Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors. What can we do about that? Emily In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management, 30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced labor. ~Keegan -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Positives to publicity
Keegan Paul wrote: People truly do have no clue about how to edit or the community and how it functions. Actually, I don't think the functionality of the community can be described. Folks are amazed to be told that they can edit willy nilly, make an account and all that. For all our popularity worldwide the vast majority of the consumers have no idea (I realize I'm preaching to the choir) until these news stories invoke interest. So, what to do about it? How to not bite? It's a big topic, obviously, but this book written by a few Wikipedians is probably the best introduction I've found: http://howwikipediaworks.com/ Of course, not everyone will go off and read a book. But, I mean, it's a fairly large community, engaged in a fairly large project (one that's never been attempted at this scale, actually), so some amount of effort to fully understand what's going on is inevitable. What we really want is: a much shorter version of that book, that somehow covers an even larger breadth of information. ;-) It's tricky. I mean, we're not just teaching people about Wikipedia itself when we explain how to edit Wikipedia, but about many other fields of knowledge that they may or may not already have any grounding in, which we've adapted in our practices (and which many of us have learned as we go). The idea of tertiary-source summaries vs. original research; what constitutes original research in various areas; what a neutral tone sounds like; what scholarly citation looks like; how to evaluate the reliability of sources; how to spot surprising claims that need citations; how to write in a sort of fractal summary style; etc. Some of this is slowly seeping out into the wider culture, which may make the acculturation process easier if lots of people coming in already know certain things. The widespread outside-Wikipedia use of [citation needed], often in a way reasonably close to what we usually mean by it, is one example (and actually imo good for knowledge in general--- journalists in particular are increasingly getting the [citation needed] thrown at them when they make questionable-and-unsupported claims). -Mark ___ 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] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
Just curious, how often do the subjects of articles you work on come up in daily life? I work on a lot of pretty obscure and random stuff, but even still, I'm surprised how often I can claim to have written the article about some Australian town, a state park, a ski resort... On the downside, it's humiliating to be participating in a trivia night, and there's a question about just such a topic, and you can't remember the answer. I did a fair bit of copyediting on [[Hughes H-4 Hercules]], but still couldn't remember the name of the damn thing the other night...:( (But I did know who [[Franck Sorbier]] was...) 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] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
Just last week I was out at a local flea market (is this the same phrase in British English?), and I asked a junk-book seller if he's ever seen the book Foster Family by Buddy Foster. I explained that Buddy was Jody Foster's older brother who had actually had a TV career several years before hers. The lady next to me wanted to argue about whether Buddy Foster had been Andy Griffith's son, she said it was Ronny Howard. That confused me because Ron Howard *was* Andy Griffith's son. The part I couldn't remember at the time was... as WELL. Because Andy had two different shows. See that's what I get for not yet having my brain implant. Will Johnson P.S. A Flea Market (at least in American English) is where people bring all their junk they want to get rid of, and spread it out for other people to buy it for very low prices. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:11 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: snip P.S. A Flea Market (at least in American English) is where people bring all their junk they want to get rid of, and spread it out for other people to buy it for very low prices. We have those. I've heard Americans refer to garage sales. We (Brits) have those sometimes, but more often we take stuff to a local charity shop, or a school's jumble sale, or stick stuff in the boot (luggage compartment) of a car, drive with others to an empty field, and have what called a car boot sale! :-) 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] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
In a message dated 8/30/2009 6:22:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: We have those. I've heard Americans refer to garage sales. We (Brits) have those sometimes, but more often we take stuff to a local charity shop, or a school's jumble sale, or stick stuff in the boot (luggage compartment) of a car, drive with others to an empty field, and have what called a car boot sale! :-) OK, a garage sale is typically where you sell your stuff from your own garage. People just park on the street, walk to your house and buy your stuff. Sometimes we'll have a neighborhood garage sale, where several people will sell their junk from one person's garage. A flea market must be like your car boot sale, but the flea market's I've been to, aren't in empty fields, they are more organized and regular. Jumble sale that's a new one, I think we'd call that a charity flea market. That is, you donate your stuff and some charity sells it. I was just thinking the other day, Is there a British-American Dictionary ? That would be a dictionary that has all these various words and phrases and their translations into British English. Often I'll come upon an article obviously written by a Brit and it will say something like At the market, her trolley bumped into a right blinker and he copped her one... (I just made that up), and it makes little sense at all to an American, unless they had watched a lot of British tele. W.J. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] British-American dictionary
Here's one http://www.travelfurther.net/dictionaries/ba-tz.htm he doesn't have Trolley though, I think that's one of the funniest ones he doesnt list To Brits a trolley is the cart you push around a grocery store. To Americans a trolley is a streetcar usually electric and old-fashioned and quaint. Advise to Brits, never say fag or fag end in the states http://www.travelfurther.net/dictionaries/ba-df.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] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
