Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I wish to summarize David, but I think he's talking about a different thing, not about FAs, but how quality articles evolve over time, especially as major facts (or received wisdom) changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I think is better than not, as I'm sure most of us do. Maybe Constructionism as an opposite to Destructionism? I think another term used is eventualism. 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] Destructionism
But Eventualism implies that articles will get better over time, that the article's value over the long term matters more than its value in the short term. I think Destructionism raises the point that article quality goes in both directions, which is a point worth making whatever it's called. And to those asking for an example, not to be glib, but here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Delisted_good_articles On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I wish to summarize David, but I think he's talking about a different thing, not about FAs, but how quality articles evolve over time, especially as major facts (or received wisdom) changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I think is better than not, as I'm sure most of us do. Maybe Constructionism as an opposite to Destructionism? I think another term used is eventualism. 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] Destructionism
On 8/6/2010 9:13 PM, William Beutler wrote: I'm not completely sure where SC was going with his observation about Destructionism -- I took it as a clever play on Deletionism and all the other -isms, to point out a phenomenon he's noticed on at least En-WP, which I recognized immediately. I think we're comparing apples with oranges here. From how I see it, destructionism identifies the nature of articles themselves over time while deletionism (as well as the other established -isms) identifies the nature of editors' behaviors and mainspace philosophies. That being said, some other comments: I do believe that the quality of articles do deteriorate over time, especially when not watched or updated. That is the inevitable nature of an open editing environment. This may be due to several reasons; this could be that the article doesn't have many watchers or that the main contributor(s) is/are no longer watching the article or no longer cares. This allows editors who do not know nor likely care to chip away at the article's quality and accuracy to a point where it either becomes apparent a cleanup effort is needed or that a GA reassessment or FA review is needed. Also, standards for promoting articles to GA or FA were lower than they are now, mostly due to the overall quality of Wikipedia articles steadily increasing. I opine that most articles that were promoted to FA in 2006 or earlier would not meet today's more stringent FA standards. Case in point, I just finished with an FA review of Nintendo Entertainment System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System) which ended up being delisted from FA status. It was promoted back in January 2005. I think both of my last two paragraphs come into play as, while a very popular article with over 200 people watchlisting it, nobody took any efforts to cleanup or maintain the article those 5 1/2 years it was an FA, and you get a lot of users who do not know better as far as verifiability is concerned who add whatever they want with nobody checking or challenging it. On the other hand, when I combed through the article in detail, I was surprised to see how poor the quality of the article was, that this would not pass for GA let alone FA today. This brings us back to one of the original standing orders of Wikipedia way back in its early years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Historical_archive/Rules_to_consider) of Always leave something undone. Personally, I reject such principle as I believe users should contribute as much as they possibly can to an article. If others can contribute something different, great; if not, we have over 3.5 million other articles that need work or similar attention. There is more than enough work to go around for everyone. (The problem is IMO is that the vast majority of them hover around and devote all their time and energy to only a select few articles like Obama or heaven forbid Pikachu, for instance.) -MuZemike ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK, maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs reach the front page, unhelpful editing pretty much always follows. I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. I strongly disagree. Exposing them to the sort of casual editing they get being on the front page is the final stage of content review. These are not precious, polished jewels. They are working pieces of informational text. They need regular shaking up. Content is more important than polish. Moves to preserve polish over content are fundamentally wrong. - 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] Destructionism
I question the real-wiki nature of this concept. If the article quality on the whole genuinely has gone down, then there's always the revert button. Sometimes reverting part or all of an article back months or years is perfectly justified. Point of fact I've done it. More usually, it's arguable, and If it's arguable, then it probably hasn't gone down in aggregate much or at all, it's better in some ways, worse in others; and that's a very different thing. On 07/08/2010, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: But Eventualism implies that articles will get better over time, that the article's value over the long term matters more than its value in the short term. I think Destructionism raises the point that article quality goes in both directions, which is a point worth making whatever it's called. And to those asking for an example, not to be glib, but here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Delisted_good_articles On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I wish to summarize David, but I think he's talking about a different thing, not about FAs, but how quality articles evolve over time, especially as major facts (or received wisdom) changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I think is better than not, as I'm sure most of us do. Maybe Constructionism as an opposite to Destructionism? I think another term used is eventualism. 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 -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 17:06, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: This brings us back to one of the original standing orders of Wikipedia way back in its early years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Historical_archive/Rules_to_consider) of Always leave something undone. Personally, I reject such principle as I believe users should contribute as much as they possibly can to an article. If others can contribute something different, great; if not, we have over 3.5 million other articles that need work or similar attention. There is more than enough work to go around for everyone. I think such a principle misses the point that there's no such thing as a finished article. Rather, those who think an article can ever be finished are wrong. I would change it to the statement There is always something that hasn't been done. Hence the difference between a featured article and the perfect article. There is always something to be done. Stopping people (including IPs) from even trying to do it, for any reason other than the editorial conflict reasons that articles are protected or semiprotected, is in denial of this. - 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] Destructionism
