Re: [WikiEN-l] Atlantic on Wikipedia and PR
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:21:25 -0400 The Cunctator wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay Good to hear from you again Cunctator! The article goes on to point out that many of us, despite not being paid, nevertheless are trying to make points. True enough. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Future of this mailing list
How about disabling new posts, or forwarding new posts to Wikimedia-l, making a referral to Wikimedia-l in the info, and leaving the archives open. Fred Bauder On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 00:26:31 + Carcharoth wrote: If the moderators of this mailing list are around, would they or anyone else subscribed to the list be able to throw up some statistics about how much the traffic has declined over the past few years? I'm asking because looking at the archives, I think that last month (November 2014) was the first month since the mailing list started in September 2001 that there were no posts to the this mailing list (the wiki-en-l mailing list for discussion of matters related to the English Wikipedia). Admittedly, the list has been moribund for a long time, but I'm not sure exactly when the tipping point was reached (most meta-discussion seems to take place either on-wiki, at meta, or on the Wikimedia-l mailing list). What is the general view in the Wikimedia universe on maintaining low-traffic lists like this? It might be time to discuss what future this mailing list has. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Actually, looking at the list of moderators, how many of them are still around? 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] The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long
And I thought it was just the Baader, Browder, Bauer phenomenon... Fred Bauder > On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus wrote: > >> The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and >> one >> would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short >> succession. >> Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the name of a >> book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing >> they are >> describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a >> perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion" - and a >> substantial >> number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its >> longstanding >> and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised >> it >> to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of >> websites which use it by that name. >> The article should clearly stay! > > > Now you just need sources to this effect. There's always writing them ... > > > - 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] Dyslexia
> dyslexic font is visually horribly unappealing Remarkably irritating font. Thanks for the heads up though. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Why writing biographies (e.g. on WIkipedia) is hard
> http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/09/writing-biography-in-the-age-of-wikipedia-removing-a-shadow-from-the-life-of-justice-tom-clark/ > > > - d. A edit by User:Awohlgemuth, who judging from his name seems to be Alex Wohl, author of the blog, seems to address this matter on the [[Tom C. Clark]] article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_C._Clark&diff=568609754&oldid=568029457 It does not seem to have been in the article prior to his edits, although I have not searched the history. The title of the blog seems to exploit our low reputation. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
Indeed, a community a few hundred seems optimal. Fred > This is certainly not a question only for the English Wikipedia. I > somewhat doubt that it even foremost has to do with the English > Wikipedia. I have seen this problem primarily in smaller Wikis dominated > by few people. > > Regards, > Lars Gardenius > > > > ____ > Von: Fred Bauder > An: Wikimedia Mailing List > CC: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Gesendet: 13:28 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself > > > At wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org ? Perhaps, but hard to start over from > the beginning. > > Fred > >> Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English >> wikipedia? >> >> There is not much, if any, of what is being discussed that I can >> recognize from my home wp >> >> Anders >> >> >> >> Fred Bauder skrev 2013-09-05 13:18: >>> That was the purpose of the original arbitration committee. Finding a >>> mentor is kind of hard nowdays as there are so many users who might >>> help >>> but probably will not. On the other hand, many requests I have >>> received >>> and looked into are from people who are making trouble themselves; >>> sometimes very serious trouble. Giving a second chance to someone who >>> has >>> been banned by the community after extended discussion seldom works >>> out >>> well. But that's not a newbie who has run into serious trouble just >>> for >>> making jokes about Windoze... >>> >>> Fred >>> >>>> It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others >>>> that >>>> are harassed by other users. >>>> >>>> I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that >>>> you >>>> have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene. >>>> >>>> As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on >>>> the >>>> responsibilities that follows. >>>> You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems >>>> to >>>> the users. >>>> >>>> I still think that an international organization like the Wikis >>>> demands >>>> an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An >>>> instance >>>> with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and >>>> with the authority to uphold them. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Lars Gardenius >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Von: Peter Gervai >>>> An: Wikimedia Mailing List >>>> Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 >>>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from >>>> itself >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way. >>>> You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed. >>>> >>>> At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the >>>> (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller >>>> debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to >>>> oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no >>>> good solution seem to exist. >>>> >>>> In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in >>>> cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors >>>> who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but >>>> they >>>> would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other >>>> regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it. >>>> Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request >>>> (if >>>> the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them >>>> outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but >>>> a >>>> large catalog of helpful and experienced editors. >>>> >>>> I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's >>>> a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it&#x
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
At wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org ? Perhaps, but hard to start over from the beginning. Fred > Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia? > > There is not much, if any, of what is being discussed that I can > recognize from my home wp > > Anders > > > > Fred Bauder skrev 2013-09-05 13:18: >> That was the purpose of the original arbitration committee. Finding a >> mentor is kind of hard nowdays as there are so many users who might >> help >> but probably will not. On the other hand, many requests I have received >> and looked into are from people who are making trouble themselves; >> sometimes very serious trouble. Giving a second chance to someone who >> has >> been banned by the community after extended discussion seldom works out >> well. But that's not a newbie who has run into serious trouble just for >> making jokes about Windoze... >> >> Fred >> >>> It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others >>> that >>> are harassed by other users. >>> >>> I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that >>> you >>> have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene. >>> >>> As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on >>> the >>> responsibilities that follows. >>> You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems to >>> the users. >>> >>> I still think that an international organization like the Wikis >>> demands >>> an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An instance >>> with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and >>> with the authority to uphold them. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Lars Gardenius >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Von: Peter Gervai >>> An: Wikimedia Mailing List >>> Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 >>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from >>> itself >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius >>> >>> wrote: >>>> No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way. >>> You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed. >>> >>> At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the >>> (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller >>> debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to >>> oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no >>> good solution seem to exist. >>> >>> In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in >>> cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors >>> who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but they >>> would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other >>> regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it. >>> Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request (if >>> the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them >>> outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but a >>> large catalog of helpful and experienced editors. >>> >>> I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's >>> a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it's doable if there's >>> enough volunteers and people don't try to do it too often, I mean, one >>> in a week or month or so. >>> >>> The point is to have a group of random people who are not involved in >>> the debate but could help to communicate with the members of the >>> community. (Since they're uninvolved it's probably useless to call >>> them biased, which is the easiest unargument I've seen in such >>> debates.) >>> >>> g >>> >>> ___ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> ___ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> ___ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ 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] Progress...