I've heard Americans refer to garage sales. Where I live (mid-Missouri), there's more yard sales and rummage sales than there are garage sales, but it's all the same thing. On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Carcharoth wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:11 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: snip P.S. A Flea Market (at least in American English) is where people bring all their junk they want to get rid of, and spread it out for other people to buy it for very low prices. We have those. I've heard Americans refer to garage sales. We (Brits) have those sometimes, but more often we take stuff to a local charity shop, or a school's jumble sale, or stick stuff in the boot (luggage compartment) of a car, drive with others to an empty field, and have what called a car boot sale! :-) 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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
n Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: snip I was just thinking the other day, Is there a British-American Dictionary ? That would be a dictionary that has all these various words and phrases and their translations into British English. Often I'll come upon an article obviously written by a Brit and it will say something like At the market, her trolley bumped into a right blinker and he copped her one... I was hoping Wiktionary had something, but haven't found it yet. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page The main page says: Designed as the lexical companion to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia project, Wiktionary has grown beyond a standard dictionary and now includes a thesaurus, a rhyme guide, phrase books, language statistics and extensive appendices. We aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it. Thus etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations are included. I'd assume that would include phrase books for US and British English (and the other English variants as well). I like the way Wiktionary approach policies! http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Wiktionary_policies I'm impressed they are tackling sign languages: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:About_sign_languages A bit on spelling variants here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Spelling_variants_in_entry_names For phrases, see here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Phrasebook But no US or British phrases. I think you are stuck with looking up individual phrases and seeing which country they originate from. Getting translations from one variant of English into another doesn't seem to be something Wiktionary has attempted yet. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Americanism http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/American_English http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/British_English http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Scottish_English http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Commonwealth_English http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Dialects 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] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
Carcharoth schreef: I was hoping Wiktionary had something, but haven't found it yet. It's on Wikipedia: [[List of words having different meanings in British and American English]] (and the other pages in the navbox at the top of that page). Eugene ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
2009/8/30 wjhon...@aol.com: A flea market must be like your car boot sale, but the flea market's I've been to, aren't in empty fields, they are more organized and regular. Car boot sales are often very organised and regular. Some sellers will be regulars (selling things they made or buy in from somewhere, or whatever) some will be one-offs just having a clear out at home, but the sale is often there every week. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 73, Issue 110
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:19:05 -0700, stevertigo wrote: PS: Daniel, we know you read the digests, but would you please change the subject header in your replies to match the actual header of the thread? Thanks. Yes, I try to, as part of the extensive copy-and-pasting I need to do when beginning a reply, in order to get a properly trimmed quote with an accurate attribution line; but, regrettably, I sometimes forget that last step of changing the subject line. This time, ironically, I did it properly, but this merely resulted in replacing one digest subject line with another! My apologies for this netiquette failure, and I'll make my best attempt to do better in the future. Now, if only that would also be true of the several people on this list who invariably fullquote beneath their replies, sometimes building up a string of half a dozen or more untrimmed list footers that digest readers need to scroll through to get to the next message. And then there's the weirdest perversion of all, the properly trimmed quote interleaved with reply, followed by an untrimmed fullquote; I call this doublequoting, not to be confused with the ASCII doublequote character with which I surround the word doublequoting here. I have more discussion of such quoting abberations here: http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html Is there really, as alluded to in the replies last time I brought up the issue, a mail program or webmail interface that silently adds such a fullquote to the bottom of a message (whether or not the main body of the message includes interleaved quotes and replies), giving no indication to the writer that such an attachment is being made nor any ability to trim or remove it? Every mail interface I've ever encountered makes the quoted material visible and editable, though admittedly some (e.g., the iPhone) make it quite difficult to trim it (though the addition of cut/copy/paste capability on the iPhone in the 3.0 software upgrade a few months ago brought it from almost impossible to kind of hard but do-able). -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:06:45 -0500, Keegan Paul wrote: In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management, 30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced labor. Do they correspond to the lead, follow, and get the hell out of the way categories from the old expression? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
One issue that's bugged me for awhile wrt flagged revisions is whether
we'll have a problem with people saying that [[m:The Wrong Version]]
is still flagged, and theirs hasn't yet been. Granted, if this
becomes an issue, it can be easily enough solved by flagging the
current version (and, if necessary, applying the usual 3rr sanctions)
- but is it likely to be one frequently enough to be a practical
inconvenience for the community?
