date:20090818

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Emily Monroe wrote:
>> I don't get why there is any need for a dedicated Wikipedia browser.
>
> I agree. For one thing, there's the issue of making it accessible to
> Mac, Windows, and Linux.
>
> But yeah, it's good for inspiration.

Yeah, so it's basically a quick way to do a mock-up of some
functionality that would eventually need server side coding etc.

Steve

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia approaches its limits" - Technology Guardian

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:04 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> It can be problematic. I frequently edit as an IP when I'm at another
> machine and can't be bothered logging in. The unexplained reversion
> rate is *much* higher than when I edit logged-in, even though the
> edits are exactly the same sort of thing.

Ah, yes. This was an obvious test I should have thought of.

One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or
somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard
reports of people doing this as sport, just to be annoying, but in my
experience, they're often right. But it leaves you in a real quandary,
if you can't verify it either way.

Steve

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Cathy Edwards wrote:
> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
> area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
> danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?

I'll offer two reasons:
1) Because editors are unable, in general, to distinguish between the
desirability of including a topic, and the desirability of including
the current article written on that topic. They see a crappy article
and think "crappy topic".
2) Because editors react rather viscerally and unhelpfully to certain
topics. I don't like Pokémon, but I begrudingly accept the wisdom of
articles on Pokémon characters.

I find the difficult struggle to define the borders of the
encyclopaedia very interesting, but dubbing it the
"deletionism/inclusionism debate" is really oversimplifying it. It
implies that there is some group that wants the encyclopaedia to have
a certain number of articles (say, 2 million) and another group that
wants it to have a larger number (say, 10 million).

In practice, it's not like that, there are individual struggles in
every area. These struggles have to take place because different
people's instincts tell them different things, and there are no clear
universal principles to define what's in and out. Nor, other than
extreme positions like "include everything about which there is at
least one source", could there be.

Personally, I'm much more convinced by arguments about the cost of
maintaining articles in certain areas versus their value to end users
- a cost/benefit analysis. But the debate is rarely framed in these
terms. As an example, I wrote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_deal_a_day in 2007. It attracts a
fair bit of spam, and a reasonable amount of effort from editors to
keep it clean. Is it worth it? By contrast, dozens of other stubs that
I've written require very little maintenance effort, other than
occasional recategorising, interwiki linking, geo coord linking etc.
People seem very unwilling or uninterested in engaging in this kind of
analysis.

Steve

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to butress an argument with a block.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:46 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
> Well with the lack of information i'm going to stab in the dark and
> guess were talking about community blocks/ban and other sanctions
> which are generally disucssed at WP:ANI.

With the lack of information I'm more inclined to stab myself in the
face than attempt to work out what the thread was about.

Jay, this is a warning. Context and proper, interesting, relevant
posts, or I'm going to start mass discarding your posts.

Steve (mod)

___
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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books from Wikipedia

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> I wouldn't be against Wikipedia having its own range of print works
> provided they were profitable and all funds were ploughed back into
> the Foundation. But I certainly don't think it would be a good idea if
> it were purely motivated by trying to compete someone out of the
> market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Books/

Steve

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Ken Arromdee

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
> That we have a rule which says we can break rules makes for the 
> most perplexing conversations.

One problem is that the rule which says we can break rules is poorly worded.
If you didn't already agree that you can break rules (and therefore didn't
need it anyway), it's rather misleading and causes problems.

___
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] Report a Problem hack

2009-08-18 Thread K. Peachey

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
>> I'd like it. Good for new page patrollers'.
>
> +1 for neat little pop-ups and easy error reporting.  Can we also do
> something like this to report general interface and software bugs?
>
> SJ
That would possibly be a bad idea for bugs, bugs should be discussed
at the Village pump (or local equivalent) to see if it is really a bug
so it can be discussed then someone can file it on bugzilla with the
all the revelant information and make a note of it in the discussion
so several copies of the same bug aren't created.

___
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] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to butress an argument with a block.

2009-08-18 Thread K. Peachey

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Andrew
Turvey wrote:
> I feel like I've missed half the conversation here:
>
>> Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to 
>> butress an argument with a block.
>
> candidate for what?
Well with the lack of information i'm going to stab in the dark and
guess were talking about community blocks/ban and other sanctions
which are generally disucssed at WP:ANI.

And by candidate I can guess were either talking about someone
applying for adminship or the person being blocked.

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Andrew Gray

2009/8/18  :
> Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more, with
> a single editor should be deleted".  That would be a ground-level bar
> on "notability".  And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.

I'm really not sure that prohibiting cases where only one of our
editors wants to work on something is really the best way to encourage
finding notable topics, or indeed to counter our already huge systemic
bias problem.

-- 
- 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] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Andrew Gray

2009/8/19 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/19  :
>
>> Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
>> source is EB1911.  I would submit that if you actually put these up for
>> AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW.  Sure the articles could be
>> fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't
>> sufficient for an article and I think it probably is.. depending.
>
> I remember copyediting one article on a now-obscure 18th century
> British parliamentarian. Basically I just rewrote for style. And,
> y'know, I'm pretty sure it'd be a reasonable start on the article, and
> certainly not a deletion candidate just for having 1911EB as its sole
> source.

I've found that a lot of our material tagged as from EB1911 has now
pretty much vanished entirely under three or four years of editing -
it might be instructive to dig through them and see what needs
rewriting anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:1911

-- 
- 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] Gridlock should be impossible.

Agreed. Jay, the last time I went through the moderation queue, there
were 15 messages from you. Could you please send less messages, and
make them more relevant?

Thanks,
Steve (mod)

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> If you have a point that is within the scope of this mailing list,
> then make it. Please stop sending emails like this.

___
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 reaches 3 millionth article

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Why not scan them and "store" them at wikisource?


Lol. Indeed. Why not scan 200 volumes of an encyclopaedia? For fun, OCR it too..

Steve

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/19  :

> Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
> source is EB1911.  I would submit that if you actually put these up for
> AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW.  Sure the articles could be
> fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't
> sufficient for an article and I think it probably is.. depending.


I remember copyediting one article on a now-obscure 18th century
British parliamentarian. Basically I just rewrote for style. And,
y'know, I'm pretty sure it'd be a reasonable start on the article, and
certainly not a deletion candidate just for having 1911EB as its sole
source.


- 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] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only 
source is EB1911.  I would submit that if you actually put these up for 
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW.  Sure the articles could be 
fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't 
sufficient for an article and I think it probably is.. depending.

I suppose someone could make a robot run through these, but my point is 
that even if your single source is Compton's 2009 edition, I wouldn't 
say that calls for the deletion of the article.  Provided of course 
it's not a straight copyvio.

-Original Message-
From: David Goodman 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to 
Wikipedians  for BBC Documentary

Not that it's a single source. The problem is that it's a single
outmoded source, never really balanced and NPOV, and by now wholly
unreliable in almost all subjects, the ancient world included. About
95% of it was written over a century ago, and there is almost nothing
for which new information and new interpretations have made the
existing version inappropriate as the base for a modern encyclopedia.
Essentially all text from there needs to be removed, except for some
quotations to show how things were looked at historically,  and the
relevant portions or articles redone from what wou
ld now be considered
reliable sources. To even know what parts can be rescued requires a
sound knowledge of the subject  and its development, and cannot be
done mechanically. The situation is exactly comparable to what it
would be if that EB had simply reprinted Diderot's 1770 Encyclopedie.
It would have been a laughing stock to have presented that as a
current work, and so with our articles derived from it.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:30 PM,  wrote:
> I just want to address this one quote.
>
> < and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.>>
>
> I think this is a false reading of our intent.
> The entire structuring of the "rely primarily on secondary sources" 
and
> other discussion that primary sources can be included *when* the
> material was already introduced by a secondary source in some way and
> especially in those cases where it conflicts, etc etc.
>
> Doesn't really address and wasn't meant to address a situation where
> all you have is a teritary source (an expression I hate by the way).
> But let's play ball with it anyway.
>
> Let's say that you have the "tertiary" (shudder) source EB 1911,
> "Cleopatra".  You are aware that an enormous number of our articles
> were created *solely* from the 1911 EB are you not?
>
> Yo
u might say that makes them stubby but not in the normal sense of 
the
> WP:Jargon.  We might say "they rely on a single source" but really the
> EB sort of sits above most uses of that condition.  I would say that
> most of us consider is fairly authoritative on a summary view of any
> subject.
>
> So in conclusion, I don't think we have any policy language that would
> say that tertiary sources without secondary ones would make an article
> subject to attack, except possibly a "make this better please" tag.
>
> 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
>

___
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] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread David Goodman