"As with other inventions that produced an inferior product at a much lower price, from the printing press to the steam-driven loom to Wikipedia, what happens now is largely in the hands of the people experimenting with the new tools, rather than defending themselves from them." http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2013/07/08/moocs-and-economic-reality/ Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [tangential] Why voting is evil
> Rick Falkvinge has been writing a book, "Swarmwise", on how the Pirate > Party organised. He's been posting it a chapter at a time to his blog. > > You know how Wikipedia/Wikimedia has (or had) the meme that "voting is > evil"? This sets out why. > > > http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/01/swarmwise-the-tactical-manual-to-changing-the-world-chapter-six/ > > tl;dr: voting creates winners and losers, and losers are unhappy and > disengage. > > > - d. And what is the difference when any Wikipedian with good sense avoids participation in any policy discussion unless there is massive consensus. Practical experience with anarchic decision-making shows that aggressive idiots rule. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] intimidation on wikipedia editing
The problem with open proxies is that anyone can use them; lists of them are published. They are blocked routinely due mainly to spambots which create many accounts and insert nonsense, usually with links to dubious commercial sources. I recommend you create an anonymous account and edit in that way. Fred > folks hi, > > i am a long-time wikipedia user and long-time and low-volume editor, > and a significant contributor to the strategic roadmap of wikipedia > which occurred a few years ago. i returned to edit a page and found > that the IP address of the HTTP proxy that i use had been blocked. i > was reminded of an extreme intimidation incident which clearly > violated the spirit of trusting people to contribute to wikipedia, so > thought it best to alert you of this. > > the editing last year was carried out - accidentally - anonymously and > using my usual style of making several incremental edits in rapid > succession so as not to lose track of the information being added. i > was unpleasantly surprised to find that in the middle of the editing > the *entire* set of edits had been reverted. i had encountered the > user who carried out the blanket reversion before (when logged in) and > he's what one might call a "wiki nazi": very experienced at "the > rules", and uses them to bullying effect rather than works *with* a > less-experienced contributor, usually by doing total-revert in a > highly disruptive manner. > > things escalated and a number of idiots piled in, citing the anonymity > as a means to "attack" wikipedia, whereas in fact it was purely > accidental, but the bullying and the lack of trust shown was the > reason why i chose to *remain* anonymous. > > the article in question i refuse to name publicly because it will > identify me instantly to the bullies from whom i still wish to remain > anonymous. > > it was a corner-case technical article full of technically inaccurate > technically unsubstantiated and speculative "wishful thinking" on the > part of former editors. i.e. former editors *wish* that the > technology would be successful, but are unfortunately dreadfully > misinformed on basic maths and physics. the problem is: the lack of > success of anyone to create a commercially successful version of this > technology in over 100 years makes it very difficult to provide any > kind of "wikipedia-acceptable" citations as to why there are no > commercially successful versions of this technology. > > the article therefore continues to mis-inform people rather badly. a > quick check shows that the page has since been updated, but the core > concerns remain as the page is completely lacking basic math and > physics references, as well as having since been marked as requiring > citations. > > so there are several things that need to be resolved - bear in mind > that i am *not* prepared to help publicly resolve this unless the > people who carried out the intimidation are taken to task first: > > 1) the people who carried out the intimidation and accusations need to > be reminded of the spirit of wikipedia to *trust* contributors rather > than automatically assume that they have malicious intent > > 2) the IP address of my HTTP proxy is to be removed. it's utterly > pointless to block IP addresses based on an *individual's* assessment, > when there are things such as "Tor" and other truly anonymous proxies. > anyone wishing to truly vandalise wikipedia could do so with extreme > prejudice in an automated fashion, and they would certainly not use an > HTTP proxy where a simple reverse-DNS lookup would quickly identify > them. > > once these things have been done then i am prepared to assist further > in resolving the subtly misleading parts of the article. i am happy > to provide the details *privately* to more senior individuals within > the wikipedia foundation such that an investigation can be made. > > my efforts to improve wikipedia's accuracy are genuine and sincere, > but as a very low-traffic part-time editor of highly-technical > corner-case articles i simply don't have time to go learning all the > "rules": i'm just not interested, to be absolutely frank. i'm happy > to work with people who are sincere and accommodating who truly > welcome technical input. > > 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] Secret Arrests
As usual, they are intelligent sensitive people, the judges of the High Court are not wrong, as you eloquently point out. However, the considerations their reasoning is based have little weight with the public or with journalists trying to make a pound and build their audience. "Accused" is their stock in trade. I doubt I could suppress, oversight, information about an arrest in England and Wales on Wikipedia without losing the tool unless there were very special other issues involved. Fred > I think that journalists should not identify the suspect unless the > journalist gets permission from the suspects family. Because if the > suspect has children the children could get bullied in school. Or > identify the suspect if he/she has no children or family. > > On 4/22/13, Fred Bauder wrote: >> There is extended discussion in England and Wales regarding whether >> journalists should identify suspects that have been arrested. >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/21/press-intrusion-name-suspects >> >> See also >> http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_ii.pdf >> >> Fred >> >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > -- > *AKHIL MULGAONKER * > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] bizarre: Women Novelists Wikipedia
"Do not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom"." would seem to cover not creating such categories as women mystery writers. Fred > On 26 April 2013 05:19, Fred Bauder wrote: >> The thing is that if someone is in a subcategory they are then taken >> out >> of the category. So, if the subcategories are applied, nearly everyone >> should be removed from the higher category such as American novelist. >> Obviously this was not thought through well. If there is to be a female >> novelist category there must be a male novelist category. This will >> become more and more evident as time passes and situation equalizes. > > This is normally the case, but there's an explicit exemption for > gender: at least in theory, single-gender categorisation (where we > have just "female" without a corresponding "male" category) should not > be "exclusive", and people should be categorised in both. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Gender > > Removal from the main category should (again, an aspirational > "should") only occur when we are completely splitting it into gender > subcategories. > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] bizarre: Women Novelists Wikipedia
The thing is that if someone is in a subcategory they are then taken out of the category. So, if the subcategories are applied, nearly everyone should be removed from the higher category such as American novelist. Obviously this was not thought through well. If there is to be a female novelist category there must be a male novelist category. This will become more and more evident as time passes and situation equalizes. Obviously we need to quit arguing and change it. Either a man or a woman mystery writer would be in both a gender category and a genre category, if we are to have gender categories. Fred > That doesn't necessarily follow. Surely female American novelists should appear in both categories. > On 25 Apr 2013 23:14, "Sarah" wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> >> > What subcategories would American men novelists go into? of course >> women >> > would also go into them. By centuries would be one set of >> subcategories; >> > and genre: mystery, western, adventure, fantasy, etc. >> > >> > Hard to see this as a deliberate slight. >> > >> > Fred >> > >> >> Fred, the point is that, if "American women novelists" is to be a subcategory, then "American male novelists" would have to be a subcat too. >> Otherwise the "American novelists" category would be default male, which is >> apparently what happened. >> >> Sarah >> ___ >> 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] bizarre: Women Novelists Wikipedia
What subcategories would American men novelists go into? of course women would also go into them. By centuries would be one set of subcategories; and genre: mystery, western, adventure, fantasy, etc. Hard to see this as a deliberate slight. Fred > Wikipedia's overwhelmingly male user-editors began the bizarre forced > gender migration on Tuesday > > > The New York Times:: >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html >> > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/wikipedia_moves_women_to_american_women_novelists_category_leaves_men_in_american_novelists/ > ___ > 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] Secret Arrests
There is extended discussion in England and Wales regarding whether journalists should identify suspects that have been arrested. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/21/press-intrusion-name-suspects See also http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_ii.pdf Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] inclusivity of Wikipedia and the drawing of expert boundaries
Within any field there is a general consensus regarding which textbooks, references, and journal articles are authoritative, or at least important. Those who teach or write in the field are familiar with these and can be of great help in identifying them. Fred > I think of interest to this discussion list. > > = > Luyt, B. (2012). The inclusivity of Wikipedia and the drawing of expert > boundaries: An examination of talk pages and reference lists. *Journal Of > The American Society For Information Science & Technology*, *63*(9), > 1868-1878. > > *Wikipedia* is frequently viewed as an inclusive medium. But inclusivity > within this online encyclopedia is not a simple matter of just allowing > anyone to contribute. In its quest for legitimacy as an encyclopedia,* > Wikipedia* relies on outsiders to judge claims championed by rival > editors. > In choosing these experts, Wikipedians define the boundaries of > acceptable > comment on any given subject. Inclusivity then becomes a matter of how > the > boundaries of expertise are drawn. In this article I examine the nature > of > these boundaries and the implications they have for inclusivity and > credibility as revealed through the talk pages produced and sources used > by > a particular subset of *Wikipedia*'s creators-those involved in writing > articles on the topic of Philippine history. > ___ > 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] incivility consciously as a tactic.
> The point being that those who actually use incivility as a wedge to > divide the community are quite well aware of that, and this is what > needs to be stamped out as disruption, not intermittent breakdowns of > the civility code. > > I saw a recent study suggesting, alarmingly, that online many people > find angry language and comment relatively persuasive; presumably > because they assume it is sincere, and assume that sincerity has > something to do with being right. I find this much more worrying than > the traditional "lack of affect" argument, because you'd assume over > time people would adapt to that (have we not adapted to the phone?) > > I think there are probably a couple of serious fallacies being allowed > to dominate this discussion, still. > > Charles Yes there is research: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/how-rude-reader-comments-may-undermine-scientists-authority/32071 Nastiness works. However, our problem is with the enablers. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Psychological correlates of deletionism/inclusionism?
> Don't get your panties in a bunch, David. "Quote-mining"? What is this, > Usenet? He was probably there... He's an old coon dog and won't chase a rabbit. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] incivility consciously as a tactic.
> Right--and this would make all the difference. I am teaching a college > class for which an optional assignment is to learn to edit in Wikipedia. > Most of the students have had good experiences. Only a few have felt > "incivility consciously as a tactic. " We discuss this in class and a > few > snide/bullying editors do great damage. There just isn't any reason for > it. > Good people will not tolerate bullying. It's no rite of passage that > people > must undergo. You are correct. This is not a new issue; efforts to control it have extended over years with mixed results. Please report these issues to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and we will do what we can. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Tom Strickland - former United States Attorney for Colorado
You can, without conflict of interest, suggest sources and point out inaccuracies on the talk page of the article. You may, if you wish, contact me directly at my email address with suggestions and sources for information. I have never edited the article but am interested in assisting any public relations person who is candid. Fred Bauder > I am looking for a Wiki representative to assist in a change that needs > to be made to Tom Strickland's Wikipedia > page<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Strickland>. I need assistance > because he requested that his page be locked several years ago because > outside contacts were maliciously tampering with the content. > > He now needs a few edits to the page, but is not able since it has been > locked for content protection. Can you please let me know who can, or who > I can contact, to make the changes? > > -Brecke > > Brecke Latham | WilmerHale > Senior Public Relations Specialist > 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW > Washington, DC 20006 USA > +1 202 247 2492 (t) > +1 202 663 6363 (f) > brecke.lat...@wilmerhale.com > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer Cutler > Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be privileged. If > you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately-by > replying to this message or by sending an email to > postmas...@wilmerhale.com<mailto:postmas...@wilmerhale.com>-and destroy > all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you. > > For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at > http://www.wilmerhale.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 > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Psychological correlates of deletionism/inclusionism?
> On 14 April 2013 14:29, David Gerard wrote: > >> Pretty much everything that's fucked up about Wikipedia is emergent >> behaviour of people being a problem > > > I think you mean "failure of management". > ___ When we had a manager, Larry Sanger, he was both unconscious of and unable to deal with the natural dynamics of people as they grappled with an evolving situation. A system of self-management continues to evolve. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Psychological correlates of deletionism/inclusionism?