Pakaran
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Apoc 2400apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Yes, ordinary full protection is still available, as is ordinary
semi-protection.
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
{{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
stop edit wars.
OT: Is there any way I can make my messages thread properly without having
all messages sent to my email? I prefer to read the web archive.
___
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] Well-sourced nonsense vs. unsourced competence
David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: From the excellent little book Keywords in Evolutionary Biology by Evelyn Fox Keller Elisabeth Lloyd, Adaptation, Current uses by Mary Jane West-Eberhard, An 'adaptation' is a characteristic of an organism whose form is the result of selection in a particular functional context Accordingly. the process of 'adaptation' is the evolutionary modification of a character under selection for efficient or advantageous (fitness-enhancing) functioning in a particular context p.13 By characteristic do they not mean observed [quantity [result or process]]? By organism do they not mean species? The point here is that no organisms themselves adapt - organisms are instances of a species, and its the species itself that adapts. But even that is not technically accurate - adaptation is a perception of overall change - based in a *quantitative estimation of things being different from what they were before. Then the interesting point of adaptation is that the concept means something more than just *quantifiable change(s) - that time and biochemistry bring about some *qualitative improvements out of those changes. Hence it's undeveloped meaning (organism's change) is imprecise, and its developed meaning makes it still just a colloquialism for evolution or natural selection - even when breaking it down as I just did. The authors get it only mostly right. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Well-sourced nonsense vs. unsourced competence
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: But even that is not technically accurate - adaptation is a perception of overall change - based in a *quantitative estimation of things being different from what they were before. Correction - should be: 'adaptation is a *quantitative estimation of overall change - based in a perception of things as being different from what they were before.' -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Folks, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/ Wired reports: *Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page.* *More than 60 million people visit the free, open-access encyclopedia each month, searching for knowledge on 12 million pages in 260 languages. But despite its popularity, **Wikipedia*http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/www.wikipedia.org * has long suffered criticism from those who say it’s not reliable. Because anyone with an internet connection can contribute, the site is subject to vandalism, bias and misinformation. And edits are anonymous, so there’s no easy way to separate credible information from fake content created by vandals.* *Now, researchers from the **Wiki Lab* http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/* at the University of California, Santa Cruz have created a system to help users know when to trust Wikipedia—and when to reach for that dusty Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf. Called **WikiTrust*http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page *, the program assigns a color code to newly edited text using an algorithm that calculates author reputation from the lifespan of their past contributions. It’s based on a simple concept: The longer information persists on the page, the more accurate it’s likely to be.* *Text from questionable sources starts out with a bright orange background, while text from trusted authors gets a lighter shade. As more people view and edit the new text, it gradually gains more “trust” and turns from orange to white.* More in story *Regards* ** *Keith* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Nathan Russellwindrun...@gmail.com wrote: I'll just say I'm a bit surprised to be hearing it from Wired first. Pakaran WikiTrust itself has been announced and then mentioned on this list multiple times; in the absence of quotes in the article from Wikimedia Foundation staff members, I'm not 100% convinced that a decision has been made to roll it out to all users of the English Wikipedia. If I remember, there were significant technical issues associated with a real-time trust analysis on the entire encyclopedia. Perhaps the mentions of gadgets were intended to signify that it would be an optional gadget available in the preferences. It's a really interesting method of looking at the project, I'm in favor of adding it as a gadget if a way can be found to make it technically manageable. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Color coding to show aging of text (Wikitrust) has been around for ages -- I think since shortly after the Seigenthaler incident or some 2006 incident, or some research around 2006 ish. Maybe this means the owners will run it live or something. I don't know. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Nathan Russell windrun...@gmail.comwrote: I'll just say I'm a bit surprised to be hearing it from Wired first. Pakaran On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Keith Oldkeith...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/ Wired reports: *Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page.* *More than 60 million people visit the free, open-access encyclopedia each month, searching for knowledge on 12 million pages in 260 languages. But despite its popularity, **Wikipedia* http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/www.wikipedia.org * has long suffered criticism from those who say it’s not reliable. Because anyone with an internet connection can contribute, the site is subject to vandalism, bias and misinformation. And edits are anonymous, so there’s no easy way to separate credible information from fake content created by vandals.