Not that it's a single source. The problem is that it's a single
outmoded source, never really balanced and NPOV, and by now wholly
unreliable in almost all subjects, the ancient world included. About
95% of it was written over a century ago, and there is almost nothing
for which new information and new interpretations have made the
existing version inappropriate as the base for a modern encyclopedia.
Essentially all text from there needs to be removed, except for some
quotations to show how things were looked at historically,  and the
relevant portions or articles redone from what would now be considered
reliable sources. To even know what parts can be rescued requires a
sound knowledge of the subject  and its development, and cannot be
done mechanically. The situation is exactly comparable to what it
would be if that EB had simply reprinted Diderot's 1770 Encyclopedie.
It would have been a laughing stock to have presented that as a
current work, and so with our articles derived from it.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:30 PM,  wrote:
> I just want to address this one quote.
>
> < and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.>>
>
> I think this is a false reading of our intent.
> The entire structuring of the "rely primarily on secondary sources" and
> other discussion that primary sources can be included *when* the
> material was already introduced by a secondary source in some way and
> especially in those cases where it conflicts, etc etc.
>
> Doesn't really address and wasn't meant to address a situation where
> all you have is a teritary source (an expression I hate by the way).
> But let's play ball with it anyway.
>
> Let's say that you have the "tertiary" (shudder) source EB 1911,
> "Cleopatra".  You are aware that an enormous number of our articles
> were created *solely* from the 1911 EB are you not?
>
> You might say that makes them stubby but not in the normal sense of the
> WP:Jargon.  We might say "they rely on a single source" but really the
> EB sort of sits above most uses of that condition.  I would say that
> most of us consider is fairly authoritative on a summary view of any
> subject.
>
> So in conclusion, I don't think we have any policy language that would
> say that tertiary sources without secondary ones would make an article
> subject to attack, except possibly a "make this better please" tag.
>
> 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
>

___
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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books from Wikipedia

2009-08-18 Thread Bod Notbod

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Renata St wrote:

> It was raised before on the Village Pump, but I think this is so disturbing
> that we ought to do something.

As others have said, I don't find this disturbing at all. It would be
good if a Wikipedian bought one of the books to ensure compliance with
our license but even if it doesn't I would still be unmoved.

I don't think it requires a concerted effort by Wikipedia to attack
the publisher by trying to post a review of all 2,000 books.
Purchasers of the books who feel they were conned can post their own
reviews if they buy them and are alarmed to discover how they were
produced.

I wouldn't be against Wikipedia having its own range of print works
provided they were profitable and all funds were ploughed back into
the Foundation. But I certainly don't think it would be a good idea if
it were purely motivated by trying to compete someone out of the
market.

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread David Goodman

We do have such articles.  The example you want is each bus stop in
NYC and each mayor of Sleepy Hollow, pop 10,000. Santa Cruz at 50,000
is marginal.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM,  wrote:
> I just explained why.  Some people would find three thousand articles  on
> "Superman" is be overwhelming.
> It's a similar situation to having separate articles on each subway stop in
>  New York City or each Mayor of Santa Cruz.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

Ok... substantive change?
Discount changes that only shift text around, fix grammar, add cats and 
so on.
Or maybe any article where the sole sources have been added by a single 
editor.
Sounds a bit WP:OWNish doesn't it?



-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary










2009/8/18  :
> Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more, 
with
> a single editor should be deleted".  That would be a ground-level bar
> on "notability".  And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.

What about new page patrollers tagging and categorising? Do they count
as editors? It takes less than 90 minutes for a new article to get its
first edits from other people. You would need to work out where to
draw the line, which is never easy.

___
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] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

I just want to address this one quote.

<>

I think this is a false reading of our intent.
The entire structuring of the "rely primarily on secondary sources" and 
other discussion that primary sources can be included *when* the 
material was already introduced by a secondary source in some way and 
especially in those cases where it conflicts, etc etc.

Doesn't really address and wasn't meant to address a situation where 
all you have is a teritary source (an expression I hate by the way).  
But let's play ball with it anyway.

Let's say that you have the "tertiary" (shudder) source EB 1911, 
"Cleopatra".  You are aware that an enormous number of our articles 
were created *solely* from the 1911 EB are you not?

You might say that makes them stubby but not in the normal sense of the 
WP:Jargon.  We might say "they rely on a single source" but really the 
EB sort of sits above most uses of that condition.  I would say that 
most of us consider is fairly authoritative on a summary view of any 
subject.

So in conclusion, I don't think we have any policy language that would 
say that tertiary sources without secondary ones would make an article 
subject to attack, except possibly a "make this better please" tag.

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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

I'd start with you first!
I've had a hard spot in my black heart for you ever since you deleted 
my article on the "Varying Shapes of Pikachu's Ears from 1989 to 1993 
and Its Correlation to the Japanese Stock Market".

On a brighter note, I'm happy to report that I have *once again* made 
the news with my apparent wickedness.

Bose 2.2 direct reflecting bookshelf speakers for sale on Knol
http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/bose-22-direct-reflecting-bookshelf/4hmquk6fx4gu/277

Evidently my evil plans are finally gaining the international 
recognition they so richly deserve.

Will "Skeletor" Johnson




-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary



You would delete all these articles I've created that no-one else has
edited? :-(

Carcharoth

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:45 PM,  wrote:
> Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more, 
with
> a single editor should be deleted".  That would be a ground-level bar
> on "notability".  And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Luna 
> To: English Wikipedia 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to W
ikipedians for BBC Documentary
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM,  wrote:
>
>> OK the other side of the argument is "Wikipedia is not paper".  That
>> is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
>> which to describe whatever we want.
>>
>
> Indeed. Our size limitations are not physical, but logical. We're no
> longer
> limited by the number of paper pages one can bind together, nor by the
> number of bound volumes one can distribute, but rather by more 
abstract
> concepts of readability, usability, maintainability, and so on.
>
> I've been meaning for a while, now, to write a project-space essay
> encouraging a shift from "notability" to "maintainability" as a 
primary
> inclusion guideline. Lack of suitable sourcing makes maintenance
> difficult,
> because it's that much harder for us to be sure of accuracy and NPOV. 
If
> nothing else, the two ideas might complement each other well.
>
> -Luna
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list


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






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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18  :
> Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more, with
> a single editor should be deleted".  That would be a ground-level bar
> on "notability".  And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.

What about new page patrollers tagging and categorising? Do they count
as editors? It takes less than 90 minutes for a new article to get its
first edits from other people. You would need to work out where to
draw the line, which is never easy.

___
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] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Surreptitiousness

wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I believe tantamount not to "rules can be broken" but rather to "rules can 
> change".  I never advise people to be bold *against* policy, but rather 
> to go to the policy discussion pages and see whether or not their 
> situation might be an exception that we'd like to include *in* the 
> policy.
>   
I agree, although I think it depends upon the case.  It all depends upon 
which policy you are talking about.
> By the way, I dispute that notability guidelines were laid down to 
> prevent "advertising, spam and original research".  For example I think 
> in the Porn Actors notability it states something like that they must 
> have appeared in at least five films or something of that sort.
>   
Yes, but the driving impetus was to stop vanity pages and advertising, 
if you look back at the discussions regarding drafting the porn 
guidance, you'll see advertising was a concern for those 
participating.The trouble with gaining consensus on anything for fiction 
is that there are people who won't even allow a bar like "has to have 
appeared in five works of fiction".  I've just had to point out to 
someone that their whole argument, which was based upon the fact that 
subject specific notability guidance couldn't extend or provide an 
alternative route to notability beyond that in the main notability 
guidance, actually contradicted the notability guidance itself, which 
emphatically states the opposite.  I'm also concerned with a potential 
rewrite of the intro to our notability guidance being discussed on the 
talk page, because it looks like it might remove these subject specific 
routes.  We're kind of losing sight of the argument that we don't have 
to think of Wikipedia as paper, and that each article is a different 
page and a different entry.  We've kind of lost sight of the argument 
that because we aren't paper, our articles can be seen as sections of 
one large article. So like you say, or at least I'm assuming you're 
saying, our porn star coverage is allowed to go to as deep as possible 
to ensure our coverage is as broad, wide and encompassing. That means 
saying five films is enough, to sate the desire of those who become 
immersed in the field. (It's kind of hard to avoid double entendres with 
this subject)
> You can certainly create a list of porn actors who have only appeared 
> in a single film *without* doing any original research.  Remembering 
> that source-based research is not "original" just because it's "new to 
> a major publication".  Original research involves the *creation* of a 
> new fact, not just the re-reporting of it no matter the source, 
> provided it's been published in some format previously.  A video box 
> cover is a publication format.  So reading names off it, is not 
> original research.
>   
I'm aware of the arguments.  The big flaw in the argument you are 
pushing is that our policies, especially no original research, call for 
articles to rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources.  That's 
been in policy in some form or another for ages, I think it is one of 
Larry Sanger's additions to the rule book.  It's currently coming into 
play in a number of places. So yes, fine, you can read stuff of a dvd 
box, but the argument is, if that's all you have, then you don't have an 
article.  You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary 
and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.  I think the 
trouble is that very early on you'd have people interested in science 
subjects writing policies over here, and people interested in fiction 
subjects writing policies over there, and conflict has ensued when 
people discovered the other "set of policies" and started applying them 
to the "wrong" subject, if you see what I mean.  And original research 
is really hard to apply to fiction, because a lot of it surprisingly 
does amount to interpretation. Now yes, we should let consensus 
determine content, but is that a consensus as defined in policy or by 
editors?  And then we fall into arguments over what a local consensus 
is. Surprisingly few people appreciate the argument that a consensus 
enshrined in a policy can be just as localised as any other.  I can 
never tell if that's small mindedness or political ignorance. I also 
find people are too busy arguing at article "a" in order to protect or 
advance positions at articles "b", "c" and "d". It would be so much 
easier if there was some way of just debating the merits of article "a". 
Alternatively, I find the people I think of as my peers are increasingly 
avoiding debates and just editing the encyclopedia.  I kind of 
appreciate and understand that.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary



You would delete all these articles I've created that no-one else has
edited? :-(

Carcharoth

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:45 PM,  wrote:
> Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more, with
> a single editor should be deleted".  That would be a ground-level bar
> on "notability".  And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Luna 
> To: English Wikipedia 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM,  wrote:
>
>> OK the other side of the argument is "Wikipedia is not paper".  That
>> is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
>> which to describe whatever we want.
>>
>
> Indeed. Our size limitations are not physical, but logical. We're no
> longer
> limited by the number of paper pages one can bind together, nor by the
> number of bound volumes one can distribute, but rather by more abstract
> concepts of readability, usability, maintainability, and so on.
>
> I've been meaning for a while, now, to write a project-space essay
> encouraging a shift from "notability" to "maintainability" as a primary
> inclusion guideline. Lack of suitable sourcing makes maintenance
> difficult,
> because it's that much harder for us to be sure of accuracy and NPOV. If
> nothing else, the two ideas might complement each other well.
>
> -Luna
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article


Print journalism is so passe.  Once Microsoft has market coverage for 
their "whole house computer" we won't need to take anything into the 
bathroom to read anymore.

Do you surf on your ipod while on the toilet?  45% of readers say 




-Original Message-
From: David Gerard 
To: charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com; English Wikipedia 

Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:33 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article


2009/8/18 Charles Matthews :

> Err ... it's Wikipedia's fault if hurried journalists today do nothing
> but research on it and misinterpret what they find? Puh-lease. To get
> from that to "It was formally launched on January 15 in 2001 by Ward
> Cunningham and Richard Stallman" you need to do plenty of
> miscomprehension exercises. Remember: hacks get _paid_ to do this 
work,
> often quite large sums, and (in the UK) are supposed to spend time
> learning the importance of getting the facts straight. Not
> copying-and-pasting, and then mangling the sense. They have subeditors
> who are _paid_ to do the mangling.


This is why I have no fear whatsoever of the Associated Press's plans
to compete directly with Wikipedia.


- 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more, with 
a single editor should be deleted".  That would be a ground-level bar 
on "notability".  And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.

Will Johnson

-Original Message-
From: Luna 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM,  wrote:

> OK the other side of the argument is "Wikipedia is not paper".  That
> is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
> which to describe whatever we want.
>

Indeed. Our size limitations are not physical, but logical. We're no 
longer
limited by the number of paper pages one can bind together, nor by the
number of bound volumes one can distribute, but rather by more abstract
concepts of readability, usability, maintainability, and so on.

I've been meaning for a while, now, to write a project-space essay
encouraging a shift from "notability" to "maintainability" as a primary
inclusion guideline. Lack of suitable sourcing makes maintenance 
difficult,
because it's that much harder for us to be sure of accuracy and NPOV. If
nothing else, the two ideas might complement each other well.

-Luna
___
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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books fromWikipedia

Of course anyone is free to raise this legal theory in a suit.  However 
exactly what requirements the license has and exactly how you have to 
comply with them, is a source of contentious debate even among those 
who believe it's enforceable at all.

Personally what I would like to see is something like "this article 
copied from the version at Wikipedia URL blah blah blah/versionstamp" 
and that's it.  If a person can even navigate that far, or cares, it's 
completely trivial to look at the version history to see "who" wrote 
it.  And I enquote who, because this is the most silly argument I've 
yet seen at blocking mirrors.  Some of our articles have dozens if not 
hundreds of writers and it's near impossible for any non-geek to 
determine who are the top five or whatever.  The license doesn't mean 
"five" or any number.

So the URL is sufficient in my mind.  And I really expect that in 
citation practice in print material we're much more likely to see 
something like that trite "Cleopatra, WP".

When the entire license was created without giving clear and specific 
and exact examples, the writers should have been taken out and shot :)  
That's not a call to action, just my opinion.  The way it stands it's a 
lawyer's feast or a dog's breakfast, or both.

So in conclusion, any editor who wants to sue that publication, should 
probably do so, within the next seven years, or lose all chance at 
making a later claim ;)

Will Johnson

-Original Message-
From: FT2 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books 
fromWikipedia

Although correct me if I'm wrong, but part of GFDL is a kind of
inheritability. In other words if an editor (copyright holder) finds 
their
text being used in these books, they can require the publisher comply 
with
all the attribution requirements within GFDL, even if Wikimedia's
communities do not insist on it all.

FT2

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:57 PM,  wrote:

> You do not need to mention "all" contributors.
> A satisfactory attribution is merely a URL pointing to the Wikipedia
> article and possibly one pointing at the history page.
> By our inaction we've made it clear you do not need to directly 
mention any
>  contributors.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/18/2009 9:29:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
>
> To my  knowledge, all that is
> required to meet a -BY- requirement is one mention  of all 
contributors.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article

2009/8/18 Charles Matthews :

> Err ... it's Wikipedia's fault if hurried journalists today do nothing
> but research on it and misinterpret what they find? Puh-lease. To get
> from that to "It was formally launched on January 15 in 2001 by Ward
> Cunningham and Richard Stallman" you need to do plenty of
> miscomprehension exercises. Remember: hacks get _paid_ to do this work,
> often quite large sums, and (in the UK) are supposed to spend time
> learning the importance of getting the facts straight. Not
> copying-and-pasting, and then mangling the sense. They have subeditors
> who are _paid_ to do the mangling.


This is why I have no fear whatsoever of the Associated Press's plans
to compete directly with Wikipedia.


- 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Luna

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM,  wrote:

> OK the other side of the argument is "Wikipedia is not paper".  That
> is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
> which to describe whatever we want.
>

Indeed. Our size limitations are not physical, but logical. We're no longer
limited by the number of paper pages one can bind together, nor by the
number of bound volumes one can distribute, but rather by more abstract
concepts of readability, usability, maintainability, and so on.

I've been meaning for a while, now, to write a project-space essay
encouraging a shift from "notability" to "maintainability" as a primary
inclusion guideline. Lack of suitable sourcing makes maintenance difficult,
because it's that much harder for us to be sure of accuracy and NPOV. If
nothing else, the two ideas might complement each other well.

-Luna
___
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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books fromWikipedia

2009-08-18 Thread FT2

Although correct me if I'm wrong, but part of GFDL is a kind of
inheritability. In other words if an editor (copyright holder) finds their
text being used in these books, they can require the publisher comply with
all the attribution requirements within GFDL, even if Wikimedia's
communities do not insist on it all.

FT2


On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:57 PM,  wrote:

> You do not need to mention "all" contributors.
> A satisfactory attribution is merely a URL pointing to the Wikipedia
> article and possibly one pointing at the history page.
> By our inaction we've made it clear you do not need to directly mention any
>  contributors.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/18/2009 9:29:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
>
> To my  knowledge, all that is
> required to meet a -BY- requirement is one mention  of all contributors.
>
> ___
> 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] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation...

2009-08-18 Thread Andrew Turvey

Really? I can't see any legal justification for doing that. If they lied in 
their candidate statement, perhaps, and it would certainly be relevant 
information that voters might want to see before making up their mind, but 
disqualification? 

- wjhon...@aol.com wrote: 
> From: wjhon...@aol.com 
> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August, 2009 21:19:28 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, 
> Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied 
> misinformation... 
> 
> I hadn't notice this earlier, but I hope we don't have any candidates who 
> are "it"s. 
> Candidate for the board Andrew, the elections we just had. 
> Perhaps Jay will be forthcoming in exact details. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 8/18/2009 12:06:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
> andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: 
> 
> I feel like I've missed half the conversation here: 
> 
> > Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI 
> to butress an argument with a block. 
> 
> candidate for what? 
> 
> - "Jay Litwyn"  wrote: 
> > From: "Jay Litwyn"  
> > To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Sent: Monday, 17 August, 2009 02:28:45 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, 
> Portugal 
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied 
> misinformation to WP:ANI to butress an argument with a block. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___ 
> > WikiEN-l mailing list 
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: 
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
> > 
> ___ 
> WikiEN-l mailing list 
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
> 
> 
> ___ 
> WikiEN-l mailing list 
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
> 
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

OK the other side of the argument is "Wikipedia is not paper".  That 
is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in 
which to describe whatever we want.

