a rare condition which causes diminished lung capacity. Turn up the name of the doctor, and I will turn up some publication mentioning his treatment. Will Johnson In a message dated 8/7/2009 4:47:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gwe...@gmail.com writes: I'm a little skeptical that this is any of the real reasons, given the fallibility of human memory, and never seeing anything like this mentioned in materials from the early days - but this would be a great reason, because this doctor is not described as publishing in an RS, so his knowledge is OR! (Bwa ha ha ha. This is almost as good as those Afghan news agencies not being RSs.) ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Al Tally wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > >> I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's >> valid but I'll throw it out there. >> >> Where a book (possibly out of print) is cited we should be giving >> details of Title, Author, ISBN and possibly Edition. >> >> With newspaper links we should be giving Newspaper, Journalist, Access >> Date... >> >> I'm wondering if, if newspaper content goes behind a pay wall, we >> would really have to be giving citation information that pertains to >> the actual printed copy of the article, ie, Newspaper, Print Date and >> Page Number? >> > > Thing is, I expect most people don't keep newspapers, but people do have > plenty of books, easily accessible in libraries and in their homes (and easy > to buy). I don't know the case for other people, but in my "local" library > old local newspapers are kept on microfilm, which makes accessing them > really tedious, especially if you don't know when whatever you're looking > for occurred. At least books are generally easily accessible. Newspapers > more often than not are chucked away by most people, which makes citing them > difficult if News Corp does this and other news sites follow suit. > > There are plenty of reasons for throwing out old newspapers. # The most significant element in their content is the ads. # It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the ceiling. # They are printed on inferior paper, and turn yellow in a week. # They are a fire hazard. 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ray Saintonge wrote: > # It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the > ceiling. You've tested this? :-) - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkp8cYQACgkQyQg4JSymDYlLXACcDvZC5HAWOsGunIyYaxucUxJB e34An0OJGXgtyMaKXf1jDNC980f6R2bv =WGUb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Carcharoth wrote: > Some stuff in newspapers is really horribly > unreliable. Books as well. But the best books are nearly always better > than newspapers. Even if a book is written based in part on newspaper > reports, it should go beyond that and establish firmer reliability and > more research into whatever is being written about. Newspapers (especially local ones) remain most useful and reliable on things that don't get into books. They are often information that is not controversial at all. Obituaries, for example, may be the only way to establish that an author has died when we are researching the copyright status of his works. Sometimes local circumstances about a national issue are completely ignored by the wider circulation press. Newspapers can more easily distort information they receive from press services. This can be done quite innocently as a style improvement that changes the meaning of the 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ray Saintonge wrote: >> # It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the >> ceiling. > You've tested this? :-) > > - -- > Cary Bass > Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation I have, and God bless people that save old newspapers, but you better have a pretty big building if you're going to go into that business. 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Gwern Branwen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: >> More broadly, there's a good side and a bad side to this. The bad >> side, yes, a lot of our existing references will break, and it'll be a >> bit harder to write good, robustly cited, articles in the future. On >> the plus side, it might help wean us off an over-reliance on news >> stories and (often slapdash) journalism as our preferred sources, and >> that's got to be beneficial. > What worries me on the topic is that as newspapers shift to online > content - content which is *not* mirrored in the dead-tree version > (this is increasingly common eg. I read that the Wall Street Journal > does this now) - their pages become less and less reliably accessible. > For example, it wasn't that long ago that the NYT merged with another > paper and broke all the links, and those missing articles (referenced > by Wikipedia articles) couldn't be refound in the NYT website. If the > original paper's domain blocked WebCitation and Internet Archive with > robots.txt (as is very likely), then any of those articles which were > online only are basically *gone*. > > The set of newspapers that block caching/archiving of their webpages > is large; as is the set that is moving online; we can also expect the > set of newspapers that will fail or merge in coming years to be large > as well. The union of these 3 sets is, I think, nonzero. > And that is a problem our conventional solutions (treat it as a > print-ref; use an archived copy) don't address. I don't really have a > solution, but I can predict that editors will continue to use them at > their convenience, and that our articles will be damaged by those > references' link-rot. > > (A pity that the big archivers are so damn ethical!) I don't think that Murdoch's proposal is viable in the long run. Who will be wanting to pay for so much ephemeral material. What would it say of readers who bind themselves to one site because that is all they can afford only one subscription? How are they to know that they are not being told about alternative perspectives on the same story? I think that the entire news reporting industry is in deep trouble, and that citizen journalism and crowdsourcing have not yet built up the strength and credibility to pick up the slack. 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > I don't think that Murdoch's proposal is viable in the long run. Who > will be wanting to pay for so much ephemeral material. What would it > say of readers who bind themselves to one site because that is all they > can afford only one subscription? Although, bearing in mind this is News International, Murdoch owns enough papers that 'one' subscription may allow access to many sites, if he so chose. Latest news I've heard is that Murdoch might test this out, to begin with, on the UK's Sunday Times. Savvy media types have made the point that the payment system will have to be real slick to succeed. It will have to be a one click payment after registration. Sounds feasible to me. I think I'd be OK lobbing in 10p (16c) for certain things. Another commentator said it was weird of Murdoch to announce his strategic intentions ahead of actually doing them. They have suggested this is because he wouldn't want to go alone on this, so is trying to get the debate going and hopes that other news organisations follow. It's an issue. The UK's oldest Sunday newspaper, The Observer, has been described as on the verge of collapse these last few days. ___ 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] In development--BLP task force
Interesting examples. For both O.J. and Phil I would assume we can create fairly complete biographies using appropriate souces. I am doubtful that we could really make a "biography" for Gary Glitter without a lot of unacceptable sources being used, or a too full reliance on a single source. Will In a message dated 8/7/2009 12:17:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk writes: As you say, Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples. When it comes, for example, to [[O J Simpson]], it becomes more moot, although I could suggest others, such as [[Gary Glitter]] and [[Phil Spector]]. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
