Re: [WikiEN-l] Stick this in your music theory and smoke it.
Steve Bennett wrote: Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on moderation now. I think perhaps I'd ponder if we needed to be told on-list that someone was going on moderation. Is it productive or counter-productive to publicly announce that fact. I suppose if there was an argument to be made for openness, some technical wizardry could automate it so that either a list of moderated posters is maintained or an automatic post is made to the list to announce so and so has been placed on moderation. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
Charles Matthews wrote: Amory Meltzer wrote: I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just another person complaining. Actually this is not so much an example on bullying, but on _precisely_ why we have WP:COI. The hill has five rope tows and seven ski runs. Is this an encyclopedic topic? Not really. It depends on your definition, doesn't it. We've never really got to an accepted definition, [[WP:N]] is the closest we've come but that's widely ignored by a vast number of contributors whose voice we have somehow managed to disenfranchise. There are also two schools of thought on what to do with this sort of content, we can either delete it or present it as best we can. Are we looking to be Britannica for the web, or are we looking to do a little bit more. Early on there was a consensus that Wikipedia wasn't paper, but that's been reined in by people who point to things and say, you wouldn't find that in Britannica. I can't help but feel we wouldn't have come as far as we have if the mission statement had been something like replicating the stuff you get in Britannica but just being a little more timely in updating. I'd really like some decent surveys conducted which let us know exactly what our users and readers want us to be, because without that, we're just blowing hot-air. We've lost the idea that our readers can let us know what is missing by starting new articles, because we enforce standards that don't reflect that given reader's concerns. Yes, there's the obvious argument that if we adopted the standards of the most edits, we'd allow vandalism, but that's not the real debate, it's just a snappy sound bite. The real issue is what sort of resource we really are. I think the writer of the essay has a real point when they say Wikipedia is dead – the Britannica staff has taken over. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
Carcharoth wrote: If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you truly restored it? Or have you created something new? Aren't we in the my grandad's had the same broom for twenty years territory? (He's replaced the head four times and the handle twice.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
Apoc 2400 wrote:
A question for the admins here: When you come across an article wrongly
tagged for speedy deletinon or prod, do you check up on the user who tagged
it? What do you do if their deletion tagging is no more accurate than
picking new articles at random?
When I tackled NPP and prods I used to follow up on this, but after a
while I noticed it didn't make much difference. I also noticed such
users would pass RFA's quite easily because of all the people who would
support them based on their awesome work fighting vandals. I burnt out
fairly quickly I'm afraid on these tasks. I'm trying to find a new way
of shaping people's behaviour on Wikipedia such that it is better in
keeping with the spirit of WP:CIVIL. There was one user I used to nag
repeatedly to turn off the minor edit check-box to no avail, which I
found incredibly frustrating. I think after a while you develop an
instinct about people who will be good Wikipedians and those that won't,
but it is incredibly hard to try and generate debate on those issues.
User RFC's are next to useless, I mean, could you imagine an RFC on a
user who refused to mark their edits, no matter how contentious, as
anything other than minor? It's seen as something rather trivial.
The issues we discuss in this thread go deep, but here is one change that
would help a lot:
* Articles should not be tagged for deletion two minutes after creation for
not asserting notability. Yes there is {{Hangon}} but how would a newcomer
know about that, and why should they? Of course an article created a minute
ago is being actively worked on. If it's not time critical (attack pages,
copyvios) no tagging should happen the first hour. If this is technically
difficult then NPP should be modified.
Personally I'd like to see deletion rolled back further, such that stuff
that was neutral and verifiable and wasn't obvious spam just be kept.
Let every company that has ever existed have an entry, no matter how
brief. If it is verifiable, where's the issue. An argument can be
mounted that we are failing to adopt a neutral point of view by
excluding some businesses over others. If you have a short stub which
merely states the line of business and the date of establishment, you've
given due weight and you've gone some way to informing a curious reader,
further than a red link does.
___
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] CSD tagging errors and defaulting to minor edits
Re Apocs comments. My experience has been that while there are
overenthusiastic speedy deletion taggers out there, most of them are
quite receptive to a bit of guidance. Unfortunately and perhaps due
to our ongoing shortage of admins there isn't enough of that feedback
being given, and poor speedy deletion tagging has derailed several
RFAs this year (Good vandal fighter has long ceased to be enough on
its own to get someone through an RFA, especially if there is
perceived to be a flaw elsewhere).
But as for What do you do if their deletion tagging is no more
accurate than picking new articles at random? I haven't encountered
new page patrollers whose tagging is anywhere near that bad. Quite a
few of the articles that I decline as speedy deletions subsequently
get deleted at AFD, as though the article claims importance the
subject is not notable. Other common mistakes that I've noticed
include tagging attack pages as biographies lacking a claim to
importance or significance, and tagging pages as no-context when a
smidgen of work can salvage them.
Defaulting to minor edits is also something that nowadays can damage
an RFA, it certainly didn't help my first one. But unlike some faults
most RFA !voters are open to a candidate who responds by changing
their default; again I doubt that enough admins or experienced editors
are taking the time to point this out to people making that mistake
before their RFA.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:11 +0100
From: Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 4ab75d33.8010...@googlemail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Apoc 2400 wrote:
A question for the admins here: When you come across an article wrongly
tagged for speedy deletinon or prod, do you check up on the user who tagged
it? What do you do if their deletion tagging is no more accurate than
picking new articles at random?