So if we want individual articles on each episode of "Gunsmoke" we 
should have them.  If we want individual articles on each chapter of 
War and Peace we should have them.

There is no reason why 3 million articles today, could not be 300 
million articles in ten years.  So why all the fuss? Get busy and stop 
deleting my articles.

The size and price of hard disk storage is dropping like a sinner to 
Hell.  We have 1 Terabyte external's going for 30 bucks.  The 
foundation just needs to invest in more cheap hardware and pound the 
pavement for more contributions.

Will Johnson


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 2:06 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary


2009/8/18  :
> I just explained why.  Some people would find three thousand articles 
 on
> "Superman" is be overwhelming.
> It's a similar situation to having separate articles on each subway 
stop in
>  New York City or each Mayor of Santa Cruz.

No, you just explained one side of the argument. An argument only
exists if there are two sides and it is only a high profile argument
if ther
e is some additional factor.

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

The way I would phrase it, there are those who believe the policy pages 
are "given down from on high" and there are those who understand that 
those same pages were "created from below".  That is, I believe 
tantamount not to "rules can be broken" but rather to "rules can 
change".  I never advise people to be bold *against* policy, but rather 
to go to the policy discussion pages and see whether or not their 
situation might be an exception that we'd like to include *in* the 
policy.  It's happened dozens of times, just within my own memory, that 
situations of this sort, get resolved by clarification and modification 
of the policy language.

By the way, I dispute that notability guidelines were laid down to 
prevent "advertising, spam and original research".  For example I think 
in the Porn Actors notability it states something like that they must 
have appeared in at least five films or something of that sort.  That 
seems more about setting a bar so we don't get people who have a 
trivial set of appearances i.e. they are "notable" in their field.

You can certainly create a list of porn actors who have only appeared 
in a single film *without* doing any original research.  Remembering 
that source-based research is not "original" just because it's "new to 
a major publication".  Original research involves the *creation* of a 
new fact, not just the re-reporting of it no matter the source, 
provided it's been published in some format previously.  A video box 
cover is a publication format.  So reading names off it, is not 
original research.

-Original Message-
From: Surreptitiousness 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
> details.
> Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the 
various
> Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
> Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then in that article
> describe the plot, characters, moral, date, number of issues, etc.
> *Now* for each character make an article for them, describing each 
issue
> they were in, with the plot details, and link them all together.
> You'd have something like three to twenty thousand articles on  
Superman.
> Many people would see that as overwhelming in scope and most relevant 
for a
>  specialist work.
>
I've always found it to be a question of how hard people are prepared 
to
look the other way, or perhaps look hard enough to find a problem.  We
seem to have lost sight of the fact that notability guidance was pretty
much drawn up and widely accepted to prevent advertising, spam and
original research.  It's now being pushed places it doesn't need to go,
by people who don't really understand what we're about. Some devoted
souls seem to treat these policy pages as "The Word", almost 
sacrosanct,
which is starting to create real tension with the notion that they are
descriptive and that consensus can change.  I think the current battle
is not between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", but between those 
who
believe rules should be followed and those who believe rules can be
broken. That we have a rule which says we can break rules makes for the
most perplexing conversations. I can't help but wonder, in amusement, 
if
it isn't possible to fork the encyclopedia from the rules in some way.

___
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 reaches 3 millionth article

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> The problem with collecting all these is the space they take up.  I've
> just acquired a [[Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana]]
> with supplements to 1980 for $1.00 per volume :-) ... plus shipping :-(
> . I have also been offered [[Enciclopedia Italiana]] and [[La Grande
> Encyclopédie]] on the same basis.  This is about 200 volumes! Finding
> place for them is a significant challenge.

Goodness. Yes. That is a large number of volumes.

Why not scan them and "store" them at wikisource? Or are these modern
encyclopedias rather than old ones?

Scanning drawings and pictures from old encyclopedias allows for some
other possibilities as well. I've asked someone to hang on to a set of
old books that have some lovely colour drawings of European
landscapes. Three volumes of "Picturesque Europe" by Cassell. Not in
good condition. If I had a full set (seems to be about 10 volumes) and
they were in good condition, they would be worth a few hundred pounds.
Published in around 1870.

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] When an article is in full protection.

2009-08-18 Thread Charlotte Webb

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Luna wrote:
> Not all protection is in response to edit warring. First example to come to
> mind: high-use templates.

FlaggedRevs would work better for that, likewise high-use images, of
which flags (in the heraldic sense, i.e. those which swing from a
pole) would be a good example.

Rumor has it this extension is coming soon a wiki near you, like this
weekend maybe[1], but I'll believe it when I see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_47#Flagged_Revisions_update_-_requesting_an_update_from_Jimmy

What we'd really need is some kind of god-parameter to indicate
whether we want to transclude the stable or bleeding-edge version of a
template or image.

Of course I don't expect much empathy from those who haven't had the
misfortune to design a template and then permanently be locked out of
it.

—C.W.

[1] Preserved for posterity in case this falls down the memory hole:

"I fully support the implementation which garnered the consensus of
the community and have asked that it be turned on as soon as possible.
I feel that this implementation is not strong enough, but it is a good
start. Once the tool is technically enabled, I think that policy will
move over time to the appropriate balance, just as protection and
semi-protection did. I believe it likely that I will be for a long
time in favor of cautious expansion of the use of the tool for more
articles - but I respect the concerns people have about it (the length
of the backlog in German Wikipedia has been too often too long, in my
opinion). I think we are simply waiting now on Brion. He has suggested
"before Wikimania". I hope that's right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 2
June 2009 (UTC)"

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18  :
> I just explained why.  Some people would find three thousand articles  on
> "Superman" is be overwhelming.
> It's a similar situation to having separate articles on each subway stop in
>  New York City or each Mayor of Santa Cruz.

No, you just explained one side of the argument. An argument only
exists if there are two sides and it is only a high profile argument
if there is some additional factor.

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Surreptitiousness

wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction  
> details.
> Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various  
> Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
> Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then in that article  
> describe the plot, characters, moral, date, number of issues, etc.
> *Now* for each character make an article for them, describing each issue  
> they were in, with the plot details, and link them all together.
> You'd have something like three to twenty thousand articles on  Superman.
> Many people would see that as overwhelming in scope and most relevant for a 
>  specialist work.
>   
I've always found it to be a question of how hard people are prepared to 
look the other way, or perhaps look hard enough to find a problem.  We 
seem to have lost sight of the fact that notability guidance was pretty 
much drawn up and widely accepted to prevent advertising, spam and 
original research.  It's now being pushed places it doesn't need to go, 
by people who don't really understand what we're about. Some devoted 
souls seem to treat these policy pages as "The Word", almost sacrosanct, 
which is starting to create real tension with the notion that they are 
descriptive and that consensus can change.  I think the current battle 
is not between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", but between those who 
believe rules should be followed and those who believe rules can be 
broken. That we have a rule which says we can break rules makes for the 
most perplexing conversations. I can't help but wonder, in amusement, if 
it isn't possible to fork the encyclopedia from the rules in some way.

___
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] When an article is in full protection.

2009-08-18 Thread Luna

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Al Tally wrote:

> If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be
> fully
> protected?
>

Not all protection is in response to edit warring. First example to come to
mind: high-use templates.

-Luna
___
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] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation...

I hadn't notice this earlier, but I hope we don't have any candidates who  
are "it"s.
Candidate for the board Andrew, the elections we just had.
Perhaps Jay will be forthcoming in exact details.
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2009 12:06:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:

I feel  like I've missed half the conversation here: 

> Motion To Disqualify  a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI 
to butress an argument  with a block. 

candidate for what? 

- "Jay Litwyn"   wrote: 
> From: "Jay Litwyn"   
> To:  wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Sent: Monday, 17 August, 2009 02:28:45  GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, 
Portugal 
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Motion  To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied 
misinformation to WP:ANI to butress  an argument with a block. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> ___ 
> WikiEN-l  mailing list 
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> To unsubscribe  from this mailing list, visit: 
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
>  
___
WikiEN-l mailing  list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,  visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Simplified English

2009-08-18 Thread jon

Dan Dascalescu wrote:
>> I just wanted to take a moment to put out there that we also have
>> another English Wikipedia.  [...] If this interests you, stop by for a
>> moment: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>> 
>
> Uh... is this news?
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>   
Uh... no.  It was a shameless plug that required no reply... unless you
wanted to reply. :)

-- 
Best,

Jon


--- --- --- ---

PGP key located at http://www.nonvocalscream.com/key.txt

PGP encrypted mail preferred.