If these things come to pass, it can reasonably be expected that almost all libraries in the developed world will subscribe to such newspapers as the WSJ and the NYT, and make them available online to library members in their communities. This will of course require first, knowing about this, and second, getting a library card. At present, many important resources are available this way that are not obtainable directly without charge, and people at Wikipedia often do not know this, and complain about the difficulty of using them. (Unfortunately, many other important resources are available this way only from University libraries to their communities, or in public libraries only from within the main library building) We could easily establish some system to refer people to the appropriate ones; to some degree, we already do it for books. A much more serious problem is the availability of this material in the less-developed world, which includes a great many people who rely on the English Wikipedia--many of whom do not have practical access to any good library. For high-priced academic journals, many publishers now make them available free in the least-developed countries (on the principle that colleges there would never be able to afford their subscription prices, & they are thus losing no potential revenue). Unless such publishers as we are now considering do likewise--and they have less incentive to, for they would probably be able to sell some number of subscriptions almost anywhere--the world-wide availability of information will be severely restricted. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:52 AM, KillerChihuahua wrote: > Good idea though! What does eeryone think of writing a special Editnotice > for BLP articles? More effective possibly than the talkpage notice. > > I can speak from experience, however, that some will still ignore. However, > every little bit helps, yes? > > I am not speaking of writing policy there, mind you, merely a little notice > to be aware. > > -kc- > > - Original Message - > From: "Bod Notbod" > To: ; "English Wikipedia" > > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:23 AM > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model > >> >> Looks like you're right. You know there's a bit of text that appears >> when you're in editing mode between the edit window and the 'submit' >> button? I seemed to remember that it said something different when you >> edit a BLP than when you edit say 'donkey' or 'saucer'. But it >> doesn't. Don't know where I got that idea from. >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2287 - Release Date: 08/07/09 > 06:22:00 > > > ___ > 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] In development--BLP task force
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, wrote: > Interesting examples. For both O.J. and Phil I would assume we can create > fairly complete biographies using appropriate souces. > I am doubtful that we could really make a "biography" for Gary Glitter > without a lot of unacceptable sources being used, or a too full reliance on a > single source. Heh. Why can OJ have a biography, Phil Spector have a biography but Gary Glitter would have a... "biography". Is it grammatically correct to use scare quotes when talking about paedophiles? :o) ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
2009/8/7 Bod Notbod : > Savvy media types have made the point that the payment system will > have to be real slick to succeed. It will have to be a one click > payment after registration. Sounds feasible to me. I think I'd be OK > lobbing in 10p (16c) for certain things. Another commentator said it > was weird of Murdoch to announce his strategic intentions ahead of > actually doing them. They have suggested this is because he wouldn't > want to go alone on this, so is trying to get the debate going and > hopes that other news organisations follow. Reuters to Murdoch and AP: "Go ahead and kill yourselves. Idiots.": http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/08/04/why-i-believe-in-the-link-economy/ - 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Just to address a point about collecting old newspapers (not new ones) and making those old yellowed decayed faded and spotted newspapers available online. Firstly, there is already a company which does this. That is, makes old newspapers available for viewing online. I use it all the time. Secondly, there is a new invention, created about 1912 or so, called "Microfilm". Old newspapers are routinely microfilmed and it's those films which are saved, not the actual paper. There really is no point in anyone saving old newspapers when a trip to the local library would suffice to look up any old article you can cite. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
I have access to a newspaper library through my library card, don't other Wikipedians have a similar access, or at least realise such things exist? This idea that newspapers will lose utility as a source if they go behind pay-walls is a non-starter as far as I can make out, because that would imply we stop spourcing from books that people can't readily access, which would rule out huge swathes of stuff. And anyone who removes a source because they can not access it wants shooting, you ask me. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Bod Notbod wrote: > It's an issue. The UK's oldest Sunday newspaper, The Observer, has > been described as on the verge of collapse these last few days. > I hadn't heard that. I thought The Observer was owned by the Guardian Media Group, and was therefore hitched closely to The Guardian's fortunes. I thought the paper in most serious threat of closure was The Indy. ___ 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] In development--BLP task force
Because I consider a biography to be an appropriate reduction of a person's life, while a "biography" is an inappropriate reduction focusing on one famous bit and a lot of silly or scandalous bits. That a person is a pedophile might be interesting to appropriately document in a biography, however it should not really be a focal point of a biography, which should cover all parts of a person's life not just the parts that got splashed across the Weekly World News. It is difficult to really create a biography without at least a substantial number of book citations. However anyone can create a "biography" by gleaning inappropriate citations to fan magazines, scandal sheets and blog postings. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Bod Notbod To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 1:04 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, wrote: > Interesting examples. For both O.J. and Phil I would assume we can create > fairly complete biographies using appropriate souces. > I am doubtful that we could really make a "biography" for Gary Glitter > without a lot of unacceptable sources being used, or a too full reliance on a > single source. Heh. Why can OJ have a biography, Phil Spector have a biography but Gary Glitter would have a... "biography". Is it gr ammatically correct to use scare quotes when talking about paedophiles? :o) ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
> I have access to a newspaper library through my library card, don't > other Wikipedians have a similar access, or at least realise such things > exist? This idea that newspapers will lose utility as a source if they > go behind pay-walls is a non-starter as far as I can make out, because > that would imply we stop spourcing from books that people can't readily > access, which would rule out huge swathes of stuff. And anyone who > removes a source because they can not access it wants shooting, you ask > me. Well, not shooting, but patient correction. 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
David Goodman wrote: > A much more serious problem is the availability of this material in > the less-developed world, which includes a great many people who rely > on the English Wikipedia--many of whom do not have practical access to > any good library. Quite. But then the traditional solution has been ... compile an encyclopedia (since the 17th century). The cream of scholarly info without all the underlying scholarship. The fact that we have extremes of scepticism, often driven by divisive or ideological or partisan starting points, should not eclipse the fact that _we_ offer a solution to the inequities of access to basic information. As they say, if not us, who? Those of us who have been around here a while have seen the ultra-verificationist perspective spread out from the most vexed areas to appear as a problem all over the 'pedia. (Not without justification.) But let's keep things the right way round: if we post the facts, and they are verifiable, and the verifying sources are behind subscription walls, the readers are still better off than without the info. 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
The flip side of the problem is, while in theory all information is verifiable, most citations are checked with a thoroughness and multiplicity of eyeballs in direct correlation to ease of access. If information becomes pay-only for major sources then false information or selective and misrepresented information become higher risks. The purposes of citations divide roughly into two overlapping needs - 1/ for people who do edit to verify stated content facts, 2/ for readers to find further information and (sometimes) to check content. While both these matter, a situation where cited content is accurate and easily checked by many editors but is not always available for free to readers, is viable. But a situation where other editors cannot easily check a large proportion of cites is not viable. Accordingly if news did become pay-only WMF may obtain some kind of subscription to major sources, accessible to a wide but well defined subset of editors (users with > 500 edits? users agreed by a community process to be suitable?). Universities and such can subscribe and allow students to use the information; the main concern of content providers is not to allow an open ended use by "anyone". We could, at a pinch, work within that and still have enough editors with access that way, to ensure content citing was not being badly abused. The idea of WMF subscribing and some range of users having access isn't new, but if this did arise then it might be time to revisit it. FT2 ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