When I tackled NPP and prods I used to follow up on this, but after a
while I noticed it didn't make much difference. I also noticed such
users would pass RFA's quite easily because of all the people who would
support them based on their awesome work fighting vandals. I burnt out
fairly quickly I'm afraid on these tasks. I'm trying to find a new way
of shaping people's behaviour on Wikipedia such that it is better in
keeping with the spirit of WP:CIVIL. There was one user I used to nag
repeatedly to turn off the minor edit check-box to no avail, which I
found incredibly frustrating. I think after a while you develop an
instinct about people who will be good Wikipedians and those that won't,
but it is incredibly hard to try and generate debate on those issues.
User RFC's are next to useless, I mean, could you imagine an RFC on a
user who refused to mark their edits, no matter how contentious, as
anything other than minor? It's seen as something rather trivial.
The issues we discuss in this thread go deep, but here is one change that
would help a lot:
* Articles should not be tagged for deletion two minutes after creation for
not asserting notability. Yes there is {{Hangon}} but how would a newcomer
know about that, and why should they? Of course an article created a minute
ago is being actively worked on. If it's not time critical (attack pages,
copyvios) no tagging should happen the first hour. If this is technically
difficult then NPP should be modified.
Personally I'd like to see deletion rolled back further, such that stuff
that was neutral and verifiable and wasn't obvious spam just be kept.
Let every company that has ever existed have an entry, no matter how
brief. If it is verifiable, where's the issue. An argument can be
mounted that we are failing to adopt a neutral point of view by
excluding some businesses over others. If you have a short stub which
merely states the line of business and the date of establishment, you've
given due weight and you've gone some way to informing a curious reader,
further than a red link does.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
Surreptitiousness wrote: We've lost the idea that our readers can let us know what is missing by starting new articles, because we enforce standards that don't reflect that given reader's concerns. Yes, there's the obvious argument that if we adopted the standards of the most edits, we'd allow vandalism, but that's not the real debate, it's just a snappy sound bite. The real issue is what sort of resource we really are. I think the writer of the essay has a real point when they say Wikipedia is dead – the Britannica staff has taken over. I think that goes too far. I would argue that, yes, we have had to find a replacement for the editorial processes applied by EB and (for example) Nupedia. What we have not done is to prescribe these in advance of launching the project: we have allowed matters to develop their own way (for example, three flavours of deletion, rather than someone just nixing a topic). These days there tend to be around 100 articles waiting at CSD, a few of which shouldn't be there. AfD can give the wrong result. Systemic bias is by no means vanquished. But the complaint that there is some sort of editorial process, and that submissions should still be on a no one needs to read the instructions basis (no drafting, in particular), is a basic misunderstanding. 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] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
2009/9/21 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com: I'd really like some decent surveys conducted which let us know exactly what our users and readers want us to be, because without that, we're just blowing hot-air. +1 Suggest this on the strategy wiki. We've lost the idea that our readers can let us know what is missing by starting new articles, because we enforce standards that don't reflect that given reader's concerns. And don't even let them create the article they're looking for unless they create a login and come back four days later. - 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] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Surreptitiousness wrote: We've lost the idea that our readers can let us know what is missing by starting new articles, because we enforce standards that don't reflect that given reader's concerns. Yes, there's the obvious argument that if we adopted the standards of the most edits, we'd allow vandalism, but that's not the real debate, it's just a snappy sound bite. The real issue is what sort of resource we really are. I think the writer of the essay has a real point when they say Wikipedia is dead – the Britannica staff has taken over. I think that goes too far. I would argue that, yes, we have had to find a replacement for the editorial processes applied by EB and (for example) Nupedia. What we have not done is to prescribe these in advance of launching the project: we have allowed matters to develop their own way (for example, three flavours of deletion, rather than someone just nixing a topic). These days there tend to be around 100 articles waiting at CSD, a few of which shouldn't be there. AfD can give the wrong result. Systemic bias is by no means vanquished. But the complaint that there is some sort of editorial process, and that submissions should still be on a no one needs to read the instructions basis (no drafting, in particular), is a basic misunderstanding. Maybe it should be: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (but please read the manual first and check what sort of articles we want, and please talk politely to our volunteer editors and realise that it can take time to understand how things work around here)? I *hope* the links from the taglines lead to pages that tell people that. 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] IRC Group Contacts 3-month review
The following was posted to the Group Contact noticeboard on Meta. You can view it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Group_Contacts/Noticeboard#3_month_review . If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave them on the talk page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC/Group_Contacts/Noticeboard ). Cross-posting of this email to other project lists is also encouraged. It has been just over 3 months since the new group contact team was announced. Since then, we've been busy working on a number of projects; most of which are “behind the scenes”. It is important to keep a certain level of transparency to show that we are actually accomplishing things. The role of the group contacts is to liaise with freenode's staff to ensure a good relationship with those that provide out IRC services, to help with the smooth running of IRC by encouraging good practices on the part of channel operators, to deal with channels left without operators, and to assign cloaks. They try to avoid getting involved in the running of individual channels. We are available on IRC in the channel #wikimedia-ops and via e-mail: irc-conta...