> Looking more at this, it seems that Wales has been given "credit" for > exactly this intervention: > > "Wales has, in the past, instructed Wikimedia's system administrators to > implement software changes that constitute de facto Wikipedia policy > changes. For instance, in December 2005, in response to the Seigenthaler > incident, Wales removed the ability of unregistered users to create new > pages on the English-language Wikipedia. This change was proposed as an > "experiment", but has been in place ever since." > > We have Wales to "thank" for the absurd "Articles for Creation" process > (Is > that still around? I haven't checked in a long time.). Seems to me that > constitutes a "significant role in debates over inclusion deletion". Together with the Arbitration Committee Jimbo initiated the Biographies of living persons policy. His involvement in deletion was with respect to pseudo-scientific physics theories. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Psychological correlates of deletionism/inclusionism?
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> Once the herd got going, no one had much affect. > > Managing the herd is what leaders were for. > > -- > gwern > http://www.gwern.net In hierarchical organizations; Wikipedia is, more or less, horizontally organized. But, as Christ said, "Feed my sheep." Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Psychological correlates of deletionism/inclusionism?
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Jimbo and Angela did not play a significant role in debates over inclusion and deletion > > Indeed, that was my point. I don't think they did anything, or > intended anything of the kind, but they chose not to intervene back when the gradual slide could have been stopped and so the ultimate effect was much the same. (Amusingly eventually leading to a nasty surprise for Jimbo with Mzoli's.) > > -- > gwern > http://www.gwern.net Once the herd got going, no one had much effect. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Psychological correlates of deletionism/inclusionism?
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> Jimbo and Angela did not play a significant role in debates over >> inclusion and deletion > > Indeed, that was my point. I don't think they did anything, or > intended anything of the kind, but they chose not to intervene back > when the gradual slide could have been stopped and so the ultimate > effect was much the same. (Amusingly eventually leading to a nasty > surprise for Jimbo with Mzoli's.) > > -- > gwern > http://www.gwern.net Once the herd got going, no one had much affect. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Psychological correlates of deletionism/inclusionism?
> Why do you never hear complaints from inclusionists about Star Wars > articles being deleted? Because so many were deleted that the involved > editors finally bit the bullet and escaped to Wikia, and the only ones > that are left are either ones onboard with rigid constrictive policies > or have seen their efforts fail and learned to comply with the current > regime. What happened with Star Wars could be said of many of the > Wikias. (One of the more amusing Wikipedia conspiracy theories I've > seen is that Wales & Angela deliberately encouraged or let En slide > towards deletionism because it provided a demand for his Wikia > startup. I doubt they intended any such thing, but the effect was the > same.) . > > -- > gwern > http://www.gwern.net Jimbo and Angela did not play a significant role in debates over inclusion and deletion; it just happens that people with a passion for a subject treasure every detail which makes for a good wikia wiki. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] deletionism/inclusionism?
> This is not very helpful for someone trying to find assistance..I guess > you > think this is funny, but it really seems like a bunch of 8th grade > middle-school boys. Sigmund Freud's theories are widely discredited, but do relate to messiness and excessive discipline. Fred > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Tom Morris wrote: >> > I'm waiting for extreme inclusionists or deletionists to produce some >> high-quality, not-at-all bullshit research that shows that failure to >> adhere to their preferred philosophy is something that shows a deep >> psychological tendency to rape kittens. >> > >> > That'll elevate the debate, I'm sure. >> >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Fred Bauder >> wrote: >> > Obviously toilet training is involved. That is the source of the anal >> > personality. Need a study of toilet training of future editors... >> >> Thanks for your contributions, guys, they were really helpful and not >> at all completely useless and off-topic and exactly what I was hoping >> not to see. >> >> -- >> gwern >> http://www.gwern.net >> >> ___ >> 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] Psychological correlates of deletionism/inclusionism?
Obviously toilet training is involved. That is the source of the anal personality. Need a study of toilet training of future editors... Fred > Some recent musings reminded me that I never did find a good answer > for an old question of mine: does anything predict whether an editor > will lean towards deletionism? > > More specifically, it seems to me that attitudes towards articles take > on almost emotional or moral dimensions, perhaps related to various > psychological factors. Does anyone remember ever seeing any research > touching on this? For example, perhaps someone surveyed editors, > asking for self-identified preference and doing an inventory measuring > personality factors like the OCEAN/Big Five? Of course I checked > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia > and Google but nothing particularly germane appears to have popped up > besides random speculation and analogies to Adorno's famous > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality > > -- > gwern > http://www.gwern.net > > ___ > 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] Larry Sanger's new project
> > The problem he apparently trying to solve is that sites like Wikipedia > and YouTube are "kind of noisy". As problem statements go, it lacks a > certain specificity... I know what he means though. The snarling nonsense we sometimes encounter on mailing lists or during editing disputes could fairly be characterized as "noise". The question is whether this project will be any better. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry Sanger's new project
More a failure of nerve; when he did not attract experts in the field he gave authority to 2nd rate people. Present company excepted, of course. Fred > The plan for Citizendium worked? First time that's ever been asserted. > It worked in the sense a plan was developed, but the plan was indeed > a "behemoth" and a "straight-jacket", and was a key reason why the > project was so unsuccessful. Among the many things the plan failed to > consider, which would have been fore-front in any plan evolved by a > community, was the need to make sure the people named as the editors > actually were authorities in their subject. I was there from the > start of the project: I was one of the first "expert" editors, I was > one of the members of the first editorial board, The basic idea was > wonderful as a supplement to WP, but its failure has made it almost > impossible to try properly for a version of WP with expert peer-review > of the content. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:14 AM, David Gerard wrote: >> On 21 February 2013 11:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen >> wrote: >> >>> Sounds like he want's to build a megaproject in a huge go, no >>> evolutionary >>> steps at all, and then see if anyone likes the behemoth of a >>> constructed >>> reality straight-jacket. >> >> >> Well, it worked for Citizendium. (Completely planned out about a year >> in advance, from the Slashdot editorial.) >> >> >> - 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 > > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > ___ > 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] illegal, Internet-related public relations activity
Internet scrubbing as a business: http://english.caixin.com/2013-02-19/100492242_all.html Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Gallery policy
lots of pretty pictures of similar things No Fred > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Carcharoth > wrote: >> It's a tricky one. I favour more image use, not less, but then I work >> with images a lot (outside Wikipedia), so I'm kind of biased there. I > > Yeah, I wonder if there is equally a pro-text/anti-image bias amongst > some editors? > > (Me, I love images for skim reading - get a quick impression of a > subject without having to read every word.) > >> do think that galleries that are large and purely illustrative are not >> really suitable for Wikipedia. > > Honest question: what does "illustrative" mean in this context? Any > image is "illustrating" something. Are you distinguishing between > decoration (say, lots of pretty pictures of similar things) and adding > information? > >>Commons *categories* are not the >> equivalent of Wikipedia galleries, but you can create *pages* on >> Commons that you can arrange into galleries and divide into sections >> and annotate as needed. > > True, but putting effort into crafting such galleries on Commons > seems...misplaced. I care about the encyclopaedia. And no one has ever > heard of Commons. And no one ever goes there to find out more about a > subject. Ever. > >> I do think that a section or article paragraph >> on (say) waterfalls in a National Park known for having many >> waterfalls could have a limited gallery of a few waterfalls, but >> something showing *all* of them would either have to be part of a >> standalone article, or a wikibook on the topic, or a Commons page, and >> you should be able to link all three directly from the article >> section, rather than hiding the link away down the bottom of the >> article. > > Well I think there's only half a dozen or so in that national park. > And there are only photos of two. (And excellent photos at that.) > >> It is mainly a question of layout and placement and context, >> and can sometimes require creative thinking. The key is always to make >> the reader *aware* that image-rich resources are available, but not to >> shove the images in their faces. Give the reader options, but don't >> force-feed them. > > Yep. Wish there were better tools for this. An expanding box with one > or two images shown as a teaser would be great. > > 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 mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Gallery policy
"Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with
as many or as few images as appropriate." seems right.
Fred
> Hi all,
> Do content policies still get discussed on this list? I'm a bit out of
> touch.
>
> Anyway, I seem to keep running afoul of the "image use policy".
> Several galleries that I've added to articles have been removed. (And
> see this response to my second attempt to gallerise one article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevage&action=edit§ion=236
> )
>
> The key parts of the policy
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries) are:
>
> * "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are
> discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of
> images."
> -- it's not clear whether this includes articles that currently lack
> text (as opposed to articles that could never be much more than a
> gallery)
> * "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a
> tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of
> an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should
> generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or
> moved to Wikimedia Commons."
> -- It's not clear what "moving...a gallery...to Wikimedia Commons"
> means. It sounds like this was intended for cases where the images
> existed only in Wikipedia itself, rather than being linked from
> Commons.