The problem of lack of availability has been with us since the year 3000 BC. We can't solve every problem right away. That we can specify a citation stating that *if* you had a way to get the item, you could verify it, satisfies our policy requirement that an item is "published" (made available to the public). Satisfaction of the guideline (or discussion) issue that an item should be widely available, would come from projects like Gutenberg and WikiSource for publication of things like books and from newspaper archives or JSTOR for publication of things like newspapers and magazines. That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for you, provided you have the citation and the repository location (see worldcat.org). Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Charles Matthews To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model David Goodman wrote: > A much more serious problem is the availability of this material in > the less-developed world, which includes a great many people who rely > on the English Wikipedia--many of whom do not have practical access to > any good library. Quite. But then the traditional solution has been ... compile an encyclopedia (since the 17th century). The cream of scholarly info without all the underlying scholarship. The fact that we have extremes of scepticism, often driven by divisive or ideological or partisan starting points, should not eclipse the fact that _we_ offer a solution to the inequities of access to basic information. As they say, if not us, who? Those of us who have been around here a while have seen the ultra-verificationist perspective spread out from the most vexed areas to appear as a problem all over the 'pedia. (Not without justification.) But let's keep things the right way round: if we post the facts, and they are verifiable, and the verifying sources are behind subscription walls, the readers are still better off than without the info. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Reuters to Murdoch and AP: "Go ahead and kill yourselves. Idiots.": > > http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/08/04/why-i-believe-in-the-link-economy/ Yes, I'm inclined to believe the link economy works with a caveat after the next paragraph. I'm surprised that I get some full stories in my Google RSS Reader: I have little to no reason to visit the site. I wonder why they allow this. OK, if it's a Blogspot thing and the person writing doesn't seek ad revenue, understandable. But some of the posts I see in the reader ARE funded by ads, yet they give me everything I need in order to avoid them. Weird. And this is the "after" para: I use AdBlock in Firefox. I can't remember the last time I saw an advert on a site. An animated one, at least. Sometimes I feel bad about this. But it makes me feel a lot less bad than trying to read with an animation in my peripheral vision. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote: > I hadn't heard that. I thought The Observer was owned by the Guardian > Media Group, and was therefore hitched closely to The Guardian's > fortunes. I thought the paper in most serious threat of closure was The > Indy. Apparently the people that work on The Guardian have a long-standing enmity with the people that work for The Observer. So perhaps, in that little world of internal politics, whoever has their hands on the purse strings is on The Guardian's side. I haven't read these links, I've just been hearing the story here and there, but you can find out more through (maybe, somewhat ironically) through Google News: http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=d4Ouas3qNWG9YOM6nXVfJ0xm9k5YM ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, FT2 wrote: > The purposes of citations divide roughly into two overlapping needs - 1/ for > people who do edit to verify stated content facts, 2/ for readers to find > further information and (sometimes) to check content. Nicely done, sir. Yes, as someone who patrols Recent Changes using Huggle [[WP:HUGGLE]] I come across "referenced" edits that turn out, when you click the attached link, not to tally with the statement at all. For example, a recent one I saw I knew looked funny from the outset in that the statement was quite specific but the citation was to the too general sounding www.f1.com (the front page of the Grand Prix website). I searched to see if I could drill down and confirm and replace the citation but failed. I will be in a world of frustration and hurt if I am confronted with "please subscribe for $5 to access this article". I wouldn't *remove* the citation because, as a previous poster indicated, my failure to access is not cause to disregard "good faith". > Accordingly if news did become pay-only WMF may obtain some kind of > subscription to major sources, accessible to a wide but well defined subset > of editors (users with > 500 edits? users agreed by a community process to > be suitable?). That's an interesting idea. Could work. I have a feeling they might ask us to sacrifice Wikinews and stop covering current events as their price, though. I would if I were them. Wikinews is not only direct competition but it does (and don't hate me for this) leech off all their sources. I see no good reason why they should support their potential competition, no matter how tiddly Wikinews is in terms of online news. Wikinews might have to be the sacrificial goat. We may have to say goodbye to great articles like Hurricane Katrina and say that we'll create articles that refer to things 12 months gone. ___ 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] In development--BLP task force
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> Interesting examples. For both O.J. and Phil I would assume we can >> create fairly complete biographies using appropriate souces. >> I am doubtful that we could really make a "biography" for Gary >> Glitter without a lot of unacceptable sources being used, or a too >> full reliance on a single source. >> >> Will Just a note on this- the usual "reliable sources" don't tend to report about Gary Glitter these days- it's just the low-end tabloids that are avid to get sightings, pictures, and arguably hound him; obviously they have an axe to grind and are unlikely to take a neutral stance. That is why such articles (and I have [[Jade Goody]] and [[Katie Price (Jordan)]] and similar on my watchlist) should be watched with vigilance to ensure scrupulous compliance with [[WP:BLP]]. The coverage of OJ & Spector hit much more responsible media sources. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
As far as when to remove citations to subscription web-sites and when to leave them intact as convenience links, I use the following rule: Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There must always be a "free" alternative of some sort. Part Deux) *If* there is a hard-copy version of the article, and your citation to the online version is verbose enough that a normally intelligent person could locate the item in a library, then it can stay. Part Final Bit) *If* your citation to the online article, is so limited in content that no one could find the article except by following your link.. then it gets removed. I am vicious and exacting I know. We should be setting the bar for others to follow, not being lazy in citation practice. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Bod Notbod To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, FT2 wrote: > The purposes of citations divide roughly into two overlapping needs - 1/ for > people who do edit to verify stated content facts, 2/ for readers to find > further information and (sometimes) to check content. Nicely done, sir. Yes, as someone who patrols Recent Changes using Huggle [[WP:HUGGLE]] I come across "referenced" edits that turn out, when you click the attached link, not to tally with the statement at all. For example, a recent one I saw I knew looked funny from the outset in that the statement was quite specific but the citation was to the too general sounding www.f1.com (the front page of the Grand Prix website). I searched to see if I could drill down and confirm and replace the citation but failed. I will be in a world of frustration and hurt if I am confronted with "please subscribe for $5 to access this article". I wouldn't *remove* the citation because, as a previous poster indicated, my failure to access is not cause to disregard "good faith". > Accordingly if news did become pay-only WMF may obtain some kind of > subscription to major sources, accessible to a wide but well defined subset > of editors (users with > 500 edits? users agreed by a community process to > be suitable?). That's an interesting idea. Could work. I have a feeling they might ask us to sacrifice Wikinews and stop covering current events as their price, though. I would if I were them. Wikinews is not only direct competition but it does (and don't hate me for this) leech off all their sources. I see no good reason why they should support their potential competition, no matter how tiddly Wikinews is in terms of online news. Wikinews might have to be the sacrificial goat. We may have to say goodbye to great articles like Hurricane Katrina and say that we'll create articles that refer to things 12 months gone. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wrote: > That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in > considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora > Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for > you, provided you have the citation and the repository location (see > worldcat.org). I think that's somewhat naive. I found a new article the other day and it was all about this guy who was described as "the greatest child genius the world has ever seen". There was a long list of verifications although not enough to cover most of the points made in the article. I smelled a rat and stuck a "hoax" banner on it. There was (IIRC) one editor. There were pictures. The citations were all to books with no online click-thru. The whole thing just smelled wrong. I wish I could remember the article now... Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs? I guess what I'm saying is: it's quite easy to "make up" a book. But perhaps I'm wrong in that. You mention "worldcat.org"... it's not something I'm familiar with: is it your sense that worldcat.org is comprehensive enough to rumble invented books? And even if it is... could I not just choose an obscure book at random and attribute a claim to it? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