@lists.wikimedia.org for most issues, irc-contacts-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org for matters in which you would prefer channel contacts not to see your posting, as this goes to only the GCs. Our nicks are dungodung, kibble, Rjd0060 and seanw. Our commitments * Regular setting of cloaks * Increased level of activity * Communicate regularly with channel contacts What we've done * Created an internal mailing list to facilitate discussion amongst the group and channel contacts * Surveyed all channels in our namespaces and recorded basic information * Personally contacted all owners of primary channels in order to open a line of communication * Manually set cloaks (since the end of July) while we wait for a new cloak request system to be developed * Established requirements for and began setting mediawiki cloaks * Held a meeting to gain community feedback (see log / minutes) * Appointed a channel contact for the central Wikimedia channel operator channel (#wikimedia-ops) * Lots of housekeeping with access lists (see log of public actions) What you can do * Please tell us if you find users abusing the Wikimedia name by causing trouble in other channels while wearing our cloaks. We are willing and able to deal with these users but can't hope to watch every channel on freenode. * Come to our IRC meetings and bring up issues so we are aware and have more minds working on problems. * Check the noticeboard for happenings. * If you help manage IRC, join #wikimedia-ops and contribute to discussions there. * Do not hesitate to get in touch with us by e-mail or IRC if you ever have feedback, suggestions or concerns. We will, at the very least least, point you to the correct person. Moving forward * We plan to continue our higher level of activity. * Cloaks will also continue to be set on a regular basis and in a timely fashion. * A new cloak request system is in the process of being developed. * We plan to hold IRC community meetings on a regular basis, with the next one scheduled for sometime in November (watch IRC/Group Contacts/Meetings for further updates). * We will continue to communicate with and rely on the channel contacts to inform us if there are any issues within their channels. * We're here for support if needed at any time. -- For the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts, Ryan (User:Rjd0060) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Not everyone wants to be a janitor policeman.
In a message dated 9/20/2009 10:02:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, werespielchequ...@googlemail.com writes: As for Every system should be open to audit review by anyone who wishes to do so. This may at first glance sound like an attractive slogan. But if my GP or my bank adopted such a policy I would immediately shift my business elsewhere. - You are presuming that a opening a bank's books to inspection means that every piece of data is open, and that's not so. Every bank's books are already open to inspection at certain levels. However there are still systems that operate in-universe which are absolutely closed to any sort of normal inspection. Will ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] survey
David Gerard wrote: 2009/9/21 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com: I'd really like some decent surveys conducted which let us know exactly what our users and readers want us to be, because without that, we're just blowing hot-air. +1 Suggest this on the strategy wiki. Rough start at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Survey_our_readers_as_to_what_they_expect_from_Wikipedia feel free to edit and improve, of course. ___ 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] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
Among issues difficult to resolve while respecting the limitations of the BLP policy, enter the article about a world-class athlete whose gender has recently been questioned. The problem is this: can the article discuss the supposed results of the tests and its implications, as widely reported, without violating the BLP policy? The information is clearly personal and very sensitive, and the official results have not yet been released (and they may not be). In normal circumstances, that would argue strongly against including speculation. The perverse effect in this case, though, is that details that have become common knowledge are entirely missing from our article. I think this might be one situation where our duty of care in biographies of living people is being overzealously observed, but its definitely a gray area and I'm not at all certain. It's jarring for me to see some obviously relevant information excluded from the article, particularly when its been reported in most major news venues in the world, but I do understand the desire to be above the gross speculation found in some outlets. Thoughts? Have we been so successful at permeating the community with care for BLPs that we need to start emphasizing the limits of that care more clearly? Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: snip To get back to the complainant, I'll say this. If I had a friend (and I have been asked exactly this) who has an idea for a Wikipedia article on a topic of immediate personal interest, what would I advise? I'd say edit the site generally for three months, before trying to edit on anything you really care about. This is nothing new: I felt this five years ago. I think this is the right advice. Sure, the USP is you can edit this site right now. I think the intelligent reaction is it can't be that simple, surely and that is also true: it is easy to edit and make changes, which can be edited right back. Ooh look! Something else to frame for a quote-wall! :-) One problem is that most people start editing on things they care about. When people get in trouble for their conduct on some articles, the standard advice is (or should be) to calm down, walk away, and if you want to edit, do so in another area. 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] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
2009/9/21 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: Among issues difficult to resolve while respecting the limitations of the BLP policy, enter the article about a world-class athlete whose gender has recently been questioned. The problem is this: can the article discuss the supposed results of the tests and its implications, as widely reported, without violating the BLP policy? The information is clearly personal and very sensitive, and the official results have not yet been released (and they may not be). In normal circumstances, that would argue strongly against including speculation. The perverse effect in this case, though, is that details that have become common knowledge are entirely missing from our article. The case in question is a fairly easy one. The media speculation is based on a report from a single newspaper and it's somewhat questionable if that paper's source is as solid as they claim. We wait. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