PGP Key ID: 6F19ED63

Fingerprint: 8397 9B96 6518 5A90 10CA F3C1 C653 AE86 6F19 ED63



___
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 reaches 3 millionth article

2009-08-18 Thread Ray Saintonge

Carcharoth wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> 
>   
>> * The article describes Britannica as "the oldest English language
>> encyclopedia". In fact, it is the oldest continuously published
>> English language encyclopedia.
>>
>> Interesting. What was the oldest English language encyclopaedia, then?
>> 
> According to the encyclopedia article, this one in 1728:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclopaedia,_or_Universal_Dictionary_of_Arts_and_Sciences
>
> "The Cyclopaedia was one of the first general encyclopedias to be
> produced in English."
>
> Another candidate is this one from 1704:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicon_Technicum
>
>   
It all depends on how you define "encyclopædia".  I have a copy of 
[[Jeremy Collier]]'s /The Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical 
and Poetical Dictionary /in the 1701 second edition.  The first was in 1688.

Comparing encyclopædias is an interesting exercise.  Tracing how things 
change over the years can be a great eye-opener.  The 14th edition of 
the Britannica was produced over a period of 45 years, but the early and 
late printings were very different.  (Anything pre-1946 did not have its 
copyright renewed.) The supplement known as the 12th edition had 
elaborate details about World War I, but these were decimated for the 13th.

The problem with collecting all these is the space they take up.  I've 
just acquired a [[Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana]] 
with supplements to 1980 for $1.00 per volume :-) ... plus shipping :-( 
. I have also been offered [[Enciclopedia Italiana]] and [[La Grande 
Encyclopédie]] on the same basis.  This is about 200 volumes! Finding 
place for them is a significant challenge.

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] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to butress an argument with a block.

2009-08-18 Thread Andrew Turvey

I feel like I've missed half the conversation here: 

> Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to 
> butress an argument with a block. 

candidate for what? 

- "Jay Litwyn"  wrote: 
> From: "Jay Litwyn"  
> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Sent: Monday, 17 August, 2009 02:28:45 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, 
> Portugal 
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied 
> misinformation to WP:ANI to butress an argument with a block. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___ 
> 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] Simplified English

2009-08-18 Thread Dan Dascalescu

> I just wanted to take a moment to put out there that we also have
> another English Wikipedia.  [...] If this interests you, stop by for a
> moment: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Uh... is this news?

___
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 reaches 3 millionth article

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1917002,00.html

Time magazine ... can't get excited about the whole business really. But 
why is Wales not James if Sanger is Lawrence?

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] Simplified English

2009-08-18 Thread jon

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello friends,


I just wanted to take a moment to put out there that we also have
another English Wikipedia.  It is designed for folks who may not
understand English very well, such as "ESL" users (English as a Second
Language), among other users.  If this interests you, stop by for a
moment: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page perhaps if you have
time in addition to what you volunteer at our other project, the
"English Wikipedia".

Thank you for your time,


- --
Best,

Jon


- --- --- --- ---

PGP key located at http://www.nonvocalscream.com/key.txt

PGP encrypted mail preferred.

PGP Key ID: 6F19ED63

Fingerprint: 8397 9B96 6518 5A90 10CA F3C1 C653 AE86 6F19 ED63

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkqK9ywACgkQxlOuhm8Z7WPb4QCdEBuyc4/6mVTtKkoSJeMRg3/y
PcUAniP1EapW0rTlkFsaU5hHzfrYS4AU
=YhdY
-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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Jim Redmond

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:54, David Gerard  wrote:

> And that extends to even
> having an article at all - for many subjects, having a Wikipedia
> article can be a curse.
>

Not that that has ever stopped anybody from creating an autobiography

-- 
Jim Redmond
[[User:Jredmond]]
___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Ray Saintonge

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :
>   
>> 4 out of 5 Wikipedians agree, consensus = 80%.
>> What exactly counts as "consensus" is another industrial-sized can of
>> worms. I think we slipped into "rough consensus" long ago, and are now
>> drifting into supermajorities as a rough substitute, with occasional
>> exceptions. Lots of people wanting something doesn't necessarily make
>> them right, though it's often a decent guide to it...
>> 
> I have had people tell me "you can't do that, we reached consensus
> otherwise" and I go look and it's a straw poll that's *literally* two
> people voting for, one against. So it's always useful to check what
> someone's calling "consensus."
>
>
>   
2 to 1 doesn't even meet the 80% criterion.

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] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article

Michael Peel wrote:
> * Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, not by Ward  
> Cunningham and Richard Stallman.
>
> True, but this is Wikipedia's fault. "The pioneering concept and  
> technology of Wiki comes from Ward Cunningham, the concept of a free  
> online encyclopedia from Richard Stallman. It was formally launched  
> on 15 January 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia
>
>   
Err ... it's Wikipedia's fault if hurried journalists today do nothing 
but research on it and misinterpret what they find? Puh-lease. To get 
from that to "It was formally launched on January 15 in 2001 by Ward 
Cunningham and Richard Stallman" you need to do plenty of 
miscomprehension exercises. Remember: hacks get _paid_ to do this work, 
often quite large sums, and (in the UK) are supposed to spend time 
learning the importance of getting the facts straight. Not 
copying-and-pasting, and then mangling the sense. They have subeditors 
who are _paid_ to do the mangling.

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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

I just explained why.  Some people would find three thousand articles  on 
"Superman" is be overwhelming.
It's a similar situation to having separate articles on each subway stop in 
 New York City or each Mayor of Santa Cruz.
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:

Yes,  that is one side of the argument. It doesn't explain why the
argument  exists and is so prevalent.

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18  :
> It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
> details.
> Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
> Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
> Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then in that article
> describe the plot, characters, moral, date, number of issues, etc.
> *Now* for each character make an article for them, describing each issue
> they were in, with the plot details, and link them all together.
> You'd have something like three to twenty thousand articles on  Superman.
> Many people would see that as overwhelming in scope and most relevant for a
>  specialist work.

Yes, that is one side of the argument. It doesn't explain why the
argument exists and is so prevalent.

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction  
details.
Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various  
Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then in that article  
describe the plot, characters, moral, date, number of issues, etc.
*Now* for each character make an article for them, describing each issue  
they were in, with the plot details, and link them all together.
You'd have something like three to twenty thousand articles on  Superman.
Many people would see that as overwhelming in scope and most relevant for a 
 specialist work.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2009 8:56:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk writes:

I think  I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area, but why  do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
danger of unbalancing  the encyclopedia?

___
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 reaches 3 millionth article

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Michael Peel wrote:



> * The article describes Britannica as "the oldest English language
> encyclopedia". In fact, it is the oldest continuously published
> English language encyclopedia.
>
> Interesting. What was the oldest English language encyclopaedia, then?

According to the encyclopedia article, this one in 1728:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclopaedia,_or_Universal_Dictionary_of_Arts_and_Sciences

"The Cyclopaedia was one of the first general encyclopedias to be
produced in English."

Another candidate is this one from 1704:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicon_Technicum

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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books fromWikipedia

You do not need to mention "all" contributors.
A satisfactory attribution is merely a URL pointing to the Wikipedia  
article and possibly one pointing at the history page.
By our inaction we've made it clear you do not need to directly mention any 
 contributors.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2009 9:29:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:

To my  knowledge, all that is 
required to meet a -BY- requirement is one mention  of all contributors.

___
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 reaches 3 millionth article

2009-08-18 Thread Michael Peel

On 18 Aug 2009, at 18:34, Carcharoth wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peel  
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>> All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian  
>> Science
>> {{citation needed}} Monitor.
>
> Really?
>
> The Telegraph one was poor.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6042931/Wikipedia- 
> reaches-three-million-articles.html
>
> I agree with the first comment:
>
> "This piece contains 12 sentences, of which at least 5 are false or
> misleading [...] Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales and Larry
> Sanger, not by Ward Cunningham and Richard Stallman."
>
> And so on.

hmm; let's see:

* According to its edit history, the Eriksen article was posted at  
0533 GMT, not "4:04 am"

Not true; the oldest edit in the history is at 04:04, 17 August 2009.

* Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, not by Ward  
Cunningham and Richard Stallman.

True, but this is Wikipedia's fault. "The pioneering concept and  
technology of Wiki comes from Ward Cunningham, the concept of a free  
online encyclopedia from Richard Stallman. It was formally launched  
on 15 January 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia

* The article says that there are Wikipedias in 271 "other" langauges  
apart from English. In fact there are 271 Wikipedias in total,  
meaning there can be at most 270 "other" languages. And, unless you  
consider "simple English" to be different from English, there are at  
most 269 "other" languages.

This one's mostly my fault - I told them "Wikipedia currently exists  
in 271 languages". Oops.

* The article implies that Wikipedia has only now surpassed the  
Yongle Encycloopedia in size. In fact it surpassed it a few years ago.

That depends on how you read the phrase. I don't read it that way.

* The article describes Britannica as "the oldest English language  
encyclopedia". In fact, it is the oldest continuously published  
English language encyclopedia.

Interesting. What was the oldest English language encyclopaedia, then?