2009/8/8 : > Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets > removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial > activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There > must always be a "free" alternative of some sort. Not at all. Quite expensive limited-run books or journals are suitable for citation if they're good sources; the same would apply to news articles. - 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
I found this interesting: http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/ Basically, en:wp cites the BBC and Guardian more than any other UK news outlet. Because they're easy to link to. Paywall for generic news = sink without trace. - 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Worldcat is the freely available listing of the contents of hundreds perhaps thousands of libraries. If you cannot locate a print item there, it's very likely it is fictitious. A small caveat in that, items which are not quite ancient, but not modern (say medieval) may have names that are not obvious. I would submit however, that every print publication over the past 100 years or perhaps even 200, lives in at least one worldcat repository (library) somewhere in the world. If you don't know the exact name of a book, you can search on partial names, author names, and subject too I believe. In addition to that, we have great extra repositories for checking the existence of a purported print source at amazon.com and also at abe.com and alibris.com Amazon tends toward in-print titles, while abe.com tends toward out-of-print titles, including very rare titles as well since it is, in contract to worldcat, the listings of the repositories of hundreds if not thousands of *bookstores*. That would include rare and second-hand bookstores. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Bod Notbod To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 4:44 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wrote: > That something is not yet available onl ine, shouldn't be a factor in > considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora > Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for > you, provided you have the citation and the repository location (see > worldcat.org). I think that's somewhat naive. I found a new article the other day and it was all about this guy who was described as "the greatest child genius the world has ever seen". There was a long list of verifications although not enough to cover most of the points made in the article. I smelled a rat and stuck a "hoax" banner on it. There was (IIRC) one editor. There were pictures. The citations were all to books with no online click-thru. The whole thing just smelled wrong. I wish I could remember the article now... Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs? I guess what I'm saying is: it's quite easy to "make up" a book. But perhaps I'm wrong in that. You mention "worldcat.org"... it's not something I'm familiar with: is it your sense that worldcat.org is comprehensive enough to rumble invented books? And even if it is... could I not just choose an obscure book at random and attribute a claim to it? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman /listinfo/wikien-l ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
David that isn't what I stated. I said if it lives *exclusively* online. The word exclusive means solely, only, alone, uniquely. If the item has been printed in some format, it would not be an exclusively online item so Part A would not apply to it. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: David Gerard To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model 2009/8/8 : > Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets > removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial > activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There > must always be a "free" alternative of some sort. Not at all. Quite expensive limited-run books or journals are suitable for citation if they're good sources; the same would apply to news articles. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, wrote: > As far as when to remove citations to subscription web-sites and when > to leave them intact as convenience links, I use the following rule: I'm sorry, you've completely and utterly confused me... so let's look: > Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets > removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial > activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There > must always be a "free" alternative of some sort. But many articles could live exclusively online AND be free (free to WP readers, the advertiser is paying). > Part Deux) *If* there is a hard-copy version of the article, and your > citation to the online version is verbose enough that a normally > intelligent person could locate the item in a library, then it can stay. But the verbosity could be a trick. I'll pretend you didn't say verbosity. I'll pretend you said "specified". But I think we hit a very big problem here. It's one thing to patrol Recent Changes. It's quite another to print out "referenced" edits from the last 5 minutes at Recent Changes and... well, good luck trying to find all the material: and when you *have* there will have been another 30,000 items in Recent Changes. > Part Final Bit) *If* your citation to the online article, is so limited > in content that no one could find the article except by following your > link.. then it gets removed. WHAT!? What's WRONG with finding the material at the link!? Provided it's a Reliable Source? > I am vicious and exacting I know. We should be setting the bar for > others to follow, not being lazy in citation practice. Weird. I think I'm far from lazy. But I can't understand your methodology at all. I think I must be grossly misunderstanding what you're saying, because I have no doubt that you're - like me - trying to do everything for the best. But I can't follow your logic. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
2009/8/8 : > David that isn't what I stated. > I said if it lives *exclusively* online. The word exclusive means > solely, only, alone, uniquely. > If the item has been printed in some format, it would not be an > exclusively online item so Part A would not apply to it. That still smells like a novel constraint. Though I do agree it's way less than as verifiable as I'd like. - 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > I found a new article the other day and it was all about this guy who > was described as "the greatest child genius the world has ever seen". > > There was a long list of verifications although not enough to cover > most of the points made in the article. I smelled a rat and stuck a > "hoax" banner on it. There was (IIRC) one editor. There were pictures. > The citations were all to books with no online click-thru. The whole > thing just smelled wrong. I wish I could remember the article now... > > Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an > article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs? Yes. 05:24, 30 July 2009 David Eppstein (talk | contribs | block) deleted "James Cornelius Leach" (G3: Vandalism: Blatant hoax with possible G10 aspects) By the way, you have a very scary picture on your user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bodnotbod Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM, David Gerard wrote: > I found this interesting: > > http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/ > > Basically, en:wp cites the BBC and Guardian more than any other UK > news outlet. Because they're easy to link to. > > Paywall for generic news = sink without trace. That's a good find. I confess I tend to cite The Guardian often myself because it's the paper I buy (only on a Saturday, though: and I'm a fan. No wonder the market's going down the toilet). And I am a BBC luvah-man. A complete side-issue: but the BBC and The Guardian are often cited as being somewhat leftie institutions (as am I), so that would give plenty of succour to Conservopedia :o) ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM, wrote: > I would submit however, that every print publication over the past 100 > years or perhaps even 200, lives in at least one worldcat repository > (library) somewhere in the world. OK, thank you. I expect I'll be spending a lot of time on that site: it might give me some ideas of stuff I can find at Gutenburg and Librivox. I think my other problem still stands though: misrepresenting (inventing!) what a book says in pretty good knowledge that I won't be found out. And, hey, if I were an anonymous user, what do I care anyway? I suppose I should say: like my email address, I'm User:Bodnotbod. Nice to meet you. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carcharoth wrote: >> Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an >> article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs? > > Yes. > > 05:24, 30 July 2009 David Eppstein (talk | contribs | block) deleted > "James Cornelius Leach" (G3: Vandalism: Blatant hoax with possible > G10 aspects) Ah! I could kiss you! I really could. Though that's mainly the cider. Hell, it's Friday night. > By the way, you have a very scary picture on your user page. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bodnotbod Yes. I think that's why I don't get any barnstars :o( I've vaguely thought about becoming an admin. It would put me on the wrong foot, wouldn't it? I think of taking it down. But it's *so* *me*. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > > > >> I found a new article the other day and it was all about this guy who >> was described as "the greatest child genius the world has ever seen". >> >> There was a long list of verifications although not enough to cover >> most of the points made in the article. I smelled a rat and stuck a >> "hoax" banner on it. There was (IIRC) one editor. There were pictures. >> The citations were all to books with no online click-thru. The whole >> thing just smelled wrong. I wish I could remember the article now... >> >> Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an >> article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs? > > Yes. > > 05:24, 30 July 2009 David Eppstein (talk | contribs | block) deleted > "James Cornelius Leach" (G3: Vandalism: Blatant hoax with possible > G10 aspects) I also looked at the deleted version of the article, and it was a copy of this, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
That's right. So in my article on Jodie Foster I state that her brother Buddy wrote a book in which he claims that the name "Jodie" (which we know was not her birth name) was invented as a sort of honorary name based on her mother's lesbian lover's name, Josephine Dominguez... Jo... D. And I cite his book, page 74 for this revelation. We have to accept on good faith, that the encyclopediast has correctly extracted the information if we ourselves are unwilling to try to find a copy of the book in some nearby library or order it through I.L.L. At times what I've done is say "would you be willing to quote the exact passage with quotation marks?" Sometimes that works if I'm skeptical that they really paraphrased it accurately, and if they are willing to do that, but I wouldn't remove it just because I couldn't verify it. And I wouldn't remove it just because they said they weren't willing to do that, or didn't have access to the item any longer. By the way this particular paraphrase, about Jodie, is verifiable (my page number was made up). That does not mean it represents reality, we weren't there, all we can go by is what been stated. As far as I know Jodie has not specifically refuted it. I have tried to dig up the intricate details, but it's been slow going. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Bod Notbod To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM, wrote: > I would submit however, that every print publication over the past 100 > years or perhaps even 200, lives in at least one worldcat repository > (library) somewhere in the world. OK, thank you. I expect I'll be spending a lot of time on that site: it might give me some ideas of stuff I can find at Gutenburg and Librivox. I think my other problem still stands though: misrepresenting (inventing!) what a book says in pretty good knowledge that I won't be found out. And, hey, if I were an anonymous user, what do I care anyway? I suppose I should say: like my email address, I'm User:Bodnotbod. Nice to meet you. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > >>> Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an >>> article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs? >> >> Yes. >> >> 05:24, 30 July 2009 David Eppstein (talk | contribs | block) deleted >> "James Cornelius Leach" (G3: Vandalism: Blatant hoax with possible >> G10 aspects) > > Ah! I could kiss you! I really could. Though that's mainly the cider. > Hell, it's Friday night. > >> By the way, you have a very scary picture on your user page. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bodnotbod > > Yes. I think that's why I don't get any barnstars :o( > > I've vaguely thought about becoming an admin. It would put me on the > wrong foot, wouldn't it? I think of taking it down. But it's *so* > *me*. It is the third or fourth page I've see where someone's posted a picture of themselves drunk. I read in the newspaper that this sort of thing is very common now, on Facebook as well and other places. Not to make myself seem too old (I'm only in my early 30s) it does seem, well, strange! :-) As I saw someone else say - why not pictures of people doing some charity work or on holiday, or doing some useful community service. That would get you barnstars! BTW, did you see the link I posted in the other post? That hoax article was "real", just the wrong name. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > I also looked at the deleted version of the article, and it was a copy > of this, I think: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis Yes, the intro is. Definitely. Then I think the hoaxer played around with the other bits, probably adding in his own biography (or that of a friend). Then made up all the references too (which were not clickable). How can you see those things then? Is that admin power or are you higher than that? Bodnotbod ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wrote: > The problem of lack of availability has been with us since the year > 3000 BC. We can't solve every problem right away. That we can specify > a citation stating that *if* you had a way to get the item, you could > verify it, satisfies our policy requirement that an item is "published" > (made available to the public). > > Satisfaction of the guideline (or discussion) issue that an item should > be widely available, would come from projects like Gutenberg and > WikiSource for publication of things like books and from newspaper > archives or JSTOR for publication of things like newspapers and > magazines. > > That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in > considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora > Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for > you, provided you have the citation and the repository location (see > worldcat.org). > > Will Johnson Agree with facts, disagree with conclusions. Policy exists to serve the project. So we can't argue "from policy" on this one, the aim is still high quality content and policy is still the ever-evolving way to get it. At present a high proportion of cites are checkable online. Not all, but enough to be viable if a proportion are not. Change that, and it may no longer be viable, because too many cites will be not readily checkable. The issue I'd expect is much more, mis-citing - statements not in the text, or mischaracterized, that linger weeks or months because now click-and-check isn't operational and very few people will look up "New York Times 19 July 2009 P.4B" (however theoretically they can find a copy) whereas many would click the link. So the /policy/ (if its in principle verifiable then it's fine) would not adequately support the /project need/ (mis cites can usually be detected fairly quickly in practice) and it would be policy that needed to change. FT2 ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > >> I also looked at the deleted version of the article, and it was a copy >> of this, I think: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis > > Yes, the intro is. Definitely. Then I think the hoaxer played around > with the other bits, probably adding in his own biography (or that of > a friend). > > Then made up all the references too (which were not clickable). > > How can you see those things then? Is that admin power or are you > higher than that? It is admin power. Some people claim I have other (higher) powers, but they are much over-rated. When you get the admin tools, you get a neat little link saying "deleted user contributions". There is also something called a block button, but mine is buried under six feet or so of dust. I really must log out one day to remind myself how clean and fresh the screen used to look without all the other links and stuff everywhere. As I said, these extra tools are often much over-rated. The only really useful one is the view deleted revisions one, as that allows checking of what was deleted, which can be very useful when trying to ferret out obscure details of what went where and what happened when. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:15 AM, wrote: > At times what I've done is say "would you be willing to quote the exact > passage with quotation marks?" Sometimes that works if I'm skeptical > that they really paraphrased it accurately, and if they are willing to > do that, but I wouldn't remove it just because I couldn't verify it. > And I wouldn't remove it just because they said they weren't willing to > do that, or didn't have access to the item any longer. It's not a great problem I've found patrolling Recent Changes. I see a lot of people changing numeric things like sports player's stats. I loathe sport. So when someone changes an 8 to a 9 I think "aaargh". But [[WP:Huggle]] allows you to retrieve the contributions and you often find the previous three contribs are: "Suck my cock!" "Is Yo Mama!!!" and "This stinks ass!!!" So I change the 9 back to an 8 and leave in the edit summary "bad faith user making numeric edit." Sorry, I'm getting off the point: we're talking about /referenced vandalism/... hopefully we don't get too much of that. I fear the really sneaky guy, though. Most anons are very transparent and easy to deal with. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