2009/9/21 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: Among issues difficult to resolve while respecting the limitations of the BLP policy, enter the article about a world-class athlete whose gender has recently been questioned. The problem is this: can the article discuss the supposed results of the tests and its implications, as widely reported, without violating the BLP policy? The information is clearly personal and very sensitive, and the official results have not yet been released (and they may not be). In normal circumstances, that would argue strongly against including speculation. The perverse effect in this case, though, is that details that have become common knowledge are entirely missing from our article. When you are unsure how to apply a policy to an unusual situation, it is best to go back to first principles and consider the reasons behind that policy. The main reason for BLP is to reduce harm to living people, so the question you need to ask is Will including this information cause more harm to the subject than is acceptable? (what is acceptable is obviously subjective). In this case, the information is so widely available that I can't see including it doing any significant harm at all, so we should include 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] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
geni wrote: 2009/9/21 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: Among issues difficult to resolve while respecting the limitations of the BLP policy, enter the article about a world-class athlete whose gender has recently been questioned. The problem is this: can the article discuss the supposed results of the tests and its implications, as widely reported, without violating the BLP policy? The information is clearly personal and very sensitive, and the official results have not yet been released (and they may not be). In normal circumstances, that would argue strongly against including speculation. The perverse effect in this case, though, is that details that have become common knowledge are entirely missing from our article. The case in question is a fairly easy one. The media speculation is based on a report from a single newspaper and it's somewhat questionable if that paper's source is as solid as they claim. We wait. It's easy to be dismissive by claiming that the question is an easy one. The controversy itself is an issue, in addition to the underlying ambiguity of the athlete's gender. Your claim that the story is based on a report from a single newspaper should itself be subject to verification. Similarly, questioning a newspaper's sources also needs to be subject to verification. Substituting a perceived bias about an individual with your bias about a newspaper is no solution. 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] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
Nathan wrote: I think this might be one situation where our duty of care in biographies of living people is being overzealously observed, but its definitely a gray area and I'm not at all certain. It's jarring for me to see some obviously relevant information excluded from the article, particularly when its been reported in most major news venues in the world, but I do understand the desire to be above the gross speculation found in some outlets. Thoughts? Have we been so successful at permeating the community with care for BLPs that we need to start emphasizing the limits of that care more clearly? The distinction to be made is between information about a person, and popularly reported claims about the person. It needs to be made clear that reporting about a controversy is not identical to reporting about the person. It's disingenuous to pretend that a very public controversy doesn't exist. Rather than suppressing anything about the controversy we would do better to find the appropriate language for discussing it neutrally. It's much easier to permeate a community with a series of doctrinaire rules than with a grasp of the underlying principles. 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] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
2009/9/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net: The distinction to be made is between information about a person, and popularly reported claims about the person. It needs to be made clear that reporting about a controversy is not identical to reporting about the person. It's disingenuous to pretend that a very public controversy doesn't exist. Rather than suppressing anything about the controversy we would do better to find the appropriate language for discussing it neutrally. It's much easier to permeate a community with a series of doctrinaire rules than with a grasp of the underlying principles. The key point with that, in general, is undue weight - it is easy to give too much weight to a controversy. In this case, though, the controversy is so high profile and it is pretty much the only thing the public know about this person that the due weight is very high. ___ 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] IRC office hours
IRC office hours for the strategy plan will be held as usual next office hours will be: 04:00-05:00 UTC, Wednesday 23 September Local timezones can be checked at http://tiny.cc/kReRZ It's a big week - the launch of the call for participation will happen today. Our office hours are in #wikimedia-strategy. You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net/ and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Planning Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Staff office hours
Hello all! As a result of the success of the Strategy planning office hours and the recent meet the board presentation on the #wikimedia channel on IRC, we've decided to do regular office hours featuring a Wikimedia Foundation staff member. And to kick things off, this Friday, September 25, 2009, between 15:30 and 16:30 PDT (UTC 22:30 to 23:30), Sue Gardner, the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director, will be online to answer your questions and talk about her role in the Foundation and plans for the future. The IRC channel that will be hosting Sue's conversation, and all future WMF staff office hours, will be #wikimedia-office on the Freenode network. If you do not have an IRC client, you can always access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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] Historical text highlighting wiki gadget