Mike 

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

Although as I've said before WikiNEWS is for "NEW" not for old.
So where do you put old investigative journalism ?
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2009 10:07:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
dger...@gmail.com writes:

particularly when you have editors who confuse an
encyclopedia  with investigative journalism. (We have Wikinews for
original  journalism!)

___
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 reaches 3 millionth article

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peel wrote:



> All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian Science
> {{citation needed}} Monitor.

Really?

The Telegraph one was poor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6042931/Wikipedia-reaches-three-million-articles.html

I agree with the first comment:

"This piece contains 12 sentences, of which at least 5 are false or
misleading [...] Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales and Larry
Sanger, not by Ward Cunningham and Richard Stallman."

And so on.

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] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article

2009-08-18 Thread Michael Peel

You may want to take a look at the Guardian blog post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/aug/17/wikipedia-three- 
million

and also a couple by the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6042931/Wikipedia- 
reaches-three-million-articles.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most- 
viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html

and one by ReadWriteWeb:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/08/wikipedia-passes-the-3- 
million-article-mark.php

All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian Science 
{{citation needed}} Monitor.

Mike

On 17 Aug 2009, at 21:17, Keith Old wrote:

> Folks,
> Sorry if this is a duplicate thread but I haven't seen anything about
> reaching this milestone.
>
> The Christian Science Monitor reports/
>
> http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows- 
> past-3-million-english-articles/
>
>
> "Wikipedia, the upstart social experiment that trusts the online  
> mob to
> steward world knowledge, has hit a major milestone.
>
> The English volume of the Web encyclopedia reached its 3 millionth  
> article.
> That massive number of whos, whats, wheres, and whens culminated  
> with a
> profile on Norwegian soap opera actress Beate
> Eriksen.
> In the less than 24 hours since she marked the 3 millionth entry,  
> more than
> 1,000 new articles have already flooded in."
>
> It concludes with info about the disagreement between inclusionists  
> and
> deletionists.
>
> "Both see the other ruining Wikipedia, either by defeating the  
> point of an
> open encyclopedia, or by expanding its “pages” until the site dies  
> from
> irrelevance.
>
> Which side do you come down on? More the merrier? Or quality over  
> quantity?
> Let us know below, or join the conversation by following us on
> Twitter
> ."
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> *Keith Old*
> ___
> 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Kat Walsh

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :
>
>> This is about 95% of the truth, actually. Other articles *can* cause
>> harm in exactly the same way, but are not as obvious or attractive a
>> target.
>
>
> Mmm. BLPs became special (a) in the wake of the Siegenthaler foulup
> (b) when we became likely the top Google hit on any given
> minorly-noteworthy person's name who has an article or is *mentioned
> in* an article.
>
> But yeah, it can apply to other sorts of articles. The Arbitration
> Committee has advised that articles on companies can need similar
> caution applied, particularly when you have editors who confuse an
> encyclopedia with investigative journalism. (We have Wikinews for
> original journalism!)

Oh, I agree that everyone became aware that articles on living people
needed special handling around then. It's just that people do not
sufficiently appreciate that they are only the most
easily-identifiable subset of the articles requiring that same care.

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :

> This is about 95% of the truth, actually. Other articles *can* cause
> harm in exactly the same way, but are not as obvious or attractive a
> target.


Mmm. BLPs became special (a) in the wake of the Siegenthaler foulup
(b) when we became likely the top Google hit on any given
minorly-noteworthy person's name who has an article or is *mentioned
in* an article.

But yeah, it can apply to other sorts of articles. The Arbitration
Committee has advised that articles on companies can need similar
caution applied, particularly when you have editors who confuse an
encyclopedia with investigative journalism. (We have Wikinews for
original journalism!)


- 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
>>> reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
>>> work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
>>> everyone will accept.
>>>
>> Hmmm, that seems to assume consensus = no yelling, rather than 80%
>> support or whatever. As if special interest groups can always block
>> change. (Now that rings a bell, but we need to be careful about the
>> retrospective history.)
>>
>> Charles
>
> 4 out of 5 Wikipedians agree, consensus = 80%.
>
> What exactly counts as "consensus" is another industrial-sized can of
> worms. I think we slipped into "rough consensus" long ago, and are now
> drifting into supermajorities as a rough substitute, with occasional
> exceptions. Lots of people wanting something doesn't necessarily make
> them right, though it's often a decent guide to it...

We completed the drift into supermajorities a year or two ago.
Decisions on individual articles are still sometimes made by consensus
because there aren't many people interested in them, but any decisions
involving more than about a dozen people resort to a simple vote.
"Rough consensus" only differs from supermajority when there is
someone authorised to draw a conclusion from it and they are willing
to do more than count votes. The only such authorisation is crats
deciding RFAs and they stopped being willing to do more than count
votes a while back.

___
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 approaches its limits" - Technology Guardian

2009/8/17 Steve Bennett :

> Summary: With the encyclopaedia being bigger and more complete, it's
> less likely that a "onesie"'s edit is worth keeping.
> The 1% reversion rate for experienced editors was also interesting. I
> doubt my edits get reverted at anything like that high a rate.


It can be problematic. I frequently edit as an IP when I'm at another
machine and can't be bothered logging in. The unexplained reversion
rate is *much* higher than when I edit logged-in, even though the
edits are exactly the same sort of thing.

(Usual culprit: overenthusiastic use of Twinkle. When you say "that
was me, what was the purpose of this reversion?" the usual response is
blustering and "HOW CAN I KEEP UP WITH THE EDITS IF I HAVE TO THINK
ABOUT THEM" or similar. I know that's nothing like all Twinkle users,
but a lot of this does noticeably come from Twinkle users.)

I urge any editor who's been around a while to try editing as an IP,
and see what the reversion rate is. Then ask the reverter what their
reasoning was for each reversion. They should be able to justify it,
after all, even with a "sorry, slipped up." Which is fine too, just
please show evidence of thought.


- 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Kat Walsh

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards :
>
>> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
>> area,
>
>
> It's because they're special, because they can cause  (and have
> caused) damage to people in a way that other articles can't. (And the
> same applies to material about living people in other articles.)
>
> Basically, we don't have the luxury of eventualism with biographical
> material about living people - it has to satisfy the standard rules
> (neutrality, verifiability, no original research) but we can't have a
> bad article and wait for it to be better - it has to be not-awful at
> any given time. So people get really harsh on reference quality,
> whether a given incident is noteworthy, etc. And that extends to even
> having an article at all - for many subjects, having a Wikipedia
> article can be a curse.

This is about 95% of the truth, actually. Other articles *can* cause
harm in exactly the same way, but are not as obvious or attractive a
target.

-Kat



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :

> 4 out of 5 Wikipedians agree, consensus = 80%.
> What exactly counts as "consensus" is another industrial-sized can of
> worms. I think we slipped into "rough consensus" long ago, and are now
> drifting into supermajorities as a rough substitute, with occasional
> exceptions. Lots of people wanting something doesn't necessarily make
> them right, though it's often a decent guide to it...


I have had people tell me "you can't do that, we reached consensus
otherwise" and I go look and it's a straw poll that's *literally* two
people voting for, one against. So it's always useful to check what
someone's calling "consensus."


- 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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books from Wikipedia

Kind of cool, really. Dunno about you, but when I write articles on
Wikipedia, I do it so that lots of people can read them and the
knowledge can be spread. I really don't care if someone is making a
quick buck.

Has anyone made a definitive list of them? It looks like I'm probably
published here:
http://www.amazon.com/Snowboard-Snowboarding-Freestyle-Terrain-Boardercross/dp/6130008767/ref=sr_1_79?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250614429&sr=1-79

But I wonder what others...

Steve

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Renata St wrote:
> "Alphascript Publishing" has published over 1900 (and counting) books, all
> available on Amazon. Prices range from $31 to $179. All of these books are
> simple computer-generated copies from Wikipedia and (at least according to
> one Amazon reviewer) couple other public domain websites. Trouble is, 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards :

> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
> area,


It's because they're special, because they can cause  (and have
caused) damage to people in a way that other articles can't. (And the
same applies to material about living people in other articles.)

Basically, we don't have the luxury of eventualism with biographical
material about living people - it has to satisfy the standard rules
(neutrality, verifiability, no original research) but we can't have a
bad article and wait for it to be better - it has to be not-awful at
any given time. So people get really harsh on reference quality,
whether a given incident is noteworthy, etc. And that extends to even
having an article at all - for many subjects, having a Wikipedia
article can be a curse.


> but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
> danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?


Often the sourcing is awful, primary research, original research, etc.
I think it's frequently it's that the articles themselves aren't
really good enough to convince, so people are unconvinced about the
topic area in general. (We had similar problems with articles on
schools a few years ago - "not notable, we don't need articles on
every school," etc., but really I think it was that the articles were
really not good or useful-looking. This is just in my subjective
opinion.)

Apart from that, some people just go "WHAT ON EARTH" at the idea of
some topics being in the encyclopedia.