I'm not really seeing any solution in your words. Would you then change policy to state that if an item is behind a subscription wall, then it cannot be cited at all, regardless of whether others can access it freely (with an existing subscription, library card, or on site). Is that what you'd propose? If not, then what? Regardless of how many items go behind a subscription wall (provided there is also a non-subscription way to access them in some manner), there will always be some who have the subscription. In those cases, the online link is only a convenience for those who can use it. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: FT2 To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 5:21 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wrote: > The problem of lack of availability has been with us since the year > 3000 BC. We can't solve every problem right away. That we can specify > a citation stating that *if* you had a way to get the item, you could > verify it, satisfies our policy requirement that an item is "published" > (made available to the public). > > Satisfaction of the guideline (or discussion) issue that an item should > be widely available, would come from projects like Gutenberg and > WikiSource for publication of things like books and from newspaper > archives or JSTOR for publication of things like newspapers and > magazines. > > That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in > considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora > Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for > you, provided you have the citation and the repository location (see > worldcat.org). > > Will Johnson Agree with facts, disagree with conclusions. Policy exists to serve the project. So we can't argue "from policy" on this one, the aim is still high quality content and policy is still the ever-evolving way to get it. At present a high proportion of cites are checkable online. Not all, but enough to be viable if a proportion are not. Change that, and it may no longer be viable, because too many cites will be not readily checkable. The issue I'd expect is much more, mis-citing - statements not in the text, or mischaracterized, that linger weeks or months because now click-and-check isn't operational and very few people will look up "New York Times 19 July 2009 P.4B" (however theoretically they can find a copy) whereas many would click the link. So the /policy/ (if its in principle verifiable then it's fine) would not adequately support the /project need/ (mis cites can usually be detected fairly quickly in practice) and it would be policy that needed to change. FT2 ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM, FT2 wrote: > The issue I'd expect is much more, mis-citing - statements not in the text, > or mischaracterized, that linger weeks or months because now click-and-check > isn't operational and very few people will look up "New York Times 19 July > 2009 P.4B" (however theoretically they can find a copy) whereas many would > click the link. Same applies to references to books. Those only get checked thoroughly when the article reaches featured article candidacy status. And I shudder to think of the duplicated effort in checking references. It would be great if you could look through an article and see that 5 people you trusted had ticked off most of the references as "verified". You could then check the rest, plus spot that some vandal who managed to get the "permissions level" had wrongly marked a bogus reference as "verified". Trouble is, that sort of system (kind of a "flagged revisions" for references) would be rather complicated. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
It's a tiny bit highbrow, so I wouldn't expect really that much of it. When a person (like myself) can easily research a subject and show that no he did not win the Fat Butt Award from MTV in 2005 and no he did not write a book called How to Have Sex with Dolphins and Get Paid For it, and no he did not create the largest online porn site in 1992 Real references, exist already online with the advent of google but more importantly perhaps Google Books. If you are the sole person to have ever referenced item ABC it's very likely that item ABC does not actually exist. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Bod Notbod To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:15 AM, wrote: > At times what I've done is say "would you be willing to quote the exact > passage with quotation marks?" Sometimes that works if I'm skeptical > that they really paraphrased it accurately, and if they are willing to > do that, but I wouldn't remove it just because I couldn't verify it. > And I wouldn't remove it just because they said they weren't willing to > do that, or didn't have access to the item any longer. It's not a great problem I've found patrolling Recent Changes. I see a lot of people changing num eric things like sports player's stats. I loathe sport. So when someone changes an 8 to a 9 I think "aaargh". But [[WP:Huggle]] allows you to retrieve the contributions and you often find the previous three contribs are: "Suck my cock!" "Is Yo Mama!!!" and "This stinks ass!!!" So I change the 9 back to an 8 and leave in the edit summary "bad faith user making numeric edit." Sorry, I'm getting off the point: we're talking about /referenced vandalism/... hopefully we don't get too much of that. I fear the really sneaky guy, though. Most anons are very transparent and easy to deal with. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > When you get the admin tools, you get a neat little link saying > "deleted user contributions". There is also something called a block > button, but mine is buried under six feet or so of dust. I really must > log out one day to remind myself how clean and fresh the screen used > to look without all the other links and stuff everywhere. As I said, > these extra tools are often much over-rated. The only really useful > one is the view deleted revisions one, as that allows checking of what > was deleted, which can be very useful when trying to ferret out > obscure details of what went where and what happened when. Thanks Carcharoth. I was curious. Yes, I think of becoming an admin. But there's so much work to do without being one... Do you get the sense that wp:en *needs* more admins? If not, I'm happy where I am, really. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:26 AM, wrote: > I'm not really seeing any solution in your words. > Would you then change policy to state that if an item is behind a > subscription wall, then it cannot be cited at all, regardless of > whether others can access it freely (with an existing subscription, > library card, or on site). Is that what you'd propose? If not, then > what? I haven't proposed a solution (except the initial one, that if needed WMF might find a way to let a good number of editors have access to subscription sites for the purpose). I'm not so much proposing changing any policy. I'm noting policy exists to serve a project goal. If the environment of the project changes substantially so that existing policies do not then meet project goals, then we would need to find new solutions and/or modify past norms. (Other ways may be (for example) that users have to upload a photo of the page to a non-GFDL area where material is held purely for verification alone. Others can verify the cite is accurate then the photo is deleted.) Again I'm not saying we should do that either. Instead, if too much change happened to our ability to check cites on the spot, then we'd have to develop a way to meet the need for quick verification of most cites in some other (new) way, and that would stabilize and inform an updated policy. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > Do you get the sense that wp:en *needs* more admins? > If not, I'm happy where I am, really. That's fair, but it's really the wrong question. It's rarely about "does WP need more admins". The much more appropriate question is, "do you find yourself doing (or wanting to do) tasks to better help the project, for which you would need admin access, when the community would trust you with that access". For example I sought sysophood at a point when I found I was too often having to ask others to block sock-puppets, or could advise but not actually address disruption and disputes. There were a number of occasions I would have helped resolve the matter but could only offer advice or ask others to act, which was wasteful. I felt the community had enough evidence of my editing to trust my conduct, and was right to so judge. (As it happens I withdrew because 15% of users wanted to see more edit summary use, but that's separate.) There were other reasons, noted in my RFA, but the basis was my wish to help certain areas where I had reached a "non-admin ceiling" better and a need of the tools to do so, not whether or not the project "needed more admins". Hope that clarifies? :) FT2 ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:31 AM, wrote: > It's a tiny bit highbrow, so I wouldn't expect really that much of it. Agreed. The average vandal doesn't look at policy. They simply look at a page and want to mess with it in some way. Oftentimes it's just writing their name or swearing. I'm telling you stuff you already know... > Real references, exist already online with the advent of google but > more importantly perhaps Google Books. If you are the sole person to > have ever referenced item ABC it's very likely that item ABC does not > actually exist. And if it's not in worldcat.org. As you say. Yeah, fair enough. I think it's just that sometimes I think "what would I do if I really wanted to fuck with Wikipedia?" But I've been with the project for 4 years or more. And someone that just wants to make mischief is hardly going to want to spend 4 researching how to piss off an important project. And *even* *if* *they* did*... I guess there would be that *one* *wrong* *move* that would lead to *all* of their previous edits being examined. I think I'm just being overprotective and paranoid. I am a paranoid person: I even have a prescription. Seriously, alas. I care about Wikipedia. Huggle shows me all the time how people piss about with it. But I have little to no indication that anyone's buggering about with references. And in all my years of working on WP I've only bumped into one user that went to ArbCom (and got soundly castigated). Thinking about my experiences patrolling Recent Changes most changes are made to current figures. It's never "Physics" or "Plato" it will tend to be about a local High School or a current rapper or sports team. I shall try to sleep soundly tonight. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
You have completely ignored the requirement that I am here *solely* referring to items which live, online, behind subscription walls. If the item is free, then it does not. So that removes the majority of your counter-argument. -Original Message- From: Bod Notbod To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, wrote: > As far as when to remove citations to subscription web-sites and when > to leave them intact as convenience links, I use the following rule: I'm sorry, you've completely and utterly confused me... so let's look: > Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets > removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial > activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There > must always be a "free" alternative of some sort. But many articles could live exclusively online AND be free (free to WP readers, the advertiser is paying). > Part Deux) *If* there is a hard-copy version of the article, and your > citation to the online version is verbose enough that a normally > intelligent person could locate the item in a library, then it can stay. But the verbosity could be a trick. I'll pretend you didn't say verbosity. I'l l pretend you said "specified". But I think we hit a very big problem here. It's one thing to patrol Recent Changes. It's quite another to print out "referenced" edits from the last 5 minutes at Recent Changes and... well, good luck trying to find all the material: and when you *have* there will have been another 30,000 items in Recent Changes. > Part Final Bit) *If* your citation to the online article, is so limited > in content that no one could find the article except by following your > link.. then it gets removed. WHAT!? What's WRONG with finding the material at the link!? Provided it's a Reliable Source? > I am vicious and exacting I know. We should be setting the bar for > others to follow, not being lazy in citation practice. Weird. I think I'm far from lazy. But I can't understand your methodology at all. I think I must be grossly misunderstanding what you're saying, because I have no doubt that you're - like me - trying to do everything for the best. But I can't follow your logic. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:46 AM, FT2 wrote: > Hope that clarifies? :) Yes, it really truly does. I hadn't thought about in those terms. Looking at it that way, I don't think I need to be an admin to do my stuff. As you say, if you're constantly butting up against situations where not having the admin powers leads to frustration, then go for it. But I haven't felt that way yet. When I give a user a warning beyond their final one I notice they get blocked very quickly. I can't ask for more than that. Before tonight I hadn't had a situation where I wanted to look at a deleted article, so one time in four years doesn't seem worth making a big change for. Thanks FT2. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:04 AM, wrote: > You have completely ignored the requirement that I am here *solely* > referring to items which live, online, behind subscription walls. If > the item is free, then it does not. So that removes the majority of > your counter-argument. I'm honestly not trying to ignore any point. But that does not mean that I am not ignorant. It's been a long day. But I guess what you're referring to is this bit of what you said: > Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets > removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial > activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There > must always be a "free" alternative of some sort. If that's the case (and I'm by no means sure), then you didn't mention (or, perhaps, reiterate) subscription walls. And that's where I got confused. < pauses for thought > Yes, I think you felt that the 'subscription wall' bit went without saying because of the context of the argument, but I just took you as if your words were in a new realm. Still, it raises another interesting question... My local library may be free. With access to microfilm for the newspaper archives. But my local bus fair is £2. And I need a bus to get to the library. And back. So that's £4. Murdoch's subscription might charge me 10 pence to look at the article. But anyway... I'm taking us very off track. I'm sorry, I did misunderstand you. I see where you're aiming at now. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
You're right. Several years ago, we had discussed this very issue.
That nothing "free" is really free is you have to pay to travel *to* it.
IIRC we basically agreed that traveling about, is just part of your
normal life. Perhaps the advent of the internet people's only recourse
to "free sources" was to go to the library. Using that as our
basement, we can truly state that we're not making it harder than it
was. We're making it easier, in most cases, or even just in some cases.
On the other balancing arm, we're creating a work with thousands of
footnotes, which may be difficult to verify. Most people will be able
to verify some of them. Some people will be able to verify most of
them. But probably nobody is going to be able to verify all of them.
So there you go. Now what?
At some point, we had a project page where you could list your services
to do lookups in various sources. I don't really know if that got a
head of steam or died the death of obscurity. I thought I had posted
myself there, but I've never gotten a request for anything. However,
that might solve the problem.
I personally don't like the idea of requesting or requiring a
wikipedian to upload images of their source. It sounds an awful lot
like that would violate licensing agreements here and there. And
possibly copyright issues. *However* perhaps we could create a tag,
coincidental with20{{fact}} something like {{verify?}} which would cross
over to a page like "Verification Requests By Date". Any established
Wikipedia could take a request, do the lookup, and clear the tag. It
is entirely possible that the number of requests would swamp the number
of clearances, but it's a possible solution. I'd be willing to clear
say five or ten a day.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Bod Notbod
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 6:12 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:04 AM, wrote:
> You have completely ignored the requirement that I am here *solely*
> referring to items which live, online, behind subscription walls. If
> the item is free, then it does not. So that removes the majority of
> your counter-argument.