I'm sure many of you caught the news article(http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/) about Adler and Alfaro's research(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1242572.1242608) in wiki trustability being applied to live Wikipedia. It just so happens that I have been working on a similar problem from a completely different direction during my research and am ready to share this work with the community. I have designed and implemented a user script modification that I call HAPPI and am currently running a non-profit/academic analysis of its usefulness. The script adds a couple of new controls that will appear over the edit pane. These controls will allow you to toggle the highlighting of wiki text while you edit it. If you'd like to give it a try, please see the documentation page and consent form for more information. Screenshot: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/HAPPI_example.png Documentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EpochFail/HAPPI Consent form: http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/HAPPI/consent -Aaron Halfaker Grouplens Research University of Minnesota ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/9/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net: The distinction to be made is between information about a person, and popularly reported claims about the person. It needs to be made clear that reporting about a controversy is not identical to reporting about the person. It's disingenuous to pretend that a very public controversy doesn't exist. Rather than suppressing anything about the controversy we would do better to find the appropriate language for discussing it neutrally. It's much easier to permeate a community with a series of doctrinaire rules than with a grasp of the underlying principles. The key point with that, in general, is undue weight - it is easy to give too much weight to a controversy. In this case, though, the controversy is so high profile and it is pretty much the only thing the public know about this person that the due weight is very high. But if the only substance to the controversy is rumour, and speculative discussion of rumours, we don't need either BLP or NPOV to work to exclude it or cut it back to a bare statement. So I agree with geni. I have never heard of this idea of giving weight to public conceptions or misconceptions. (Time to check up on how many urban myths we have. I'm glad to see that [[tulip mania]], a topic constantly referenced in the newspapers at the present, does sound the cautious note: Many modern scholars believe that the mania was not as extraordinary as Mackay described, with some arguing that the price changes may not have constituted a bubble. That one has been running since the 1840s. Pretty much the only thing the public know about tulips in the 17th century is that it was a bubble.) Charles Charles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania#cite_note-5 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
I see people are saying it's obvious, but they're saying it about each of the incompatible alternatives. I think we have a clear rule about this, which is to wait for a confirming source. If it's talked about so widely, someone will do it in print. In essence, I agree with Matthew. This is one of the things provided for in the BLP compromise. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/9/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net: The distinction to be made is between information about a person, and popularly reported claims about the person. It needs to be made clear that reporting about a controversy is not identical to reporting about the person. It's disingenuous to pretend that a very public controversy doesn't exist. Rather than suppressing anything about the controversy we would do better to find the appropriate language for discussing it neutrally. It's much easier to permeate a community with a series of doctrinaire rules than with a grasp of the underlying principles. The key point with that, in general, is undue weight - it is easy to give too much weight to a controversy. In this case, though, the controversy is so high profile and it is pretty much the only thing the public know about this person that the due weight is very high. But if the only substance to the controversy is rumour, and speculative discussion of rumours, we don't need either BLP or NPOV to work to exclude it or cut it back to a bare statement. So I agree with geni. I have never heard of this idea of giving weight to public conceptions or misconceptions. (Time to check up on how many urban myths we have. I'm glad to see that [[tulip mania]], a topic constantly referenced in the newspapers at the present, does sound the cautious note: Many modern scholars believe that the mania was not as extraordinary as Mackay described, with some arguing that the price changes may not have constituted a bubble. That one has been running since the 1840s. Pretty much the only thing the public know about tulips in the 17th century is that it was a bubble.) Charles Charles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania#cite_note-5 ___ 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] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
2009/9/21 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com: I see people are saying it's obvious, but they're saying it about each of the incompatible alternatives. I think we have a clear rule about this, which is to wait for a confirming source. If it's talked about so widely, someone will do it in print. In essence, I agree with Matthew. This is one of the things provided for in the BLP compromise. No-one is suggesting we report that she is intersex. We have plenty of reliable sources about the controversy and rumours, and reporting them won't do any significant harm, so why not do so? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, medical information, and media controversy
2009/9/21 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com: But if the only substance to the controversy is rumour, and speculative discussion of rumours, we don't need either BLP or NPOV to work to exclude it or cut it back to a bare statement. I disagree. The controversy is notable, so why not discuss it? Perhaps it should be split off into a different article with just a brief summary in the BLP, but I don't see why it should be ignored. ___ 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] Admins can now rename files!
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/ \o/ - 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] Admins can now rename files!
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/ \o/ Yay. Six years late, and a backlog of only 7 million files. -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] Admins can now rename files!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/ \o/ - d. Any news about when the rest of us might enjoy move functionality for files and not just articles? -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins can now rename files!
Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/ \o/ Any news about when the rest of us might enjoy move functionality for files and not just articles? Don't imagine they will want to let just anyone start moving files - not just for the server load reason, nor RAM or disk space issues (?), but because its just not necessary. We learned long ago to treat filenames as arbitrary and part of some kind of useful scheme. -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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html (It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the media in the last month or so. What happens when there's nothing to write about and people like me end up on telly.) - 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] Admins can now rename files!
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: We learned long ago to treat filenames as arbitrary and part of some kind of useful scheme. Er, should be *not* part of some... -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] Admins can now rename files!