* *Now, researchers from the **Wiki Lab* http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/* at the University of California, Santa Cruz have created a system to help users know when to trust Wikipedia—and when to reach for that dusty Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf. Called **WikiTrust*http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page *, the program assigns a color code to newly edited text using an algorithm that calculates author reputation from the lifespan of their past contributions. It’s based on a simple concept: The longer information persists on the page, the more accurate it’s likely to be.* *Text from questionable sources starts out with a bright orange background, while text from trusted authors gets a lighter shade. As more people view and edit the new text, it gradually gains more “trust” and turns from orange to white.* More in story *Regards* ** *Keith* ___ 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/ Wired reports: *Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page.* *More than 60 million people visit the free, open-access encyclopedia each month, searching for knowledge on 12 million pages in 260 languages. But despite its popularity, **Wikipedia* http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/www.wikipedia.org * has long suffered criticism from those who say it’s not reliable. Because anyone with an internet connection can contribute, the site is subject to vandalism, bias and misinformation. And edits are anonymous, so there’s no easy way to separate credible information from fake content created by vandals.* *Now, researchers from the **Wiki Lab* http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/* at the University of California, Santa Cruz have created a system to help users know when to trust Wikipedia—and when to reach for that dusty Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf. Called **WikiTrust*http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page *, the program assigns a color code to newly edited text using an algorithm that calculates author reputation from the lifespan of their past contributions. It’s based on a simple concept: The longer information persists on the page, the more accurate it’s likely to be.* *Text from questionable sources starts out with a bright orange background, while text from trusted authors gets a lighter shade. As more people view and edit the new text, it gradually gains more “trust” and turns from orange to white.* More in story *Regards* ** *Keith* What's interesting about WikiTrust is that a trust score is computed for each individual. I wonder if these will be made public, and if so, how they will change the community of editors. It seems likely that they will not be made public. However, since the algorithm is published and I believe the source code as well anyone with the hardware could compute and publish how trusted each community member is. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Or perhaps it is a reputation score - my memory is fuzzy. Either way, I would like the score to NOT be published. I'd hate to have the community divided over a piece of software. Emily On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:32 PM, Brian wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/ Wired reports: *Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page.* *More than 60 million people visit the free, open-access encyclopedia each month, searching for knowledge on 12 million pages in 260 languages. But despite its popularity, **Wikipedia* http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/www.wikipedia.org * has long suffered criticism from those who say it’s not reliable. Because anyone with an internet connection can contribute, the site is subject to vandalism, bias and misinformation. And edits are anonymous, so there’s no easy way to separate credible information from fake content created by vandals.* *Now, researchers from the **Wiki Lab* http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/ * at the University of California, Santa Cruz have created a system to help users know when to trust Wikipedia—and when to reach for that dusty Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf. Called **WikiTrust*http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page *, the program assigns a color code to newly edited text using an algorithm that calculates author reputation from the lifespan of their past contributions. It’s based on a simple concept: The longer information persists on the page, the more accurate it’s likely to be.* *Text from questionable sources starts out with a bright orange background, while text from trusted authors gets a lighter shade. As more people view and edit the new text, it gradually gains more “trust” and turns from orange to white.* More in story *Regards* ** *Keith* What's interesting about WikiTrust is that a trust score is computed for each individual. I wonder if these will be made public, and if so, how they will change the community of editors. It seems likely that they will not be made public. However, since the algorithm is published and I believe the source code as well anyone with the hardware could compute and publish how trusted each community member is. Or perhaps it is a reputation score - my memory is fuzzy. ___ 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: What's interesting about WikiTrust is that a trust score is computed for each individual. I wonder if these will be made public, and if so, how they will change the community of editors. It seems likely that they will not be made public. However, since the algorithm is published and I believe the source code as well anyone with the hardware could compute and publish how trusted each community member is. I don't think the trust scores, if they're based on what the article describes, would really do much to show trust in a conventional sense. Consider that someone doing Michael-style subtle vandalism (release dates, etc) may not get reverted for some time, while a good editor who likes to edit in political topics may get reverted frequently even when her contributions are good (or, perhaps, just have subtle PoV issues). Pakaran ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Or perhaps it is a reputation score - my memory is fuzzy. Either way, I would like the score to NOT be published. I'd hate to have the