>
> On the other hand:
> * "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value
> and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a
> gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both
> to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery"
>
>
> So, here's my thinking in response to the above:
> 1) "Wikipedia is not for images, Commons is for images" is just bad
> logic. Commons is a dumping ground for *all* images. Wikipedia is an
> encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with as many or as
> few images as appropriate. (It's not like duplicated storage is a
> problem.)
> 2) The Commons links are incredibly obscure, and I don't think the
> average punter ever sees or visits them. It's like telling someone to
> ring the hotline for more information - they just don't. The link
> doesn't give any indication whether there are 2 images on Commons on
> 200.
> 3) Galleries let you illustrate a much wider range of the subject
> matter than by simply placing images in the margins. For example, in
> the contentious [[Lamington National Park]], we could illustrate all
> the waterfalls, most of the important flora, fauna, and geological
> features.
> 4) An image of captioned animals under a section entitled "fauna" (and
> likewise for flora etc) seems perfectly in keeping with the guideline
> under ("on the other hand") above.
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still
> subject to debate and change?
>
> 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 mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry Sanger's new project
> On 14 February 2013 15:15, Nathan wrote: > >> That job ad is so awesome I had to save it for posterity. Work as a >> programmer slash executive assistant, for free! Be available 24 hours a >> day >> at a moments notice! Weekends off? Forget it! Mediocre candidates need >> not >> apply! Work for the *gasp* co-founder of Wikipedia! Solid, solid gold. > > > I think you're being unduly harsh here. His track record speaks for > itself. > > > - d. He's not wrong; if it is possible to effectively mobilize the world's best experts in a major widely supported crowd sourcing project it could be awesome. Any Wikipedia editor knows from experience that from time to time you end up arguing with idiots and losing the argument by consensus. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is this a trademark violation?
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 06:55:33 -0700 (MST), Fred Bauder wrote: > >> Clearly, it is. > > So is anybody going to do anything about it? Should Wikimedia Legal > be notified? I cc'd them earlier, but here is another. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is this a trademark violation?
Clearly, it is. Fred > I just ran into this Twitter account: > > https://twitter.com/Wikipedia411 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How to write about things that were once notable?
> On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> by at least occasional publishing of information about in in >> contemporary >> reliable sources. > > That's not strictly tenable, as the range of history is so vast that > contemporary historians only ever write about a small portion of it, > and even then sometimes only briefly. Some stuff is just waiting for > historians to write about it, or not as the case may be. Some stuff > from 150 years ago has been written about 20 years ago, but may not be > returned to by future historians for another 100 years, if at all. > > Carcharoth Nevertheless something that is never mentioned in a nonfiction book or journal article over 250 years could be said to have dropped from the canon of knowledge and could then be archived. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How to write about things that were once notable?
>>> If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be >>> notable, no? >> >> No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in >> significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is >> irrelevant. > > My bad. My comment was based on the apparently mistaken premise that > we were speaking English when using words such as "notable". "Notable" is a term of art on Wikipedia defined by policy. As an English word it has a broader meaning. > >> However, we do need a mechanism for weeding out information which is no >> longer of interest to readers or editors. > > Why? Is it irrelevant, or is it relevant? It was relevant, or seemed to be, when published. It's kind of like the best selling fiction of 1924, of note, but probably not suitable for bedside reading in 2013. Time passes, priorities change; we could take the view that the article namespace should contain only material regarding which there is some minimum contemporary interest, as evidenced by at least occasional publishing of information about in in contemporary reliable sources. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How to write about things that were once notable?
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F >> >> How to write about things like [[Citizendium]], [[Conservapedia]], >> [[Veropedia]] - things that were notable at the time and got lots of >> press coverage and hence articles, and which readers may well want to >> read about into the future - but which have fallen out of notice and >> so their decline (and, in the case of Veropedia, death) got no >> coverage and hence we can't answer the reader question "so, whatever >> did happen to X?" > > If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be > notable, no? No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is irrelevant. However, we do need a mechanism for weeding out information which is no longer of interest to readers or editors. Perhaps this could be one criteria justifying deletion, or perhaps some other form of archiving. We could maintain an archive of deprecated subjects separate from the main body of articles. Libraries do this, and call it weeding. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How to write about things that were once notable?
> I think you are all dancing around the real subject. > Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to > knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or > to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at > which rates do people have access to it? Wikipedia is a summary of generally accepted knowledge. We aspire to make that summary conveniently available on a global basis. The gatekeepers are those who edit media considered reliable. In these cases, at one time, information was published but is no longer considered of interest, although books may yet be written which explore issues such as Wikipedia forks. Access to knowledge, in itself, is not something within our mission. Not that a project well founded on appropriate philosophical and scientific principles would not be worthwhile. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How to write about things that were once notable?
It's a problem. Information about the current status of these projects may have fallen off so much that little or nothing can be obtained from a notable source. So you are left with the splash and little else. No obituary available. Fred > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F > > How to write about things like [[Citizendium]], [[Conservapedia]], > [[Veropedia]] - things that were notable at the time and got lots of > press coverage and hence articles, and which readers may well want to > read about into the future - but which have fallen out of notice and > so their decline (and, in the case of Veropedia, death) got no > coverage and hence we can't answer the reader question "so, whatever > did happen to X?" > > (Anyone who wants to reply saying "Citizendium is alive and well and > will rise again!" or similar needs to check the most recent > WP:RS-suitable coverage from 2011: > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/10/five-year-old-wikipedia-fork-is-dead-in-the-water/ > and particularly the comments, where people have never heard of this > thing and in two weeks no-one even defends the project.) > > > - 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] Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag
As you evidence, the matter is notable to a significant portion of the population. As to how someone else can consider the matter not notable, perhaps speciation is occurring... Fred > How is the very likely possibility of infidelity "relative trivia"? I > consider it fairly relevant to a section named "Personal life". Also, > your analogy with historical biographies is flawed, because the inclusion > of this allegation barely makes the article increase in size at all. > > -- > ~~yutsi > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Oct 7, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Thomas Morton > wrote: > >> On 7 October 2012 14:56, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" >>> wrote: I came across this today in the English Wikipedia: "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught >>> cheating on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter." Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at >>> all, in a gossip tabloid rag? >>> >>> I'd prefer it if we didn't make that kind of decision ourselves. Has >>> it >>> been reported in mainstream (non-gossip) media? (We have to make a >>> judgement about whether a particular source is respectable or not, but >>> that's better than making judgements on individual facts.) >>> __ >>> >> >> We do it all the time. >> >> I write historical biographies (amongst other things) and if I recorded >> all >> of the detail discussed in the numerous reliable sources (i.e. books) >> used >> for each then I would still be writing the first one (and just about >> got to >> the length of a medium novel!). >> >> Editorial judgement is a key skill for any competent WP editor, and we >> should focus less on rigid rules (which encourage the inclusion of >> trivia) >> and more on good editorial judgement. >> >> In this case, good editorial judgement suggests that this is relative >> trivia. It is not really related to his reason for notability and is >> distinctly about his private life. It also seems to be something along >> the >> lines of an allegation mostly covered in tabloid gossip. >> >> I'd suggest that with good editorial judgement this is something we >> would >> pause for some time before covering, if at all, whilst BLP applies. >> >> Tom >> ___ >> 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] Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag
> >>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia: >>> >>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught >>> cheating >>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter." >>> >>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at >>> all, >>> in a gossip tabloid rag? >>> >>> Marc Riddell >> > on 10/7/12 9:55 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > >> Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was >> Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York >> Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be >> encyclopedic. >> >> If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/, >> no. >> >> Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual >> situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag." >> > It was not my intention to suggest that we were a "gossip rag". It was my > intention to suggest that we are above that. > > The reliability of the source should, in this case, be irrelevant. What > should be relevant is if the subject of the report has been publicly > hypocritical concerning the issue then, yes, is should be reported. But > only > to stress the hypocrisy, not the "infidelity". > > Marc But you see, that is what is missing. His exposés are of pedophiles while the "scandal" is consenting adults. Where's the hypocrisy? Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag
Seems marginal, but it's not oversightable, for several reasons: It has a reasonably reliable source (The National Enquirer has a good track record in this area of interest); the subject and his date are public figures; suppression would only make it worse. The only part I have trouble with is the privacy consideration of publishing such private information about reporters such as the female reporter in this instance. I'm not sure merely being a reporter makes you a public figure and opens up whatever someone chooses to expose about your private life. For example, local TV reporters, who cares about their private lives? Yet, supposedly they are fair game simply because they regularly appear on camera. Fred > FYI to all - > The article being referenced here is [[Chris Hansen]], the reporter known > for hosting *To Catch a Predator.* > > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Marc Riddell > wrote: > >> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia: >> >> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught >> cheating >> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter." >> >> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at >> all, >> in a gossip tabloid rag? >> >> Marc Riddell >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag
> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia: > > "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught > cheating > on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter." > > Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at > all, > in a gossip tabloid rag? > > Marc Riddell Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be encyclopedic. If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/, no. Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag." Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] links to open courses?