I don't think I'm putting polish above content, at least that's not my intention. I agree that content is more important, and it deteriorates just the same. Stevertigo's comment that started this thread included the supposition that in some article perfection has already been achieved -- well, that I don't agree with, and so I don't think there is any such thing as a final stage of content review except existentially. The final stage is not the end. So I am in favor putting loose restrictions around certain classes of articles, be they FAs or BLPs. I think what I'm saying is, less well-developed articles and those which carrying lower stakes benefit more openness, because it increases the chance that they will be improved (many have nowhere to go but up). But when an article is functionally complete -- where the record of known facts and significant viewpoints is set, barring future developments -- then I think something like flagged revs is a good idea. It's a small-c conservative viewpoint, about protecting what is good. And I wouldn't even necessarily go so far as flagged revs, I just think an editor should be more than an IP or unconfirmed user before they get to tinker with those articles . On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK, maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs reach the front page, unhelpful editing pretty much always follows. I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. I strongly disagree. Exposing them to the sort of casual editing they get being on the front page is the final stage of content review. These are not precious, polished jewels. They are working pieces of informational text. They need regular shaking up. Content is more important than polish. Moves to preserve polish over content are fundamentally wrong. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 18:04, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: But when an article is functionally complete -- where the record of known facts and significant viewpoints is set, barring future developments -- then I think something like flagged revs is a good idea. It's a small-c conservative viewpoint, about protecting what is good. And I wouldn't even necessarily go so far as flagged revs, I just think an editor should be more than an IP or unconfirmed user before they get to tinker with those articles Personally I wouldn't objecting to putting FAs into flagged revs for the day they're on the front page. This would present the pretty face and still allow the IPs in. But I don't feel strongly enough to particularly press the point. - 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] Destructionism
On 07/08/2010, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Personally I wouldn't objecting to putting FAs into flagged revs for the day they're on the front page. This would present the pretty face and still allow the IPs in. But I don't feel strongly enough to particularly press the point. Personally I think that eventually *all* FAs should be put at least under flagged revision. Or that seems IMO to be a reasonable goal (long term) if the flagged revisions experiment works out and they get rid of any remaining performance issues. The reason is that improving articles is going to get more and more difficult; there will have been lots and lots and lots and lots of really smart people that have polished those articles over many, many years, and the chances of any random edit being an improvement is, realistically, going down with time, particularly for FA articles. Past some point, say, 90% of edits to the highest quality articles are going to be by somebody not understanding something or vandalising something. On some articles we're probably already there, but people are somewhat in denial about it. Which isn't to say we'll ever going to have *provably* seen the last edit on any article, which is why flagged revisions seems a reasonable idea, rather than locking. - d. -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: snip The reason is that improving articles is going to get more and more difficult; there will have been lots and lots and lots and lots of really smart people that have polished those articles over many, many years, and the chances of any random edit being an improvement is, realistically, going down with time, particularly for FA articles. This is not true for articles where the story has not yet finished and updates are needed. I often use Hurricane Katrina as an example. This hurricane took place in August 2005. It was promoted to FA-level in June 2006 (over four years ago), but as time went by it was noticeable that no-one was really updating the article to include the ongoing legacy of this natural disaster. I would sometimes comment on this, but nothing much got done. It was defeatured in March 2010, with the discussion seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hurricane_Katrina/archive1 The concerns expressed there didn't include is the article up-to-date, but look at the article and ask yourself if it really covers in the detail you would expect, what the continuing impact on the area is? Maybe the information is in other articles? We have articles like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_New_Orleans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering_and_infrastructure_repair_in_New_Orleans_after_Hurricane_Katrina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_New_Orleans_Back_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_Architecture_and_the_rebuilding_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_It_Right_Foundation_New_Orleans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_civil_works_controversies_(New_Orleans) Some of those articles are in a very poor state. My conclusion is that if I want information on how New Orleans and the surrounding area recovered and is recovering (or not) after Hurricane Katrina, and what the long-term effects are, I have to look elsewhere (i.e. not on Wikipedia), though there is some bits of it in these places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans#Post-disaster_recovery The Census Bureau in July 2006 estimated the population of New Orleans to be 223,000; a subsequent study estimated that 32,000 additional residents had moved to the city as of March 2007, bringing the estimated population to 255,000, approximately 56% of the pre-Katrina population level. Another estimate, based on data on utility usage from July 2007, estimated the population to be approximately 274,000 or 60% of the pre-Katrina population. These estimates are somewhat smaller than a third estimate, based on mail delivery records, from the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center in June 2007, which indicated that the city had regained approximately two-thirds of its pre-Katrina population.[30] In 2008, the Census Bureau revised upward its population estimate for the city, to 336,644.[31] Most recently, 2010 estimates show that neighborhoods that did not flood are near 100% of their pre-Katrina populations, and in some cases, exceed 100% of their pre-Katrina populations.[32] There are some hints of the population figures in the Hurricane Katrina article, but not much, mainly this bit in the economic effects section and this bit in the lead section: Nearly five years later, thousands of displaced residents in Mississippi and Louisiana are still living in trailers. Reconstruction of each section of the southern portion of Louisiana has been addressed in the Army Corps LACPR Final Technical Report which identifies areas not to be rebuilt and areas and buildings that need to be elevated. Though to be fair, it is not actually that normal for natural disaster articles to go into the level of detail about the aftermath and long-term reconstruction as would be possible here. But it should be clear that articles about contemporary events need constant updating as the histories get written. Articles about the past, for which the major histories have already been written, only tend to need updating when new scholarship and histories are written, and that, I agree, does need careful integration with the existing articles. I sometimes think getting an article to FA-status too soon can impede its future development. There is a right moment to push for an article to get to FA level, and there is a wrong moment 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
[WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia
At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=2 The original FBI letter http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf Mike Godwin replies http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf Alan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia
Did that never make it as far as this mailing list? We all had great fun with it on foundation-l a few days ago. On 7 August 2010 23:42, Alan Sim cambridgebayweat...@yahoo.com wrote: At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=2 The original FBI letter http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf Mike Godwin replies http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf Alan ___ 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the FBI Seal and Wikimedia thread on foundation-l, starting here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having fun over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts. Carcharoth On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Did that never make it as far as this mailing list? We all had great fun with it on foundation-l a few days ago. On 7 August 2010 23:42, Alan Sim cambridgebayweat...@yahoo.com wrote: At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=2 The original FBI letter http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf Mike Godwin replies http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf Alan ___ 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
On 08/08/2010 01:29, Carcharoth wrote: I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the FBI Seal and Wikimedia thread on foundation-l, starting here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having fun over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts. How legally strong is FBI's position? Even ignoring Mike reply, one only have to look at *every* news article regarding the matter which *all* contain a copy of the seal... KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia
On 8 August 2010 01:29, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the FBI Seal and Wikimedia thread on foundation-l, starting here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having fun over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts. You were expecting something substantive from foundation-l? If the FBI try something else, we'll deal with it then. We can't do anything about it without knowing what they'll try, and it doesn't seem wise to speculate about what they could try on the public list - we might give them ideas! I considered the concerns raised and rejected them. If you think there is actually something worth discussing, please speak up. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 August 2010 01:29, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the FBI Seal and Wikimedia thread on foundation-l, starting here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having fun over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts. You were expecting something substantive from foundation-l? If the FBI try something else, we'll deal with it then. We can't do anything about it without knowing what they'll try, and it doesn't seem wise to speculate about what they could try on the public list - we might give them ideas! I considered the concerns raised and rejected them. If you think there is actually something worth discussing, please speak up. I thought the bit about high-resolution imagery possibly being problematic was a reasonable point. Most other organisations would agree to use a low-resolution version, but that can be a difficult or impossible approach for Commons to take for various reasons. I also found it interesting that someone made a point that the Encyclopedia Britannica seemed to remove their image of the seal from their article on the FBI (though as someone else pointed out, it is still available from the media section of their article). Someone did try and raise that point on the foundation-l thread, but nothing much further was said on that point. I'm unclear what would happen if the source Commons got the seal from was taken down, and all the official sources of the seal were all low-resolution. I get that such logos can be turned into .svg versions, which makes the question of resolution a bit pointless, but have a look at the sourcing statement of the image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBI-Seal.svg Extracted from PDF file available on this page (direct PDF URL here), and colorized according to bitmap version on the FBI home page and other versions such as Image:FBISeal.png. Most bitmap versions use gradients, but I'm not experienced enough to add those. It's more a manipulated copy of the seal, with manipulation including a file format change, rather than taking and using a pure copy. Usually, in cases where you don't want the appearance of an official emblem to drift or change, you have either an original from which all copies are made, or detailed specifications (like those for the US flag). Here, you have people piecing together bits and pieces of information from different online copies to try and come up with a version to use here. Usually, the approach you would take if you wanted an accurate version is to go to the organisation and ask for a file to use, but again, Commons is different from other organisations in the approach it takes. If you look at the various forms of the FBI seal on Commons, it becomes clearer that what Commons has is not an official version of the seal, but something they claim is official, but may not be. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_seal.svg This vector image was created by converting the Encapsulated PostScript file available at Brands of the World Again, this is a rather strange way to source an image. Other versions have sourcing statements such as: Extracted from PDF version of a DNI 100-day plan followup report Better quality version, from the FBi presentation at to U.S. DOJ Also, the gallery here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBI-Seal.svg Has the following comments: 1) Bitmap version, with gradients 2) Alternate SVG version, with gradients 3) Alternate SVG version, may not be official The heraldy is described here: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/fbiseal/fbiseal.htm But where the exact dimensions and appearance originated from is not clear. It would be interesting to compare the modern-day seal's appearance with that of the seal in 1908. 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