I'm honestly not trying to ignore any point. But that does not mean
that I am not ignorant. It's been a long day. But I guess what you're
referring to is this bit of what you said:
> Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets
> removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial
> activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There
> must always be a "free" alternative of some sort.
If that's the case (and I'm by no m
eans sure), then you didn't mention
(or, perhaps, reiterate) subscription walls. And that's where I got
confused.
< pauses for thought >
Yes, I think you felt that the 'subscription wall' bit went without
saying because of the context of the argument, but I just took you as
if your words were in a new realm.
Still, it raises another interesting question...
My local library may be free. With access to microfilm for the
newspaper archives. But my local bus fair is £2. And I need a bus to
get to the library. And back. So that's £4. Murdoch's subscription
might charge me 10 pence to look at the article.
But anyway... I'm taking us very off track.
I'm sorry, I did misunderstand you. I see where you're aiming at now.
___
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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM, wrote: > At some point, we had a project page where you could list your services > to do lookups in various sources. I don't really know if that got a > head of steam or died the death of obscurity. I thought I had posted > myself there, but I've never gotten a request for anything. However, > that might solve the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange The shortcuts to remember are WP:RESOURCE and WP:LIBRARY. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Yes! There I am! # A Brief History of Byzantium Wjhonson (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC) So I wasn't dreaming it. And here is the "request a lookup page" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#New_requests This page however seems to be "can you find me anything more about subject X" as opposed to "Can you look in publication Y and tell me if it says Z?" This is a great resource evidently, but we couldn't hijack it for verification purposes I'd think. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Carcharoth To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM, wrote: > At some point, we had a project page where you could list your services > to do lookups in various sources. I don't really know if that got a > head of steam or died the death of obscurity. I thought I had posted > myself there, but I've never gotten a request for anything. However, > that might solve the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange The shortcuts to remember are WP:RESOURCE and WP:LIBRARY. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe=2 0from 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] In development--BLP task force
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Phil Nash wrote: > Just a note on this- the usual "reliable sources" don't tend to report about > Gary Glitter these days- it's just the low-end tabloids that are avid to get > sightings, pictures, and arguably hound him; obviously they have an axe to > grind and are unlikely to take a neutral stance. It's a bit scary what you can do with facts :o( "Gary Glitter is the stage name of Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944)[1], an English glam rock singer and songwriter. He chose to live as the [[Alexander_The_Great#Relationships|Ancient greeks]] or someone from [[Pederasty_in_the_Middle_East#Age_Discrimination_.E2.80.93_Beardless_Boys_and_Downy-Cheeked_Youth|the Middle East]]." ___ 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] In development--BLP task force
That's very evil. You just made me read his article to confirm that it doesn't say this at all! By the way the under-age were female not male. -Original Message- From: Bod Notbod To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 7:02 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Phil Nash wrote: > Just a note on this- the usual "reliable sources" don't tend to report about > Gary Glitter these days- it's just the low-end tabloids that are avid to get > sightings, pictures, and arguably hound him; obviously they have an axe to > grind and are unlikely to take a neutral stance. It's a bit scary what you can do with facts :o( "Gary Glitter is the stage name of Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944)[1], an English glam rock singer and songwriter. He chose to live as the [[Alexander_The_Great#Relationships|Ancient greeks]] or someone from [[Pederasty_in_the_Middle_East#Age_Discrimination_.E2.80.93_Beardless_Boy s_and_Downy-Cheeked_Youth|the Middle East]]." ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM, wrote: > At some point, we had a project page where you could list your services > to do lookups in various sources. I don't really know if that got a > head of steam or died the death of obscurity. I thought I had posted > myself there, but I've never gotten a request for anything. However, > that might solve the problem. Yes, it must still be there. I know the page you're talking about, but I've only bumped into it about once in 4 years. And the tendency is to think that anyone who monitors that page is going to work for the good of the project. > I personally don't like the idea of requesting or requiring a > wikipedian to upload images of their source. It sounds an awful lot > like that would violate licensing agreements here and there. And > possibly copyright issues. It would boil down to 'Fair Use' I suppose. And even then TO PROVE IT they would have to have the cover of the book rather than just the page: a page in itself would tell you little. Dya see what I mean? I could have a scan of a printed page saying "1 million jews died in the holocaust". I could scan in the cover of a different book. And its frontespiece. Again, though, I don't get the impression anyone's that bothered about fucking WP up. ___ 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] Board Elections
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Candidates/en Isn't this person Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a regular contributor to this list ? Jussi is the only person up for election who doesn't present a photograph. ___ 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] Board Elections
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 3:37 AM, wrote: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Candidates/en > > Isn't this person Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a regular contributor to this > list ? > Jussi is the only person up for election who doesn't present a > photograph. > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > Here's a pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/b/b5/CAPortrait.png -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ 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] In development--BLP task force
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 3:13 AM, wrote: > That's very evil. You just made me read his article to confirm that it > doesn't say this at all! Oh gosh! Sorry, I should have pointed out that I was "Trying To Prove A Point". Although, I think that falls under [[WP:DICK]]. Not sure if that still applies on mailing lists though :o/ > By the way the under-age were female not male. I'd ask with reference to which: the Alexandrian or the Middle Eastern but I don't think it's gonna progress the discussion any further. What put this whole thing in my mind, when Glitter was mentioned, is that there was an editor (at least one, possibly more) who edited articles from a pederast's viewpoint. I don't know if he or she (well, no, it's gotta be a he) is still around. ___ 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] Board Elections
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:37 PM, wrote: > Isn't this person Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a regular contributor to this > list ? I believe he is, yes, foundation-l too. > Jussi is the only person up for election who doesn't present a > photograph. > Keep in mind that that's not a requirement, he's well within his own rights to not post a picture. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ 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] Board Elections
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Casey Brown wrote: Keep in mind that that's not a requirement, he's well within his own rights to not post a picture. And given majorly's link, I'd say that's a canny move on his part! -- gwern signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Board Elections
Gwern Branwen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Casey Brown wrote: >> Keep in mind that that's not a requirement, he's well within his own >> rights to not post a picture. >> > > And given majorly's link, I'd say that's a canny move on his part! I'll take that as a compliment on my campaigning acumen, I think! 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
Cary Bass wrote: > Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> # It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the >> ceiling. >> > You've tested this? :-) > > My wife wishes I hadn't so often. 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