All useful, interesting, or authoritative links on the subject of an article should be included in "external links and further reading", including important primary sources, open courses, and published books. > Hi all, > > Here is something I've been thinking about lately. Do we have a policy > or a practice on linking to open courses in articles, for instance the > MIT courses available at http://ocw.mit.edu? > > As universities increasingly move to posting their courses and > lectures online, it seems to me like these would be useful links to > curate and add to the relevant (broad) articles. > > I am mostly familiar with English-language courses from US > universities, but I'm also curious if any Wikipedia edition in any > language has had discussions on this subject. > > cheers, > phoebe > > -- > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers > gmail.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 > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> Re Fred's comments about giving VIPs VIP treatment. > > We can't simply assume that everyone we encounter on the Internet is who > they claim to be. Doing that would be a recipe for abuse of a lot of VIPs > and just as worryingly lots of other people as well. > > We should treat everyone with courtesy, and treat every serious complaint > seriously. > > But no we should not give preferential treatment to "VIPs" over others. > If > anyone is entitled to preferential treatment it is the people we have > seriously maligned, that includes VIPs like Siegenthaler and some very > ordinary people as well. By contrast no-one is arguing that Mr Roth's > complaint is about something similarly damaging to him or to others. If > anything by giving him a quick and fairly easy way to correct a meme that > was widely circulated beyond Wikipedia we have given him better service > than the print media. > > If we were a commercial outfit selling high end products to those who > could > afford them then I would understand and expect a strategy of giving VIPs > better treatment than others. But we are volunteers helping a charity > with > a mission to make the world's knowledge freely available to everyone. If > our clients are "everyone" why would we want to give a differential > service > level by status rather than seriousness? > > > WSC Assuming on a provisional basis that someone who claims to be a VIP or an agent of one is all that is proposed. Such claims need to be verified to avoid spoofing. For example, suggesting to Roth that he give an interview to someone about the issues he raised is verified when he does so and an article appears in The New Yorker. Obviously we were dealing with Roth's agent in this case. As noted, everybody should be treated courteously and taken seriously. While ass kissing is inappropriate, wealthy and powerful people are a source of funds and political support to a non-profit corporation, and of potential public relations damage. Careful handling is appropriate. So is firmness regarding our policies, but diplomatically expressed. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Charles Matthews < > charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> If something gets into OTRS and is from >> a household name, it would be sensible to have it passed to someone >> with a >> lot of experience, but I don't know if that is part of the system. >> > > Of course, we'd first have to establish that the message legitimately was > from said household name, either directly or via an assistant or > publicist. > Even for legitimate VIPs, though, OTRS volunteers aren't going to change > content without good reason (and "but it's my article" is not a good > reason). > > -- > Jim Redmond > jredm...@gmail.com We should assume it is from the person they claim to be. If it turns out they are not that problem can be addressed at that time. If they are the VIP they should get VIP treatment from the beginning. By which I mean courtesy and taking their complaint seriously, not doing every little thing they might want. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> How exactly? On OTRS we handle much more sensitive private info :-) > > Tom Morton Checkuser may be employed in either instance if there is a good reason, such as an apparent sock puppet or abuse of multiple accounts. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> As far as I can tell, outsiders like to have someone central to > approach, e.g. the email address. > - d. VIPs expect to deal with another VIP, with authority to get things fixed, with a word, even if the rules have to be bent a bit. That is the way of the world. We, particularly a random community member they are interacting with, often do not have authority to do what has to be done. They do not understand or appreciate discussions with the community about their problem. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> why should they > bother > politely pointing someone to OTRS, much less spend time and effort trying > to be diplomatic themselves? > > Sxeptomaniac Because they are decent capable people, take pride in doing a good job, and are concerned about the accuracy and reputation of Wikipedia. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
It seems I have not posed this as a question. The question is how could we better handle VIP subjects who give us feedback, attempt to edit either themselves or through an agent, or contact OTRS? For example, could we assign some diplomatic people to handle such situations, I've noticed CBS does that. It's a skill. Fred > If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving > treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone > to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems > in their article. > > The thing is, VIPs generally get VIP treatment, personal and forgiving > attention. They may not be prepared, as a practical matter, to "work it > out with the janitor," so to speak. What could we do to improve our > interface with VIPs? > > After all, as said, famous people we know, or who know us, do get plenty > of help. They don't get to veto the content of their article, but careful > consideration is given to any issues they may have. > > As to who, let's just say that one or two have ended up here: > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board > > Perhaps they might have some advice? > > There are limits; we're not going to completely satisfy someone who is > thin-skinned and cranky or totally puffed up over themselves, but I'm > sure we could do better even with someone like that. > > Fred > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
It's a new topic. Addresses the general question rather than rehashing Roth. Fred >> > Fred, it's very difficult to keep track of mailing list threads if you change the subject each time you post - this makes several in the last couple of days on the same topic. > > Can you keep them all under the same topic please! > > Tom > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: >> The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its >> ohmigod >> you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, >> yes, >> you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from >> authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can >> potentially be >> deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing "admin power" is >> always >> a questionable analysis. > > If someone who could reasonably be seen as speaking for Wikipedia told > him > that Wikipedia needed secondary sources for his claim, they are wrong, > and > Wikipedia failed. > > It completely misses the point to explain how Wikipedia's actual policies > are > reasonable. The policy that Roth was told about is not reasonable; if it > doesn't match Wikipedia's actual policy, he shouldn't be expected to > figure > that out. What is our actual policy? What should he have been told, and how? Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems in their article. The thing is, VIPs generally get VIP treatment, personal and forgiving attention. They may not be prepared, as a practical matter, to "work it out with the janitor," so to speak. What could we do to improve our interface with VIPs? After all, as said, famous people we know, or who know us, do get plenty of help. They don't get to veto the content of their article, but careful consideration is given to any issues they may have. As to who, let's just say that one or two have ended up here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board Perhaps they might have some advice? There are limits; we're not going to completely satisfy someone who is thin-skinned and cranky or totally puffed up over themselves, but I'm sure we could do better even with someone like that. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Privilege
The exercise of privilege is not usually called bullying, nor, when its prerogatives are denied are its holders called victims. Wikipedia does accord privilege to authority but only published authority. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"
> On Sep 10, 2012 9:20 PM, "Risker" wrote: >> >> In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to >> prevent access to pages that include certain keywords. I've sometimes > been >> stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that >> has >> some form of net nanny software. > > Funny you should say that, I wasn't able to access Wiktionary at work > today > because it was "suspicious". No idea what that was about... When I first set up Wikinfo on ibiblio at the University of North Carolina the page "socialism" would not load because they had a net filter in place which blocked that word. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"
"Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger has launched a campaign against the online encyclopedia for content filters to be put in place." Part of being a reference work. There are aspects of reality that are offensive or disturbing. I think we've made considerable progress on this matter in terms of removing or offering tools to prevent surprising people with gratuitous salacious material, but a refractory remnant of simple fact will always remain a part of Wikipedia. Some of it very important information even for children. Fred > On 10 September 2012 19:51, Steve Summit wrote: >> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/ >> >> "Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software >> that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from >> stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions, >> FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain >> far and away the most popular items on the company's servers." >> >> Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're >> really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't >> print it if it wasn't true... ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] attitude- elderly man googling
> It's not that there is bad behaviour that's okay with men and not okay > with > women. It's that women may notice it earlier or be more upset by it, more > likely to be seen as "thin-skinned," rather than legitimately sensitive. > In > an environment that had more women, certain kinds of sensitivity (if that > is the right word) would be the norm. > > Sarah True, no question. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] trying to bully us?