community divided over a piece of software. Emily There's also the possibility for gaming the system by, e.g., making subtle expansions that are very unlikely to be reverted to articles that don't get much attention. Unless the algorithm is more complex than I thought. Pakaran ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Agree - trust scores are likely to be divisive and easily gamed. I do not think trust score league tables will help the project. However as they are also good ways to spot problems and see the reliability profile of an article on review, perhaps some way might be found to make some of their results available, in some limited manner? Admin only?? On the assumption admins are trusted anyway so they don't have such a vested interest in numbers, but they might be interested in problem editorship. The other view is if you can see the aging or trust profile of the article, that's all you need. low trust-score users may simply be legitimate but inexperienced, bold and reverted, etc. There are other ways to ID problem editors, and if you need to know who wrote a specific sentence you can always use WikiBlame to check the history. So overall I would say you don't need to publish trust scores of users, and even telling a user their own trust score is merely a toehold into self promotion/gaming at best. People should edit, not be encouraged to keep scorecards. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Nathan Russell windrun...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Or perhaps it is a reputation score - my memory is fuzzy. Either way, I would like the score to NOT be published. I'd hate to have the community divided over a piece of software. Emily There's also the possibility for gaming the system by, e.g., making subtle expansions that are very unlikely to be reverted to articles that don't get much attention. Unless the algorithm is more complex than I thought. Pakaran ___ 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
2009/8/31 Nathan Russell windrun...@gmail.com: WikiTrust itself has been announced and then mentioned on this list multiple times; in the absence of quotes in the article from Wikimedia Foundation staff members, I'm not 100% convinced that a decision has been made to roll it out to all users of the English Wikipedia. Which is what I meant, sorry. The Wired article says it was derived from a UCSC story, which seems to be the one here: http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0901/pages/wiki/wiki.html After years of collaboration, WikiMedia bigwigs finally decided in April 2009 to make WikiTrust available for all registered Wikipedia users. The launch date for the new gadget has not been set, but de Alfaro thinks it will go live in September or October. I cannot for the life of me find any reference to this on the wikitrust website, on the mailing lists, etc - so, I dunno. available for and Gadget makes it sound like an additional preferences thing, which seems plausible - those tend to get installed pretty quietly. I've copied this mail to Luca de Alfaro, who's posted here before, and hopefully he can shed some light on what's actually going on! :-) -- - 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
In the absence of any actual validation that this measures trust' or reliability or quality, i am very skeptical it would be highly inappropriate to integrate into our gadgets. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/8/31 Nathan Russell windrun...@gmail.com: WikiTrust itself has been announced and then mentioned on this list multiple times; in the absence of quotes in the article from Wikimedia Foundation staff members, I'm not 100% convinced that a decision has been made to roll it out to all users of the English Wikipedia. Which is what I meant, sorry. The Wired article says it was derived from a UCSC story, which seems to be the one here: http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0901/pages/wiki/wiki.html After years of collaboration, WikiMedia bigwigs finally decided in April 2009 to make WikiTrust available for all registered Wikipedia users. The launch date for the new gadget has not been set, but de Alfaro thinks it will go live in September or October. I cannot for the life of me find any reference to this on the wikitrust website, on the mailing lists, etc - so, I dunno. available for and Gadget makes it sound like an additional preferences thing, which seems plausible - those tend to get installed pretty quietly. I've copied this mail to Luca de Alfaro, who's posted here before, and hopefully he can shed some light on what's actually going on! :-) -- - 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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
2009/8/31 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: Agree - trust scores are likely to be divisive and easily gamed. I do not think trust score league tables will help the project. However as they are also good ways to spot problems and see the reliability profile of an article on review, perhaps some way might be found to make some of their results available, in some limited manner? Admin only?? Perhaps the trust scores could be released in the form of categories. You can't find out an individuals actual score but you can find out if they are untrustworthy, average or trustworthy (with dividing lines that we have spent at least a gigabyte arguing over, of course). I can't see any real use for the exact scores - the precision will be so low that the rough categories are all you can conclude from them. I'm not convinced there is sufficient use for even such categories, though. They might be useful for prioritising recent changes in vandal fighting tools, that's about it. (Perhaps the vandal fighting tools could have access to the scores without their users having such access?) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Agree - trust scores are likely to be divisive and easily gamed. I do not think trust score league tables will help the project. However as they are also good ways to spot problems and see the reliability profile of an article on review, perhaps some way might be found to make some of their results available, in some limited manner? Admin only?? On the assumption admins are trusted anyway so they don't have such a vested interest in numbers, but they might be interested in problem editorship. The other view is if you can see the aging or trust profile of the article, that's all you need. low trust-score users may simply be legitimate but inexperienced, bold and reverted, etc. There are other ways to ID problem editors, and if you need to know who wrote a specific sentence you can always use WikiBlame to check the history. So overall I would say you don't need to publish trust scores of users, and even telling a user their own trust score is merely a toehold into self promotion/gaming at best. People should edit, not be encouraged to keep scorecards. FT2 Playing devils advocate, isn't there far too little information available about your average editor? How do you determine at a glance the reputation of an editor whose edits you are reviewing, or with whom you are having a conversation? Further, since the full history dump is publicly available and the given algorithm is just one of many related measures that could be computed, is it pointless to try and stop the information from being released? Lastly, in the interest of transparency should the information not be made available? Shouldn't the goal be to create an algorithm that can't be gamed? It may actually be the case that this one is not very subject to manipulation. The authors are very astute and it would take an awful lot of effort. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Agree - trust scores are likely to be divisive and easily gamed. I do not think trust score league tables will help the project. However as they are also good ways to spot problems and see the reliability profile of an article on review, perhaps some way might be found to make some of their results available, in some limited manner? Admin only?? On the assumption admins are trusted anyway so they don't have such a vested interest in numbers, but they might be interested in problem editorship. The other view is if you can see the aging or trust profile of the article, that's all you need. low trust-score users may simply be legitimate but inexperienced, bold and reverted, etc. There are other ways to ID problem editors, and if you need to know who wrote a specific sentence you can always use WikiBlame to check the history. So overall I would say you don't need to publish trust scores of users, and even telling a user their own trust score is merely a toehold into self promotion/gaming at best. People should edit, not be encouraged to keep scorecards. FT2 Playing devils advocate, isn't there far too little information available about your average editor? How do you determine at a glance the reputation of an editor whose edits you are reviewing, or with whom you are having a conversation? Further, since the full history dump is publicly available and the given algorithm is just one of many related measures that could be computed, is it pointless to try and stop the information from being released? Lastly, in the interest of transparency should the information not be made available? Shouldn't the goal be to create an algorithm that can't be gamed? It may actually be the case that this one is not very subject to manipulation. The authors are very astute and it would take an awful lot of effort. I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Or if everybody knows how to game then the gaming advantage vanishes. Full disclosure can also level the field. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
2009/8/31 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the encyclopedia. Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/31 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the encyclopedia. Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it? From the perspective of building an excellent encyclopedia you might want people to be bold. This is an inherently inclusionist perspective where we assume that bold editors who write awful, inaccurate or mediocre stuff are still making valuable contributions. They are either contributing cruft which is easy to get rid of, or they are contributing seeds for some future editor to improve, or seeds for conversations on the talk page that will in time result in high quality content. Or if we're lucky, they are not only bold but really smart and only capable of producing brilliant prose. In short, in the limit of time any contribution is a good contribution. Even the worst contribution you can think of (which is probably engineered to stick but blatantly false) is going to eventually be tagged as vandalism and will help contribute to future intelligent algorithms that automatically weed out vandalism. From the perspective of an editor whose reputation is at stake, they are going to want to think more carefully about their contribution. On average they want all of their edits to remain in the encyclopedia for a long time. They might not want to be bold and thoughtless because that means they are simply planting a seed for another editor to improve on, making it easier for that other editor to improve their reputation at the stake of your reputation. You might want to start your seed of an edit as a draft and improve it over time, only finally submitting it to the encyclopedia after it is already high quality and likely to stick. I tend to think that the latter version is healthier than encouraging everyone to contribute every thought that they have. Similar to the [[Foot-in-the-door technique]], first we convinced you to edit this page, now we'd like to ask you to spend some time thinking about your edit before you submit it. If you do, your reputation will improve and your peers will respect your edits more in the future. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/31 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the encyclopedia. Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it? Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion and have very low average trust levels? And more recent editors may have higher trust levels? 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Since the analysis is over a period of time, it's easy to trial it offline by statically calculating results for a past period or certain editors, then seeing if those mean anything. Overall my suspicion is 1/ it'll be so poorly correlated with quality as to be unhelpful compared to other guides, 2/ we don't want to encourage a move to that kind of user evaluation metric anyway for the many reasons given. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/31 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the encyclopedia. Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it? From the perspective of building an excellent encyclopedia you might want people to be bold. This is an inherently inclusionist perspective where we assume that bold editors who write awful, inaccurate or mediocre stuff are still making valuable contributions. They are either contributing cruft which is easy to get rid of, or they are contributing seeds for some future editor to improve, or seeds for conversations on the talk page that will in time result in high quality content. Or if we're lucky, they are not only bold but really smart and only capable of producing brilliant prose. In short, in the limit of time any contribution is a good contribution. Even the worst contribution you can think of (which is probably engineered to stick but blatantly false) is going to eventually be tagged as vandalism and will help contribute to future intelligent algorithms that automatically weed out vandalism. From the perspective of an editor whose reputation is at stake, they are going to want to think more carefully about their contribution. On average they want all of their edits to remain in the encyclopedia for a long time. They might not want to be bold and thoughtless because that means they are simply planting a seed for another editor to improve on, making it easier for that other editor to improve their reputation at the stake of your reputation. You might want to start your seed of an edit as a draft and improve it over time, only finally submitting it to the encyclopedia after it is already high quality and likely to stick. I tend to think that the latter version is healthier than encouraging everyone to contribute every thought that they have. Similar to the [[Foot-in-the-door technique]], first we convinced you to edit this page, now we'd like to ask you to spend some time thinking about your edit before you submit it. If you do, your reputation will improve and your peers will respect your edits more in the future. ___ 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion and have very low average trust levels? And more recent editors may have higher trust levels? Carcharoth That at least, no - I gather it's based on evaluation of edits' longevity, not whether they still exist now. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: snip Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion and have very low average trust levels? And more recent editors may have higher trust levels? With the disclaimer that I haven't read the paper since the 2006 Wikimania, no, the algorithm is smarter than that. Simply having your edits overwritten at some point in the future is not going to detract from the period of time that your edit lasted. Additionally, if some but not all of your words persist through rewrites that would contribute to your reputation. If you merely revert vandalism that removes a persistent piece of text, doesn't that unfairly contribute to your reputation as the text continues to persist and the algorithm thinks that anyone who added it was doing so independently? 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: snip Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion and have very low average trust levels? And more recent editors may have higher trust levels? With the disclaimer that I haven't read the paper since the 2006 Wikimania, no, the algorithm is smarter than that. Simply having your edits overwritten at some point in the future is not going to detract from the period of time that your edit lasted. Additionally, if some but not all of your words persist through rewrites that would contribute to your reputation. If you merely revert vandalism that removes a persistent piece of text, doesn't that unfairly contribute to your reputation as the text continues to persist and the algorithm thinks that anyone who added it was doing so independently? Carcharoth If you have questions like that you should probably look into the website and the paper. I think that you'll find they realized most of these issues and incorporated them into the algo. They already detect reverts so it doesn't make sense to punish the reverter. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] I should know this, I worked on the Wikipedia article...
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:33 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I was just thinking the other day, Is there a British-American Dictionary ? That would be a dictionary that has all these various words and phrases and their translations into British English. Often I'll come upon an article obviously written by a Brit and it will say something like At the market, her trolley bumped into a right blinker and he copped her one... (I just made that up), and it makes little sense at all to an American, unless they had watched a lot of British tele. There are dozens of books like that. In reality, there aren't all that many words in common use that are incomprehensible one way or the other. I'd venture to suggest that Brits and particularly Australians, Kiwis etc are generally more aware of American words (even if they're not sure what they mean than vice versa). Now when I speak to an American, I almost mentally load an American vocabulary knowledge module :) (Like you said, shopping cart not trolly, turn signal not blinker/indicator...) On a side note, I frequently find myself reverting what I believe are well-intentioned changes to spelling. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optical_wirelessdiff=310779361oldid=277787036 That is, I don't think the people making these changes are aware they're switching from British to US spelling - I think they think they're just correcting spelling mistakes/typos. I could be wrong though. And since I'm truly rambling, on the flea market thing, I'm not sure we have a specific term. School fetes sometimes have trash and treasure markets, but for permanent commercial things...I know of one that's just called the Sunday market. *shrug* 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