2009/9/21 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/ Any news about when the rest of us might enjoy move functionality for files and not just articles? Ask on the tech blog :-) The Commons page on the subject asks people to take it slowly so bugs can be caught. - 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html (It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the media in the last month or so. What happens when there's nothing to write about and people like me end up on telly.) - d. Wasn't the order of operations here like so: * BLP issues. Anyone can say anything about anyone alive on one of the most popular websites in the world and it gets published. * Foundation pays tens of thousands of dollars to develop a technology that allows edits to be reviewed before being posted * Some negative press and complaints, but not that much since it hasn't been widely publicized. * Community discussion starts on en.wp with lots of involvement by JW * More and more press, people start noticing that it's actually quite a big shift from the original encyclopedia that anyone could edit *in realtime* * Further community discussion with lots of critics and negative press. It becomes necessary to spin the conversation in the direction of not only increased responsibility, but also increased openness. * Conversation eventually turns mostly towards convincing people that this actually makes wikimedia more open, while also making it more responsible. It's hard to follow everything that goes on here, but I distinctly remember when FlaggedRevisions was developed, and per my recollection openness was not one of the original arguments that caused the foundation to contract its development. If anyone knows more than me and cares to clear up my misconceptions, that'd be great. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
2009/9/21 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: It's hard to follow everything that goes on here, but I distinctly remember when FlaggedRevisions was developed, and per my recollection openness was not one of the original arguments that caused the foundation to contract its development. If anyone knows more than me and cares to clear up my misconceptions, that'd be great. Flagged Revisions type systems were discussed back in 2002-2003, long before BLPs became a focal point of concerns, as a method of sifting articles from Wikipedia into stable versions. The idea that flagging could increase openness for some pages is also not just some recently applied spin. I wrote an essay three years ago when the discussion about a specific implementation became more serious, detailing my own recommendations for some of the functional requirements of a flagging system: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/WikiQA However, as noted above, a global setting to show sighted revisions in preference to unsighted ones should not be enabled unless and until it is found to scale sufficiently well, and to not have a dramatic negative impact on the user experience. Instead, revision preference should first be enabled on a per-page level, allowing administrators to quality protect pages. This would be an alternative to full protection or semi-protection, and allow edits to be made where it is currently impossible. The criteria for quality protecting pages could be expanded over time, allowing for community-directed application of the functionality, rather than an a priori assumption of scalability. The group of users on the German Wikipedia favoring a flagging system preferred a more conservative implementation, which was my primary motivation for writing the essay. As a Board member at the time, I shared my recommendations with Jimmy and others, and we agreed back then that a model that allowed an increase in openness on pages that are currently semi-protected would be preferable for en.wp. This is ultimately also what the en.wp community concluded. It's only fair to acknowledge, of course, that a significantly larger number of pages may end up being flagged protected than are currently semi-protected, resulting in an experience of reduced openness/immediacy for the pages not previously included in the set. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
Wales writes: Previously, certain high profile and high risk biographies and other entries were kept locked to prevent vandalism by users who had not registered accounts on the site for a 'waiting period' of 4 days. The thing I'm curious about is this will be great openness in those 5,137 (~0.2%) of previously protected pages, but how many unprotected pages will now require Reviewer vetting? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2009/9/21 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: It's hard to follow everything that goes on here, but I distinctly remember when FlaggedRevisions was developed, and per my recollection openness was not one of the original arguments that caused the foundation to contract its development. If anyone knows more than me and cares to clear up my misconceptions, that'd be great. Flagged Revisions type systems were discussed back in 2002-2003, long before BLPs became a focal point of concerns, as a method of sifting articles from Wikipedia into stable versions. The idea that flagging could increase openness for some pages is also not just some recently applied spin. I wrote an essay three years ago when the discussion about a specific implementation became more serious, detailing my own recommendations for some of the functional requirements of a flagging system: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/WikiQA However, as noted above, a global setting to show sighted revisions in preference to unsighted ones should not be enabled unless and until it is found to scale sufficiently well, and to not have a dramatic negative impact on the user experience. Instead, revision preference should first be enabled on a per-page level, allowing administrators to quality protect pages. This would be an alternative to full protection or semi-protection, and allow edits to be made where it is currently impossible. The criteria for quality protecting pages could be expanded over time, allowing for community-directed application of the functionality, rather than an a priori assumption of scalability. The group of users on the German Wikipedia favoring a flagging system preferred a more conservative implementation, which was my primary motivation for writing the essay. As a Board member at the time, I shared my recommendations with Jimmy and others, and we agreed back then that a model that allowed an increase in openness on pages that are currently semi-protected would be preferable for en.wp. This is ultimately also what the en.wp community concluded. It's only fair to acknowledge, of course, that a significantly larger number of pages may end up being flagged protected than are currently semi-protected, resulting in an experience of reduced openness/immediacy for the pages not previously included in the set. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate I'm not sure that your essay discusses openness. It mentions that the new model will help with quality and could reduce participation (which could be viewed as openness). I think many people have a hard time with the logic that Jimmy is asking us to follow, which is essentially, by becoming more closed, we are becoming more open. When I read his Huffington Post essay it did occur to me that it's not exactly true that high profile articles that are usually locked aren't able to be edited by anonymous users. They can and do edit these articles by arguing for, or suggesting, a valuable edit on the talk page. An admin can then come along and make the edit, or briefly unlock the page, etc.. If we compare this model to the FlaggedRevisions model, the difference is really that these anons can edit locked pages without discussion. However, this only increases the chance of the edit being accepted proportionally to the quality and importance of the edit. The best way to increase the chances of getting an edit to stick in both models is to stop by the talk page and make the case for a change in the content of the article. That aspect will remain unchanged. My view of the current system is that we already have a primitive version of Flagged Revision that emerged out of more primitive wiki technologies. So as Joseph Reagle has said in this thread, and as you mention in your essay, the question is really how much of the encyclopedia will be closed on top of what we've already got closed. From your essay: For the worse, because they could reduce the level of participation, cause frustration, and lead to a shift towards a much more restricted model of editing and reviewing articles than is currently practiced. I think this thread would benefit from some reasonable estimates of the number of articles that will be locked under the new model, that way we know exactly what we're dealing with when we discuss whether or not the new perspective we are being asked to take of Flagged Revisions making the encyclopedia more open is spin, or not spin. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: However, as noted above, a global setting to show sighted revisions in preference to unsighted ones should not be enabled unless and until it is found to scale sufficiently well, and to not have a dramatic negative impact on the user experience. Hm. Keep in mind that the need for such functionality is to automate part of what administrators already do. Someone will still have to approve certain edits, and thus the issue of administrator quality of service is not addressed, the technolog-ese solution represents just an obfuscation. This is to say little of the behind-the article issue of collaboration and consensus. David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html The need to simplify things for the MSM sometimes gets things lost. Jimbo: ..while gently asking those who want to cause trouble to please go somewhere else.. would be better said as: ..while offering suggestions to difficult people of various kinds on how to improve their editing and along with their thinking and expression skills. It is of course great to see Jimbo expressing himself in a more general forum, where he can get out his insights into collaboration that are not limited to just Wikipedia or online documentation interfaces. -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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: approve certain edits, and thus the issue of administrator quality of service is not addressed Previous post correction patch: -and thus the issue +and thus if the issue -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] Admins can now rename files!
Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: Any news about when the rest of us might enjoy move functionality for files and not just articles? After a testing pahse, it will be up to community discussion for consensus most likely. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Don't imagine they will want to let just anyone start moving files - not just for the server load reason, nor RAM or disk space issues (?), but because its just not necessary. We learned long ago to treat filenames as arbitrary and part of some kind of useful scheme. -Stevertigo File names shouldn't really matter, afaik when you rename a file it should also create a redirect to the name new not to break the pre-existing usage. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins can now rename files!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/
\o/
Any news about when the rest of us might enjoy move functionality for
files and not just articles?
Don't imagine they will want to let just anyone start moving files -
not just for the server load reason, nor RAM or disk space issues (?),
but because its just not necessary. We learned long ago to treat
filenames as arbitrary and part of some kind of useful scheme.
-Stevertigo
All of that would seem equally applicable to articles. ('If you don't
like the random name it was created with, just make a redirect...')
--
gwern
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins can now rename files!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 13:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/ Again? Bets on how long it'll last this time? -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins can now rename files!
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Don't imagine they will want to let just anyone start moving files - not just for the server load reason, nor RAM or disk space issues (?), but because its just not necessary. We learned long ago to treat filenames as arbitrary and part of some kind of useful scheme. I disagree, and I'd like to see file renaming opened up. It sucks seeing a file with a blatantly wrong name sitting there for years. Sure, the file names could be totally arbitrary (a882be8.jpg) or they could be extremely meaningful - but having them stuck at whatever the uploader originally thought of is not ideal. Especially since redirects exist and work. 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] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations for sale, all without credit. Other featured picture contributors may want to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also being exploited. I also confirmed items in this vendor's collection that are copyrighted to the NAACP and Walt Disney Coporation. Made relevant phone calls this afternoon. I still wish you would answer the original question: why are you angry, what do you think they have done wrong, and how do you think they were supposed to know that wanted to be credited, based on the information on the relevant image pages? Or did you really just want to start an open discussion about the creativity involved in image restoration? 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] Stick this in your music theory and smoke it.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Surreptitiousness I think perhaps I'd ponder if we needed to be told on-list that someone was going on moderation. Yep, it's a good question, and I did ponder it. FYI, at around the same time, I placed another user on moderation, and didn't announce the fact. Arguments for announcing it: - re-iterates policy for other users - sometimes seems to produce a thank god for that effect from other annoyed list members Arguments against announcing it: - tends to create further off-topic discussions like this one - can feed trolls (ie, giving more attention to them in a public forum) - can hurt feelings 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html (It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the media in the last month or so. What happens when there's nothing to write about and people like me end up on telly.) Hmm, I feel that Wales' post is kind of at cross-purposes to the meme he's trying to defeat: 1) Meme: Newbie editors who make edits to random articles will require those edits to be approved before going live. 2) Rebuttal: Newbie editors will now be able to make edits to currently protected articles, albeit with those edits requiring approval. He never explicitly address the issue of editing non-BLP, non-protected pages. So to me it comes across like a politician's or a corporation's misdirect (This isn't a tax, this is extending healthcare! or You think our prices are going up, but we're actually introducing the cheapest product we've ever had!) (I'm not accusing Jimmy of anything underhand or any conspiracy - but I think his post promises a bit more rebuttal than it actually delivers.) Steve 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] Stick this in your music theory and smoke it.