> For academics "personal communication" is > indeed sometimes an acceptable way to annotate a citation. But for this > type of issue an open letter to the New Yorker is surely better all > round. > > Charles Really, I don't know why a personal communication would not be sufficient for us, provided we know we are actually talking to the person. I suppose some "personal communications" would be troublesome. I can imagine someone lying or giving us false information. Saying editorial discretion would not solve the problem of editors not being able to deal appropriately with such communications. Academics are somewhat more able. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] even if I don't like her
And very effectively too. May you spend years at the coalface... If you are not familiar with the "coalface" that is being involved in solving and discussing problems in a practical and effective way, improving the project. Fred > There is no reason you need to like me. I was trying to make a few points > about the process. > --Kathleen > > She's definitely adding to the dialogue, even if I don't like her line of > thought. > > Fred > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > >> > On 8 September 2012 14:21, Kathleen McCook >> wrote: >> > >> >> When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for >> >> moderation; >> >> then this gets posted. >> >> Is there something one does to be unmoderated? >> > >> > >> > Everyone starts moderated. I clear the mod queue each morning and >> > unmoderate the non-spammers. You're unmoderated now :-) >> > >> > >> > - d. >> >> She's definitely adding to the dialogue, even if I don't like her line >> of >> thought. >> >> Fred >> >> >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] women as an example- elderly man googling
> The point is that the number of women editors is far smaller than men. > Is this not true, based on the statistics? > I am giving some reasons why many capable new contributors may withdraw > due to the response they receive from some editors. > Every woman is not Molly Ivins and when women leave as contributors > process > it is because they do not want to suffer the experience a second time > once > they are made to feel inadequate or not credible or whatever harsh > language > has been used when their work has been rejected. The community loses many > good contributors due to the meanness of the process. I am speaking from > the experience of some women students who were not comfortable with the > taunting, aggressive response they received if one of their contributions > was deleted. > > There is no reason for anyone to feel intellectually abused. It is > perfectly possible to reject, undo or request changes in a manner that is > civil and does not make the contributor feel diminished. True, but simply making rules and trying to enforce them strictly does not solve the problem. What is required is development of a community culture of civility, patience, and kindness. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] attitude- elderly man googling
Everybody here who contributes runs into a brick wall from time to time and has to give up regarding some matter. The factual basis of the theory about gender you're advancing is not established; as everyone experiences the same frustrations. I've tried to edit certain articles controlled by point of view editors, doggedly advancing good sources while they relied on biased sources and been completely defeated. All it takes is two or three independent and determined point of view pushers and you're done. It does make you want to give up, fork the project, and rant and rave. Molly Ivins would be a good model for women editors. She didn't give up; she raised hell, and made everyone laugh doing it. Fred > The Wikipedia community fosters a young male zeitgeist.This IS an > attitude > problem that causes women to drop out. I have been a long time low level > contributor and thus have had a variety of response to efforts I have > made. > Persistence has shown me that what one editor sees as "not credible" may > be > that particular editor's world view and a contributor--CANNOT, EVER- > change > the mind of most editors. So one needs to give up on that point, even if > you have gone to primary sources and have them on your table in front of > you. You have to move on. However, this resigned way of working w/in > Wikipedia is not going to be the way that many people approach it. > Rebuffed > or being called "not credible" will mean we lose many contributors. It > should not be on the contributor to understand the editor. Contributors > come from all ages and societies. There are far fewer women contributing > than men. Why? Women take the harsh rebukes with more hurt. Really. > > I am a teacher and suggest that students write for Wikipedia. Invariably > the female students have been made to feel stupid by editors and won't > go > back. The male students are more likely to keep at it. This is the > culture > that Wikipedia fosters. There are many exceptions .but generally, the > tone > could be less harsh in dealing with contributors. > > == > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:35 AM, David Gerard wrote: > >> On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton >> wrote: >> >> > I haven't had chance to look into this; >> >> >> That statement invalidates this statement: >> >> >> > Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an >> > attitude problem HERE. >> >> >> -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] insanely stupid thing to post
> On 8 September 2012 14:21, Kathleen McCook wrote: > >> When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for >> moderation; >> then this gets posted. >> Is there something one does to be unmoderated? > > > Everyone starts moderated. I clear the mod queue each morning and > unmoderate the non-spammers. You're unmoderated now :-) > > > - d. She's definitely adding to the dialogue, even if I don't like her line of thought. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
> So you're suggesting he is lying about that? > > The words he quotes seem genuine. But I can't identify where they came > from; not OTRS?? > > Tom Sounds like OTRS, perhaps the ticket is in his spokesman's name. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] trying to bully us?
> I am baffled by this conversation. Roth is not trying to "bully" anyone; > he > is trying to clarify a very bad situation. There is no reason he should > give over his creative spirit to Wikipedia. He is fighting for his > artistic > life. And many many people al over the literary landscape are taking > note. > > I have sent other messages that have not appeared so I will just say > again, > that tone of editors needs to be more self-aware. > BTW, the "Roth vs. Wikipedia " issue is being discussed on many many > lists > by librarians, literary scholars, and students. > It is important. It is a time to learn. It time for everyone to learn. I live in a resort area and have met celebrities; most are courteous and reasonable people; a few are not. They demand, and if their demands are not met, they bully. They don't discuss; they don't negotiate. They use their ready access to the media as one club and their fan base as another. How is he fighting for his life? If he gave a few interviews this stuff would not be any big mystery. Rather reminds me of the author of The Catcher in the Rye, J. D. Salinger. Wouldn't interact with anyone and always complaining that no one else was any good. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
This is the comment I made to The New Yorker article: If you, or anyone else, has a similar problem please contact the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team Directions are on that page in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team We are sorry this matter was not handled better. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html#ixzz25taiCMHm Now, a factual inquiry, if he had done that would this problem have been solved? Or would he still ended up trying to bully us? Fred > It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they > are the authority on their own opinions. > > We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work. > Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze > over the most important bit. > > I DO see these sorts of issues all the time. When I log into OTRS > there is sure to be at least one. > > I've taken to explaining that Wikipedia only summarises other sources. > So inaccuracy needs to be addressed either with a retraction from the > source, or another source appearing to rebut it. > > This is much more palatable than "your word isn't a reliable source". > > If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning > the reliability of him/her as a person. > > Tom Morton > > On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews > wrote: > >> On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton >> wrote: >> >>> No it doesn't. >>> >>> I'll give you good odds on me being right. >>> >>> Because I see the same thing week after week. >>> >>> >> You mean leading author almost synonymous with "rare interview" assumes >> his >> word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about >> your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has >> a >> percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago. >> Really, nothing on the record? >> >> (I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of >> situation >> do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it, >> even if >> dealing with someone famous.) >> >> Charles >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
We've had a problem with courtesy for a long time; the entire internet has. We're one of the few organizations that has made a concerted and determined effort to address it, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29cohen.html Fred > No it doesn't. > > I'll give you good odds on me being right. > > Because I see the same thing week after week. > > Tom Morton > > On 8 Sep 2012, at 16:35, David Gerard wrote: > >> On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton >> wrote: >> >>> I haven't had chance to look into this; >> >> >> That statement invalidates this statement: >> >> >>> Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an >>> attitude problem HERE. >> >> >> -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 > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC article on Roth novel and Wikipedia article
We need to treat all subjects and potential subjects of articles with respect and take their complaints seriously. An OTRS referral might have helped. The material is not oversightable, but would fall within reports of article errors. Fred > ...there is the issue of authentication. On the > internet, famously, nobody know you're a dog -- but nobody knows > if you're Phillip Roth, either. Does anyone know if OTRS became > involved, here? If the admin (whoever it was) had referred him > there, instead just accusing him of "not being a credible > source", this might have turned out differently. > > ___ > 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] Roth is an elderly man googling
> Fred, you say" Roth is an elderly man googling" and I am wondering if > there > is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list > become unfit to drive? > Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this > moment..to dismiss him as "an elderly man googling" underscores why > there > may be intergenerational unease on this enterprise. Show respect.This > comment that "Roth is an elderly man googling is spiteful and not a valid > point. I'm older than he is. Roth is not the the first celebrity to think he could dictate Wikipedia content. Michael Moore also felt he could throw his weight around. And, no, I don't respect that move. Instead of spending decades on line they wrote books and produced documentaries; they are Noobies here regardless of their accomplishments elsewhere; crying babies squalling and throwing their rattles. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC article on Roth novel and Wikipedia article
> On 8 September 2012 13:22, Carcharoth > wrote: > >> I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption >> that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in >> principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the >> editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia >> publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it >> near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? > > > It's near-impossible. The BBC didn't contact anyone for comment, > either; the article is strictly ex-culo. > > > - d. That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George Washington. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC article on Roth novel and Wikipedia article
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797 > > "Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit" > > "Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia > entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its > end." > > Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists? > > I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption > that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in > principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the > editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia > publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it > near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? > > Carcharoth Roth is an elderly man googling, see http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/09/internet-stain-philip-roth-wikipedia-entry/56646/ Our current content seems appropriate. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] on citing Wikipedia in U.S. court opinions