- 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Kat Walsh

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
>> reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
>> work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
>> everyone will accept.
>>
> Hmmm, that seems to assume consensus = no yelling, rather than 80%
> support or whatever. As if special interest groups can always block
> change. (Now that rings a bell, but we need to be careful about the
> retrospective history.)
>
> Charles

4 out of 5 Wikipedians agree, consensus = 80%.

What exactly counts as "consensus" is another industrial-sized can of
worms. I think we slipped into "rough consensus" long ago, and are now
drifting into supermajorities as a rough substitute, with occasional
exceptions. Lots of people wanting something doesn't necessarily make
them right, though it's often a decent guide to it...

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18 Charles Matthews :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
>> reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
>> work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
>> everyone will accept.
>>
> Hmmm, that seems to assume consensus = no yelling, rather than 80%
> support or whatever. As if special interest groups can always block
> change. (Now that rings a bell, but we need to be careful about the
> retrospective history.)

Yeah, look up "consensus" in a dictionary rather than on
[[Wikipedia:Consensus]], you will find the word actually means
something quite different to what Wikipedians generally use it to mean
(which is actually called "supermajority").

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18 Charles Matthews :
> *What if the article on Mr. Darcy were written in an in-universe view,
> in other words not offering the perspective with the fourth wall removed?

I think we've pretty much reached a consensus there. While some people
write from an in-universe perspective, there haven't been many
objections recently to people going through a rewriting 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
> reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
> work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
> everyone will accept.
>   
Hmmm, that seems to assume consensus = no yelling, rather than 80% 
support or whatever. As if special interest groups can always block 
change. (Now that rings a bell, but we need to be careful about the 
retrospective history.)

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] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Keith Old wrote:
> "Both see the other ruining Wikipedia, either by defeating the point of an
> open encyclopedia, or by expanding its “pages” until the site dies from
> irrelevance.

Wow. That's the worst characterisation of the inclusionist/deletionist
struggle I've ever seen.

Steve

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Gridlock should be impossible.

2009/8/17 Jay Litwyn :
> Ever notice that people who get stuck in an intersection are running a red
> light? Anybody who wanted to complain would hav a solid ten or fifteen
> seconds to catch a crime in the act with a photo that includes a license
> plate (maybe two) and a traffic light in the same shot. So, if you cannot
> finish crossing an intersection before a light changes, then do not start.

If you have a point that is within the scope of this mailing list,
then make it. Please stop sending emails like this.

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

Cathy Edwards wrote:
> This is all so interesting - thanks.
>
> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
> area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
> danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
>   
[[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] indicates some of the sore points. It 
is not about whether "Pride or Prejudice" is notable: there is no 
problem establishing that to everyone's satisfaction. We do have an 
article [[Fitzwilliam Darcy]]. The kinds of problems that arise in 
general are:

*What if the article on Mr. Darcy were written in an in-universe view, 
in other words not offering the perspective with the fourth wall removed?
*What if [[Category:Jane Austen characters]] got out of hand, with very 
minor characters featuring?
*What if there were not enough critical literature to make articles 
(yet), and people ended up improvising their own theories?

Only the second of these is likely to matter with Janeite Wikipedians. 
We would then say "merge the info back into [[Pride and Prejudice]]". 
That could get too long (it's actually only a sensible 36K). For fiction 
articles that are very long, we are supposed to apply 
[[Wikipedia:Summary style]], in other words put subtopics on separate 
pages. But the notability guide says "notability is not inherited". This 
is where some people get stuck. Minor characters or lesser topics in a 
fictional universe get merged into a page, and can't get moved out again 
unless the subtopic itself is inherently notable.

So (as I understand it, and I'm no expert on this) fiction in general 
can have problems with all three of the bullets; and only for the first 
is there necessarily a decent editorial solution that would satisfy all 
"inclusionist" views.

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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards :
> This is all so interesting - thanks.
>
> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
> area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
> danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?

Good question. I think it is because fictional topics are very
polarising when it comes to the question of how interesting they are.
Fans of that particular work find every aspect of it extremely
interesting, people that don't watch that show/read that series of
books/whatever find it all extremely boring. There isn't much of a
middle ground. It is difficult for the extremes to move towards the
middle when there isn't anyone there, and that is what is required to
reach a 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] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article

I updated the three millionth topic pool:

Answer: Beate Eriksen, an obscure Norwegian actress.
Winner:
Cryptic C62, "Sarah Badel, an obscure actress."
Honorable mention:
Michael of Lucan, "Norwegian post offices 1943-1985 "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Keith Old wrote:
> Folks,
> Sorry if this is a duplicate thread but I haven't seen anything about
> reaching this milestone.

___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/18 Brock Weller :
> The 'deletionists' (and I use that word somewhat ironically, we don't have
> meetings or leaders or even a philosophy beyond 'improve the encyclopedia')
> vs the 'inclusionists' (I always thought that word was chosen as a catch-all
> to cast the other side as slightly evil, much like you can't help but feel
> slightly guilty voting against 'pro-life', even though you know the label
> was picked for exactly those reasons) is, in my opinion, actually a shining
> example of the wiki process and I'm glad it was chosen as at least one of
> the topics. Deep seated disagreements over the project were solved by
> consensus building and community, resulting in sensible guidelines that
> helps us keep the vast majority of utter crap out of the 'pedia, while users
> who enjoy the work organize teams hunting for that diamond in the rough to
> polish and display. Everyone's happy, and the community solved it. Great
> subject.

Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
everyone will accept.

___
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] Gridlock should be impossible.

Ever notice that people who get stuck in an intersection are running a red 
light? Anybody who wanted to complain would hav a solid ten or fifteen 
seconds to catch a crime in the act with a photo that includes a license 
plate (maybe two) and a traffic light in the same shot. So, if you cannot 
finish crossing an intersection before a light changes, then do not start. 




___
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] When an article is in full protection.

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version Inevitable Postulate of 
Version Control]

"WereSpielChequers"  wrote in message 
news:8b07072f0907230421w257405c9w9d411ec737e7c...@mail.gmail.com...
> Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
> protected articles per: 
> WP:FULL.
>
>
> Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request 
> for
> admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
> consensus?
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:18 -0400
>> From: wjhon...@aol.com
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
>> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Message-ID: <8cbd991b3a1ad8c-1414-5...@webmail-mh03.sysops.aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>>  When full protection is used, then it should stay until it is changed to
>> semi-protection.
>> We should not have a type of protection that allows admins to make
>> *content* changes willy-nilly.
>> When an article is in full protection, admins should not be making 
>> content
>> changes, except perhaps to revert changes that were the problematic ones 
>> in
>> the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>> <> war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.>>
> ___
> 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] Alternative to watchlistr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TOOLS

"Magnus Manske"  wrote in message 
news:fab0ecb70907290040r28db9048sca6ec928cd327...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Carcharoth 
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Magnus
>> Manske wrote:
>>> Trying to overcome my aversion towards Java, I've written a little app
>>> that can aggregate watchlists for a user across WikiMedia projects.
>>>
>>> 'nuff said:
>>> http://magnusmanske.de/MetaWatchlist/
>>
>> Cool. Is this being publicised elsewhere as well?
>
> Not yet. Any ideas?
> [Feel free to spam other places in my name ;-]
>
> Magnus
>
> ___
> 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] The end of donations

"Carcharoth"  wrote in message 
news:206791b10908110309j4ef2cca3l777b8fcb5e86c...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Jay
> Litwyn wrote:
>> "stevertigo"  wrote in message
>> news:7c402e010907301615q7f86e8a1v5edb56ced5a80...@mail.gmail.com...
>>> Sorry, thought this was going to foundation-l.
>>>
>>> -S
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM, stevertigo wrote:
 It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
 some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
 eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this
 not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it?
>>
>> Carcharoth answered that question in October or November
>
> 
>
> I'm not entirely sure I did answer that question back then (I can't
> find anything on a brief search). I might have done, so if you point
> me to an e-mail I wrote to this list, I'll accept that. Even if I did,
> no-one should have accepted it at face value, as I was likely just
> giving an uninformed opinion (can you tag mailing list posts with
> "citation needed"?). And any case, what SJ (Samuel Klein) has just
> said is obviously much better informed!