2009/9/22 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Surreptitiousness I think perhaps I'd ponder if we needed to be told on-list that someone was going on moderation. Yep, it's a good question, and I did ponder it. FYI, at around the same time, I placed another user on moderation, and didn't announce the fact. Arguments for announcing it: - re-iterates policy for other users - sometimes seems to produce a thank god for that effect from other annoyed list members Other pros: * Prevents lots of can we put this user on moderation, please? messages. * Stops other people being confused when the now moderated person's emails start coming through in bunches several hours after they were sent. Personally, I am in favour of such announcements. If you aren't announcing it publicly, it is an absolute must to inform the affected person privately - I was moderated on foundation-l once a while back and the first I knew of it was when my emails started bouncing back as being held in the queue. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Stick this in your music theory and smoke it.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Surreptitiousness I think perhaps I'd ponder if we needed to be told on-list that someone was going on moderation. Yep, it's a good question, and I did ponder it. FYI, at around the same time, I placed another user on moderation, and didn't announce the fact. Arguments for announcing it: - re-iterates policy for other users - sometimes seems to produce a thank god for that effect from other annoyed list members You can add to the advantages that it can also produce a why did you moderate *him*? response from list members. I got an e-mail from the other user you placed on moderation, and I was puzzled as to why he had been placed on moderation. I think that if the person you moderate objects to it, and wants it announced on the list, you should do so. If they are prepared to stay under moderation without it being made public, then that is fair enough. You can also add increases transparency. I have no idea how many people are on moderation on this list. Some numbers might help there. I would also ask how many people are subscribed to this list, but that might be rather a low figure. Are there public stats anywhere for this list? Arguments against announcing it: - tends to create further off-topic discussions like this one - can feed trolls (ie, giving more attention to them in a public forum) - can hurt feelings None of those are that convincing. It is too easy to label people trolls when they might merely be difficult. I agree with Thomas (Dalton)'s points as well. 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] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
That question has already been answered several times, in several ways. I am at a loss for how to restate it, and the insinuation posed alongside the question discourages further attempt. There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. - Louis Armstrong On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations for sale, all without credit. Other featured picture contributors may want to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also being exploited. I also confirmed items in this vendor's collection that are copyrighted to the NAACP and Walt Disney Coporation. Made relevant phone calls this afternoon. I still wish you would answer the original question: why are you angry, what do you think they have done wrong, and how do you think they were supposed to know that wanted to be credited, based on the information on the relevant image pages? Or did you really just want to start an open discussion about the creativity involved in image restoration? 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 -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: That question has already been answered several times, in several ways. I am at a loss for how to restate it, and the insinuation posed alongside the question discourages further attempt. Ok, I've read through all your posts on this thread again, and here's are the points I see you making: 1) You do restorations of images and they take a lot of time and effort. 2) People have advised you to claim copyright/left over those restorations, but you resist doing so because it may harm the copyleft movement in general. 3) People are selling some of your images on eBay without crediting you, which you feel breaches your moral rights. 4) Physical restoration and digital restoration are very different, and it is difficult to define exactly how much effort should be put into a digital restoration for it to count as a creative work in its own right. 5) Some discussion about how best to carry out certain restorations, which isn't relevant here. I have made the following point: 1) The two images in question that I looked at were both clearly marked public domain, with the clear assertion that anyone could reuse these images for any purpose whatsoever. Further, the images neither clearly asserted you as the creator, nor requested (let alone, demanded) that people attribute you (or anyone) as an author. I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse or dense here, but I don't see how you've addressed my question, which is, in its simplest form: why do you think the eBay vendor in question is at fault? They took an image clearly marked public domain, with no authorship information or request for attribution, printed it and sold it, well within their rights. To state my position even more clearly: 1) I'm on your side. I think you're doing a great job restoring valuable images for Wikipedia and the wider community. 2) It seems ethical to me that a person should acknowledge the hard work someone has put into producing the work that they are now profiting from, but I have no idea of the legalities. 3) I think your position would be a lot stronger if the image pages in question identified you more clearly or asserted your request for acknowledgement. Is the issue that you want acknowledgement but don't want to assert authorship? How do you expect end reusers of your content to figure it out? I hope this isn't a flamewar, I really want to figure out where you're coming from so perhaps we can offer some useful advice or help in some 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
[WikiEN-l] Moderation (was: Stick this in your music theory and smoke it.)
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: You can add to the advantages that it can also produce a why did you moderate *him*? response from list members. I got an e-mail from the other user you placed on moderation, and I was puzzled as to why he had been placed on moderation. Yeah, for sure. Being list moderator is pretty much a no-win game: the best you can hope for is that no one notices your presence. Once someone starts posting in such a way that a few people get annoyed, or they start mildly breaking the list rules, then any action will be divisive. Either leave them unmoderated (continuing to annoy people), moderate them (cop flak for being heavy-handed), etc. I think that if the person you moderate objects to it, and wants it announced on the list, you should do so. Of course. You can also add increases transparency. Good point. I have no idea how many people are on moderation on this list. Some numbers might help there. I would also ask how many people are subscribed to this list, but that might be rather a low figure. Are there public stats anywhere for this list? There don't seem to be. The administrative interface doesn't give good stats either, it will only tell you for a given user whether they're on moderation or not. At a guess, somewhere between 20 and 50 users are on moderation, out of 1004 total. And Thomas' comment: Personally, I am in favour of such announcements. If you aren't announcing it publicly, it is an absolute must to inform the affected person privately Yes. If only because generally you put someone on moderation in order to change their behaviour, so it would be counter-productive not to inform them. 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] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: The hill has five rope tows and seven ski runs. Is this an encyclopedic topic? Not really. Hmm. I've written about quite a few ski resorts (Broken River, Craigieburn Valley, Fox Peak, Invincible Snowfields, Mount Dobson, Mount Lyford, Porters, Rainbow, Snow Park, Mount Cheeseman, Temple Basin, Mount Olympus Ski Area, Mount Potts, Roundhill Ski Area, Hanmer Springs Ski Area, Mount Robert, Manganui), many of which are of the size you describe or even smaller. In Australia and New Zealand, the easiest rule is to just declare them all notable, because there are so few. But if you did that in France, for example, you might have a thousand or more. But you question whether it's even encyclopedic. Apply the specialist encyclopaedia test: would a specialist encyclopaedia about skiing in North America list this ski area? It ought to. So the answer is yes. 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