> In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that "getting a sense of > the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is > precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia. > Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment, > appropriate." > > On this, he is grossly mistaken. A Wikipedia entry may reflect the > common usage. Most of the time, for most entries, it probably does. > On the other hand, it may not. And an appeals court judge shouldn't > be digging through the edit history to figure out which one it is. > This type of analysis should, if at all, be done by an expert witness, > who could be cross examined by the opposing counsel. > > As it stands, all the Wikipedia entry showed was that at one point one > person wrote what happened to appear there at the time when it was > accessed. Sometimes we have some strange name from British English or whatever that someone thinks is the "correct" name, totally divorced from popular usage. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] on citing Wikipedia in U.S. court opinions
>> Making the blog-rounds, there was a Utah court case that includes >> surprisingly lengthy (and generally positive) discussion on whether and >> when to cite Wikipedia in court decisions: >> >> * http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/fire_insurance081612.pdf >> >> See footnote 1 (page 5) in the majority opinion, and a separate >> concurring opinion filed by another judge solely on the >> Wikipedia-citation question (starts on the bottom of page 7). My >> favorite part is where they cite the Wikipedia article "Reliability of >> Wikipedia" as part of the analysis. >> >> Embarrassingly, the article of ours they cite, [[Jet Ski]], is actually >> in a sort of sorry state. But they seem to do so only for the >> relatively >> mundane usage note in the opening paragraph, which explains that "Jet >> Ski" is a trademark, but is often used imprecisely, in colloquial >> usage, >> to refer to other similar devices not manufactured by Kawasaki. I guess >> the OED doesn't have a note on that yet? Or maybe they don't have OED >> subscriptions over at the court? Alternately, maybe they just liked the >> way we worded the explanation and wanted to quote it rather than >> re-explaining the same thing in their own words. >> >> -Mark > > I think this is probably a case of the court being candid about where > they got their information. They can't use their personal knowledge even > for such instances of judicial notice, which is what this is in essence. > > There is a lot of getting information by newspaper reporters, students, > anyone really who needs it which is not cited due to the supposed total > unreliability of Wikipedia regarding even the simplest facts. > > Fred In the court's opinion judicial notice was not taken, but information obtained about common usage of the term, "jet ski," used in the insurance contract. Judicial notice seems to be out of bounds under some reasoning; doubtless I do not fully understand what it means as a legal term. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] on citing Wikipedia in U.S. court opinions
> Making the blog-rounds, there was a Utah court case that includes > surprisingly lengthy (and generally positive) discussion on whether and > when to cite Wikipedia in court decisions: > > * http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/fire_insurance081612.pdf > > See footnote 1 (page 5) in the majority opinion, and a separate > concurring opinion filed by another judge solely on the > Wikipedia-citation question (starts on the bottom of page 7). My > favorite part is where they cite the Wikipedia article "Reliability of > Wikipedia" as part of the analysis. > > Embarrassingly, the article of ours they cite, [[Jet Ski]], is actually > in a sort of sorry state. But they seem to do so only for the relatively > mundane usage note in the opening paragraph, which explains that "Jet > Ski" is a trademark, but is often used imprecisely, in colloquial usage, > to refer to other similar devices not manufactured by Kawasaki. I guess > the OED doesn't have a note on that yet? Or maybe they don't have OED > subscriptions over at the court? Alternately, maybe they just liked the > way we worded the explanation and wanted to quote it rather than > re-explaining the same thing in their own words. > > -Mark I think this is probably a case of the court being candid about where they got their information. They can't use their personal knowledge even for such instances of judicial notice, which is what this is in essence. There is a lot of getting information by newspaper reporters, students, anyone really who needs it which is not cited due to the supposed total unreliability of Wikipedia regarding even the simplest facts. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Central location for article content queries and requests
> >> On 03/07/2012, at 5:01 AM, Andrew Gray >> wrote: >> >> On 3 July 2012 08:08, Carcharoth wrote: >> >> As Kudpung notes, it'd be lovely if we had some kind of issue-tracking >> system, but in practice we probably don't have the number of people >> needed to handle that... > > You mean like an OTRS system or a robot or something? > I suppose there is some obscure section of OTRS that does that already. Not that even someone who has OTRS access could find the stovepipe. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Central location for article content queries and requests
> On 3 July 2012 12:27, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> That would have been Wikipedia:Content noticeboard However, hardly >> anyone >> used it or monitored it, so it was a neglected corner. We need central >> places which are used and monitored even if the stuff on them is not >> finely differentiated. If it is brought back it would need to be more >> effective. > > > This would have been the right place for corporate editors too. Looks > like the bottleneck is people who care enough to watch it. > > > - d. > I think we are experiencing a decrease in volunteer activity; there are ways of measuring that of course, but it is particularly noticeable in editing. Consolidating the areas of focus would probably improve our responsiveness. It is possible the title of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard should include the word content to clarify its purpose. Also, often a content issue is not a dispute, just a request to improve content. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Central location for article content queries and requests
> Does anyone know of a central location for article content queries and > requests? That would have been Wikipedia:Content noticeboard However, hardly anyone used it or monitored it, so it was a neglected corner. We need central places which are used and monitored even if the stuff on them is not finely differentiated. If it is brought back it would need to be more effective. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Looks like this might apply to us as well
> http://rjbs.manxome.org/rubric/entry/1959 All too familiar. A shit that can write a featured article is A-OK. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UK hospital doctors using WIkipedia sensibly
> http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/04/doctors-use-but-dont-rely-totally-on-wikipedia/ > > "According to recent research that has been shared with Wikimedia UK, > use of Wikipedia for medical information is almost universal among a > sample of doctors. Many of them praise its accuracy, but they are > aware of its faults and that it needs to be read critically. > > The investigators conducted an online survey of medical staff at two > large hospital trusts in England. Nearly all the 109 responses > included free-text comments." > > > - d. I think using Wikipedia in that way is an effective learning process as you encounter new information and develop ways of evaluating it. The doctors that edit, perhaps 5%, are the ones who benefit from doing more reading and research. I suspect our medical articles are pretty much written by the medical community. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"
The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous, malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have articles or not, promotional or critical, so it doesn't matter if the subject has the power to delete. I realize that sentence is hard to understand. Basically it means that except for the famous or maligned, it doesn't matter whether there is an article or not or what its content is. Fred > If we let people delete articles on themselves, they will delete > those articles not closely conforming to their own idea of > themselves, and this gives them a veto power over content. No BLP will > then be other than promotional. In my experience the problem with > most little-watched articles, bio or otherwise, is much more likely to > be promotionalism than abuse. > > It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the > subject in consideration about whether we should have an article, > unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedia rules, in > particular, Do No Harm. People have the right to a fair article, but > not to a favorable one. > > I agree that the ratio of editors to articles is much too low. What we > need is not fewer bios, but more editors. Encouraging new people to > work on BLPs is the solution. > > > > On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rande_Gerber&diff=416351133&oldid=393382165 > > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > ___ > 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] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote: >> BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent >> developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into >> barking mad territory. >> >> No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch. > > I would suggest as a modest proposal that we do away with "Wikipedia is > an > encyclopedia". I've already suggested that we do away with the IAR > clause "to improve the encyclopedia". > > "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" constantly gets misinterpreted to mean "we > may never allow other concerns to take precedence over being > encyclopediac". This is wrong. I would prefer we limit content to encyclopedic content. Obviously aggregating news, especially about individuals, is incompatible with that purpose. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Manual Of Style
> Just a quick straw poll: > > When was the last time you looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style for > use in your own writing? And not to tell someone else they were wrong > about something. > > Me, I can't remember. I think I *have*, but it would have been years ago. > > > - d. I have no need to. The Manual of Style should reflect best practices. I would only consult it if it needed correction. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"
> On 29 March 2012 09:52, David Gerard wrote: >> >> >> I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new >> media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic. >> The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out "if >> you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and >> your client's name are mud." Because in all our experience, even >> sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI, >> but will understand generating *bad* PR. >> > > It would certainly be useful to have an agreed "approach" from our side. > What even might work? Our natural sort of starting point would be > FAQ-like, > but that probably doesn't fit the bill. Neither would a simple "set of > instructions", given that COI speaks to intention first. > > I noticed that in the Bell Pottinger meltdown Lord Bell switched from > saying that the PR operatives had not actually broken the law (i.e. > minimalist on professional ethics), to a line that WP was really just too > complicated and fussy about it all. The latter is only convincing in the > absence of figures on the hourly rate being charged for whitewashing. > Almost by definition, service industries thrive on the principle that > they > can charge for doing a good job: we mostly prefer not to cut our own > hair. > > I would guess that there is scope for presenting case studies, abstracted > from real things that have happened onsite. There must be a whole > spectrum > of situations and outcomes by now. Where the punchline is "and the media > had a field day with the story", I think you're quite correct, it becomes > quite convincing that whatever the client was charged was too much. > > Charles There is an article which started out as Paid editing on Wikipedia and is now Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia It seems to be quite a success judging from the number of links to it. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"
> Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the > Facebook page: > > https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ > > I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising. > > I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new > media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic. > The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out "if > you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and > your client's name are mud." Because in all our experience, even > sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI, > but will understand generating *bad* PR. > > > - d. Yes, good point. Newt's communications director, who edited his and Callista's article did not do much, and did try in good faith to disclose his interest and follow our guidelines once he became aware of them, but by then the damage had been done and he was "exposed". Compared to some of the really nasty PR editing I've seen he did nothing. Big mainstream media plays a major role. If conflict of interest editing becomes a story on the evening news there is nothing we or the PR person can do. They're toast, responsible editing and disclosure or not. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