Mis-attributed. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg00012.html It 
was Anthony. You were only in the message, sorry. I had fully intended to 
read source documents to find out if I would get a conclusion, 
and...well...even if I understand it, I hate legalese, and making chaos 
click less took longer than I thot. In any case, the way I see it, we are 
more likely to see donations from grateful dot coms (like *.wikia.com) and 
commercial interests who exploit our information -- our unannounced printer 
being an example. Those donations would reduce our cravings for donations 
from contributors. The DVDs at WalMart (an investment) were solidly a risk, 
because you would be depending on people with slow access or no access to 
the internet, and that is dwindling, TMK. I would not mind knowing how it 
panned out.
___
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/ 

___
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] Request for assistance for new editors

"Emily Monroe"  wrote in message 
news:2b0befcd-0e16-4086-9e45-954ceacea...@me.com...
> The civility thread has got me thinking, but I didn't want to hijack
> it, so here we go. This idea isn't fully formed, so forgive me.
>
> I was going through wikipedia, when I came across a newer editors talk
> page. S/he had several speedy deletion templates, and obvisouly didn't
> know what xe was doing when it came to creating articles (xe was
> making test-type articles, so copy-and-pasting WP:FIRSTARTICLE, stuff
> like that), but for whatever reason, xe wasn't going to ask for help.
>
> I came up with the idea that maybe we can rename the "New
> Contributors' help page" to "Request for assistance for new editors".
> Not that it's already used enough already, but maybe this will make it
> more well-used. At the very least, we can maybe add to huggle
> something that says "This new editor needs help fitting into
> wikipedia. Can anyone help him/her?"
>
> Of course, while thinking about this, I forgot to help the editor who
> got me thinking about it!

xe? Do you mean (s)he? It is easier to read that way. You know that icon of 
a clock with a counter-clockwise arrow on it. That is your history. Try to 
find that and click on it once. If it is not there, then you might be able 
to figure out how to add it to your toolbar, or at least find it among text 
menus. Users can put a {{helpme}} template on any page they are having 
trouble with. It will *very probably* summon someone from an IRC channel --  
same channel that watches helpdesk for new questions. 




___
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 approaches its limits" - TechnologyGuardian

"Luna"  wrote in message 
news:1adf38660908131222j772acaa8h544580d05e716...@mail.gmail.com...
> Maybe we should stop reverting vandalism.
> It would improve our statistics, after all.

What? And let it out that wikipedians hav WebCams on celebrity sex life? 




___
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 approaches its limits" - TechnologyGuardian

"Michael Pruden"  wrote in message 
news:515438.44185...@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
...pigeonholed (i.e. as an inclusionist or a deletionist when they are 
actually in the middle).

Merjists are both, and they do not need to participate in any AfD 
discussion, because the articles they redirect do not actually get deleted. 
IOW, any user can undo a merj, because both articles exist: Seeing the 
history for the deleted articles is only a matter of either writing or 
finding ?redirect=no. So, in a way, they are also neither, because deleted 
material should appear at the redirection destination, so I guess they are 
net inclusionists. This is of course only applicable to notable articles 
that are longstanding synonyms or close cousins. I think it is also possible 
to be a pre-emptive, deletionistic merjist and prevent new articles from 
being created when their content already exists, elsewhere, under a synonym. 
I tried doing some of that in [[recent changes#requested articles]], and I 
was chastized for some of it -- did not hit the best mark, I suppose.
___
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/WP_CRYSTAL.HTM written from the merjist POV. 




___
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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books from Wikipedia

Maybe there should be a [[:category:printed articles]]. It should ignore 
personal and educational use with a note at the top saying "Alphascript 
Publishing used this article in whole or major part for a commercial 
printing of Wikipedia.". It would be nice of them to create the category and 
make it complete. 




___
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] Lists and redlinks and link maintenance

There is a list of organic compounds in Chemistry. I moved to 
{{mergeto|:category:organic_compounds}} on that list at least a year ago. 
The list should be nothing but requested articles and it might include 
organic compounds that are not in :category:organic_compounds (or a subcat 
of it). List class articles are like that. They are not recommended for 
creation, and it is hard to do without them, much like Carcharoth's list of 
scientists with awards. Those are obviously notable. 




___
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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books from Wikipedia


 wrote in message 
news:8cbeab907c57f0c-390-2...@webmail-dz04.sysops.aol.com...
>
> You said:
>> The publisher seems to observe the copyright (even includes full edit
>> history) so legal action seems impossible.
>
> How can a book copy the full edit history without it being obvious that
> it's copied from Wikipedia?
> We do not require someone to say "copied from Wikipedia" on the title
> page by the way.
> But I'm unclear why you think there is no possible legal action?
> We have a license, and the license states that you must state certain
> things.
> Either they obey it, or they don't. Am I right?

Yup. That is why I am guessing this is a non-issue. If they did not run 
their editorial concept past someone at Wikimedia, then they had one of 
their own lawyers check it against our license. Renata St does not like 
their price. Neither do I, and I do not see anything I can do about it other 
than buy something else. She does not like the lack of prominence of 
wikipedia's name on the face of the books. It was not a wikimedia-spawned 
initiative.  Forces are against printing wikipedia, and I am with them, 
mainly because I would not know where to start with rules for selecting 
articles, and I do not know anybody who does. So, she is an incidental and 
frequent contributor to wikipedia's unofficial print edition. Maybe she 
should turn that around and look at what she could do for the articles that 
she did not write in the books, then personally ask if they will pay her for 
doing 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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books fromWikipedia

I think this message is better directed at Amazon and other distributors. 
Nothing is inherently wrong with mirroring Wikipedia on paper. And, I think 
that belies some of the difficulties in selecting articles, doing a real 
copy edit (that is manually re-typing it to make it flow, among other 
things, and I am not sure that they do that), and formatting it for paper. 
Some might think that paper is a wasteful business, and to read those who 
want to bill me electronically, it is. You must understand, though, that I 
doubt it is the intention of AlphaScript publishing to dishonour us, and 
really, their selection of us is an honour. To my knowledge, all that is 
required to meet a -BY- requirement is one mention of all contributors. I 
think that is part of how we managed to pare wikipedia down to a DVD release 
for WalMart: I do not know--did not buy it. The total of all edits is over 
four terabytes, which would not fit (that is about a thousand DVDs). I would 
be interested in their tables of content. It would be nice to figure it into 
our own selection processes. And hey...are you sure they are not among our 
monetary contributors? 




___
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] Report a Problem hack


"Samuel Klein"  wrote in message 
news:5396c0d10908102142o3bde7373p735d8cc0a7705...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
>> I'd like it. Good for new page patrollers'.
>
> +1 for neat little pop-ups and easy error reporting.  Can we also do
> something like this to report general interface and software bugs?

mailto:webmas...@localhost?subject=title_of_page_with_error 




___
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 seriously doubt that any rule says that sources must be free. It helps in 
double-checking some statements if other people can at least see the 
abstract of an article, which is why pubmed...gov is so good. Old books 
might be better than new studies in some cases, and even when those are 
public domain, they are not really free. Someone has to pay time for 
scanning, or copying and supply web space, which is why project Gutenberg is 
so good.
___
Shaw's Principle:
  Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use 
it.
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/WP_CRYSTAL.HTM 




___
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] resolution-l

"stevertigo"  wrote in message 
news:7c402e010908022342o8e581f3o566c6b7c610ac...@mail.gmail.com...
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:01 PM,  wrote:
> > I believe that you are mistakenly supposing that the list would discuss 
> > *a
> > particular* case. I believe that the original proposal was to create a
> > list that would discuss the resolution process itself, not a particular 
> > case
> > of it, but rather the entirety of the process.

> Correct.

> In reality though its next to impossible to intelligently deal with
> anything at a macroscopic level without getting somewhat into certain
> specific examples. So certain cases will come up, though they won't be
> officially handled on the list.

> But likewise its impossible to deal well with particular cases without
> getting a serious overview. The latter concept is I believe the status
> quo, and thus is the main reason why I propose a dedicated list.

So, like the question of warnings. If an administrator says they are not 
necessary, and there might be cases where they are not, then I think they 
should justify preventing an established user with no block history from 
defending themselves.
___
An Elephaant coud drive a cruise ship through holes in what I am reflecting 
at:
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/WP_CRYSTAL.HTM (With a quick howto on merjerz).
Nothing sounds like BrewJay's Babble Bin. 




___
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] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to butress an argument with a block.





___
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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009-08-18 Thread Cathy Edwards

This is all so interesting - thanks.

I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?

-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 17 August 2009 18:29
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

2009/8/17 Carcharoth :
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Cathy
Edwards wrote:
>
> 
>
>> 1. The inclusionist / deletionist debate peaked a few years ago
>
> It did? Maybe I haven't been paying attention. I was under the 
> impression that notability guidelines were still a topic of heated 
> debate as regards articles on fiction topics. Or has a guideline 
> finally been thrashed out?

The original debate was global, there were people that believed our
standards should be much stricter all over and there were people the
believed our standards should be much more relaxed all over. That global
debate finished years ago, there are now separate debates regarding
different topics (BLPs and fiction are the two main ones, I think).
Classifying people as "inclusionist" or "deletionist" doesn't work in
the current environment since someone might be on one side for one topic
and the other for others.

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal 
views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on 
it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

___
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 reaches 3 millionth article

Those crazy Europeans!  Why can't they just decide on one language!



-Original Message-
From: Charles Matthews 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article










Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Does my memory deceive me? Or is it true that 2 of the 3 "millionth"
> articles related to soap operas?
>
A Scottish railway station, and the Spanish TV comedy programme [[El
Hormiguero]], were what you were thinking of. If you regard Europe as
one big historical soap opera, you were correct.

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] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article