> n Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote: >> [Some say] "Notability, once attained, does not diminish." > > Unfortunately, WP:N says that too. What you're saying makes sense, but > it is > contradicted by our policies. If someone can meet the requirements for > notability at one moment in time, they are notable according to our > rules. > > Good luck changing the notability rules. What we need is better procedures for changing rules. I've been bogged down anytime I tried lately. One or two folks come along and the situation is little better than one of these discussions. No close. fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > >> Goes too far. A Procrustean Bed. > > Really? > > What about this proposal? > > "In light of such examples, I think its high time to start a > discussion on whether to amend Wikipedias BLP policy as follows: > > *WP contributors will not start biographies on lesser-known living > people without their permission. The project is full of three-sentence > stubs on people of minor notability, more often than not started by > contributors eager to increase their number of articles created. > > *If a lesser-known biographical subject wants their WP biography > deleted, their request will be honored. The biographical information > for this subject will be replaced with a template stating something > along the lines of: "We regret that Ms/Mrs/Mr X decided not to have > his biography featured on WP. For further information, please consult > their website." > > That was from User:DracoEssentialis (12:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)). > > I'm also going to post what I proposed at that AfD, but I'll do that > in another thread. > > Carcharoth A living person should have the right to request and get deletion of a sketchy biography. However, often full biographical details of someone who is clearly notable not only are seldom available, but also not of any particular value to the reader. Attempts to fill them in based on sketchy information do not give happy results. It is what they did that is notable that we have information about. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
> I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I > think more stringent notability requirements are needed for > biographical articles: > > "The right point to assess someone's notability and write a definitive > article about them is at that point (or sometimes when they retire). > Any BLP is only a work in progress until that point is reached. [Some > say] "Notability, once attained, does not diminish." That might seem > true, but what is being assessed is not the subject's true notability, > but a fluctuating 'notability during lifetime' that can wax and wane > over time, with the true level of notability not being established > until someone's career or life is over. Some people gain awards and > recognitions and have long and diverse careers and have glowing > obituaries written about them, and pass into the history of the field > they worked in. Others have more pedestrian careers. > > The point is that it is rarely possible to make an accurate assessment > until the right point is reached. What you end up with if you have low > standards for allowing articles on BLPs is a huge number of borderline > BLPs all across Wikipedia (heavily weighted towards contemporary > coverage [...]), the vast majority of the subjects of which will not > have prominent (or any) obituaries published about them, and in 50 > years time or so the articles will look a bit silly, cobbled together > from various scraps and items published during the subject's lifetime, > but with no proper, independent assessment of their place in history. > > It has been said before, but that is why specialist biographical > dictionaries often have as one of their inclusion criteria that > someone has to be dead before having an article. I'm not saying we > should go that far, but there is a case for many BLPs of saying 'if > there is no current published biography, wait until this career/life > is over and make an assessment at that point', and until then either > delete or have a bland stub." > > The above is why I rarely edit BLPs. It is far easier (and more > satisfying) to edit about a topic once it is reasonably 'complete', > not ongoing. The latter statements applies to more than BLPs > (biographies of living people), for example it applies to any 'news' > topic, but it does apply especially to BLPs as they are a minefield > because they require careful maintenance. > > To give some examples of articles I've edited or created that are BLPs: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Mestel > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Lieberman > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_W._Moore > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._M._Hedges > > Those aren't very good examples. What I'm really looking for is a way > to illustrate how some people become notable, and then fade into > obscurity, while others maintain notability and accumulate coverage in > reliable sources throughout their lives, rather than only briefly. The > latter are good topics for encyclopedia articles, but the latter tend > not to be. Is there a way to argue for more stringent notability > requirements that won't get shot down? Essentially, what I'm saying > Wikipedia needs to avoid is bequeathing a lot of stubby articles to > future generations of editors who will get stuck trying to find out > anything more about people who have faded back into obscurity and for > whom it is often difficult to ascertain if they are still living. > > Carcharoth We can delete articles whose subject had only ephemeral notability. In such cases nearly the only notable event, viewed in perspective, is that they once had a Wikipedia article. That is no reason to not have an article while there is public interest in them. We determine notability by information published in generally reliable sources which is not that difficult to ascertain. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Morris wrote: > >> As an admin who closes a fair few AfDs, and as a human being who isn't >> a big fan of loudmouthed ideological posturing, I have to say that I >> rather like such topic areas. > > Well, there is currently an AfD in progress that is looking a bit like > a train wreck, so some do still split the community. Though the issue > is more BLP than notability (though notability is borderline). I'm > tempted to actually formalise the proposal I've had floating around > for a while (in my head) to say that BLPs and (biographical articles > in general) should require published biographies during the person's > lifetime and/or obituaries after death. Would anyone on this mailing > list be willing to bounce ideas around about that? The sticking point > is what constitutes a 'published biography'? > > Carcharoth Goes too far. A Procrustean Bed. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists
> Does anyone agree with me that the inclusionists are more numerous than > the deletionists around the deletion discussions? > > > A Sure, there can only be one Crinch. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Digital inclusion
> I suppose we're in favour of it. I note that [[digital inclusion]] is a > redlink, for the reason that it was a redirect to [[e-inclusion]]; which > went down under a PROD in October of last year, as "[[WP:OR|Original > research]] about a [[WP:NEO|non-notable neologism]]". Something of a > disaster, given that "digital inclusion" is a notable neologism. > > Anyone prepared to revive? A good cause. > > Charles I think we probably have a substantial article on digital divide. Perhaps both of these could redirect to a section there. Perhaps Digital_divide#Overcoming_the_digital_divide That could be further developed including both those terms, if they are in use. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Undue weight
> http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ > Subject of a thread on foundation-l http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-February/subject.html Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
> http://savageminds.org/2012/01/19/wikipedia-encyclopedias/ > > > - d. Note that citing references is forbidden; proof Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Guidelines on how much we take from a source?
> I decided I hadn't reviewed a featured article candidate for a while > and Russell T Davies (writer of the Doctor Who reboot) was there. > Figured I'd give it a go. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_T_Davies > > I invite you to look, with reasonable care, at references 1 to 97. > > Now, not only are they from the same source but it would appear the > page numbers are almost all accounted for (although I don't know how > long the book is, but I'm willing to guess it's c.219 pages long). And > the pages are ref'd in pretty much book order. > > In short, were I Aldridge & Murray I think I would be feeling pretty > hard done by at this point. > > I should say, I don't have the book and that would be key before > making a point too vehemently. Nevertheless, I wonder if we have a > policy/guideline on appropriate levels of source mining? > > I have another interest in this. I recently purchased a book on WWI. > The centenary is coming up in 2014 and there is a desire to get our > WWI articles in good shape before then. I intend to use the book > extensively but I am anxious about what is acceptable. > > Bodnotbod Provided only facts from the book are used there is no basis for a complaint unless text is copied, copyright violation, or the source is not credited, plagiarism. Such use of a source, however, is poor for encyclopedic purposes because it incorporates into our article the point of view, and possibly other problems that the source has. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lobbyists and Wikipedia (again)
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Sam Blacketer > wrote: >> There might be some editors who want to start an immediate >> investigation to >> search for the members of this 'team' but I think that would probably >> be a >> waste of time which would put suspicion on a large number of innocent >> editors. It's always possible Bell Pottinger were boasting. > > I think its pretty obvious in this case. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zahra_Ahmed Does that relate to a known employee or client? Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name
> Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview with Demi > Moore. Heh, fact washed primary source. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, The Cunctator > wrote: >> Also, you can't FOIA birth certificates. >> > > That's not true as a blanket statement. Conventionally FOIA refers to > the federal open records law, but there are others (under many names, > including FOIA) at the state level in most states. Whether birth > records are included or not varies by state. > > Back to People Magazine... First, I did say "no more reliable than > Demi Moore herself." Which isn't contradicted by your assertion that > she was the magazine's source for this bit of information. Second, I'd > take the opposite track on your little decision tree. Which is more > likely? > > A) Demi Moore has consistently and correctly reported her own birth > name. One outlet got it wrong, leading to a cascade of re-reporting > in other outlets also getting it wrong > Or > B) Demi Moore from time to time changes her mind about whether to lie > or tell the truth about her own birth name > > I pick B. C. She tried to register to vote and they demanded a copy of her birth certificate. She had lost her copy, or at least had not looked at it for many years, or she had to order a copy. When she received it she found that her actual birthname was Demi. D. She has never seen her birth certificate, has always used Demi. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name
"...more reliable than Demi Moore herself." Such a conclusion is nonsense. To take a personal example, no amount of examination of my birth certificate, or publication of its contents, is going to result in me changing my name to what it says. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote: >>> Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that >>> her own >>> birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement >>> because >>> the "reliable sources" say otherwise. >> And, per that talk page, they've got some pretty darn good arguments. > > Except for common sense. > > Common sense says that if someone tells you what their birth name is, you > believe them, not something that's probably misinformation but which has > been multiply repeated. > > Someone on BLPN is actually arguing that WP:IAR *doesn't allow you to > ignore > sourcing policy*. Of course it does. I sent a reply to her twitter, telling her about the discussion. I probably should log in an look for a reply, but, yes, common sense, and courtesy, might rule in this matter. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A reader's experience with "The Closed, Unfriendly World Of Wikipedia"
> > I can quite see why people do think Wikipedia "Byzantine", which is the > basic message of what we are talking about. Probably trainee medics curse > the immune system as unreasonably complicated. The metaphor doesn't seem > to > me either too defensive or too stretched. I think we should bear in mind > that more and better written "manual pages" would only work better if > people had the basic humility to read instructions, at least in the > context > of complex systems they don't understand. > > Charles On IRC last night I was trying to explain to someone how to put sources into their own words, quite impossible; we do things that are hard and that cannot be expressed in simple understandable rules. Tying to determine notability is one of those things. In this particular case the person is notable within a small but highly significant community which makes determination difficult. The complaint that Wikipedia is "closed and unfriendly" is false. Many people responded to the blog posting and we do have procedures to deal with the questions raised. Not that the blogger will get their way; nobody gets that consistently. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
